Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress
Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today. Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding. To increase the power of those in the majority. So they can run roughshod over those in the minority. Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare. And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice. Turning the Senate over to the Republicans. Hence the need to go nuclear now.
It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench. Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t. Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade. That was a law made not by the law-makers. The legislature. Congress. But by liberal judges on the bench. Who are to interpret law. Not write it. But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings. Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.
America is a center-right country. Which means there are more conservatives than liberals. In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda. How? Liberal judges. The key to changing the country against the will of the people. When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary. Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today. So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges. Before they lose the Senate. So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.
The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority
The filibuster is a stalling tactic. A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them. To protect minority rights. For majority rule can be dangerous. The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority. Don’t like the internal combustion engine? Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax. Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House. But they do have one in the Senate. Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments. So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax. By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation. And having the courts make that regulation law. With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers. And if you don’t like that sue us.
This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals. Who may or may not be actual judges. For they don’t want judges to interpret law. They want them to write law that Congress won’t. If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose. And the unconstitutional regulation will become law. Despite the Republican-controlled House.
The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench. Frustrating the left. Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives. While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate. For if they did they could invoke cloture. End debate. And force a vote. Which they would, of course, win. Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority. For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment. And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.
When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic
Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees. The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option. And the left attacked Republicans. Calling it a power grab. An affront to the Founding Fathers. The worst thing that could happen to our republic. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option. But that was then. This is now. After the rollout of Obamacare. And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014. Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.
Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice. They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda. So they had no choice but to grab power. To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress. So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority. When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic. That it made the republic healthier. Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers. By preventing one-party rule.
But all that changes when they are in the majority. And those in the 21% are fine with it. Those in the mainstream media. Hollywood. Late-night television. Even the audiences of the late-night television shows. Who are all for debate when they are out of power. But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power. Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters. Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The left believes everyone should think like they think. And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act. Even if it requires violating the Constitution. Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic. But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it? Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers. Making any law-violating power grab acceptable. As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing. For the left believe the end justifies the means. Just like the Nazis did. The communists. And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, conservatives, courts, Democrats, filibuster, Founding, Founding Fathers, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, judges, judiciary, legislate from the bench, legislature, Liberal Agenda, liberal judges, liberals, majority, minority, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear, nuclear option, Obamacare, one-party rule, power grab, regulations, Republic, Republicans, Senate, Senate rules
Trusting that only Good People will Serve in Government is Sheer Folly
History has been a struggle for power. Those who wanted it fought those who had it. And those who had it tried to eliminate anyone who didn’t have it but wanted it. So people have killed each other since the dawn of time for power. Making for a rather Hobbesian existence. “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” A quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Where he posits that only an all powerful dictator can provide a just society. Otherwise there would be great unrest and civil wars. Such as was going on in England at the time he wrote Leviathan.
England, though, would choose a non-Hobbesian path. Choosing to restrict the powers of their monarch with a represented body of the people. Parliament. Evolving into what John Adams once called the best system of government. A constitutional monarchy where power was balanced between the few, the many and the one. The few, the rich, paid the taxes that the one, the king, spent. The common people were the many. Who had a say in what the rich and the king could do. So everyone had a say. And no one group, the majority, the minority or the one, could do whatever they wanted. Which is why John Adams once thought it was the best system of government.
John Adams wanted a strong executive in the new United States. Not a hereditary king. But something close to the king of England. Who would advance the new nation to greatness. And with disinterested men of the Enlightenment serving in the new government Adams didn’t worry about any abuses of power. For this wasn’t Great Britain. But not everyone had Adams’ confidence in the nobility of men. Worrying that given the chance they would try to form a new nobility. As James Madison said in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And that was the problem. Men are not angels. And trusting that only good men would serve in government was sheer folly. So we should form governments under the assumption that bad people would reach positions of power. And thus limit the power of government.
Today both Houses of Congress win Elections by Appealing to Populism
So the Americans settled on a similar system. They separated powers between a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. Further, they separated the legislature into two bodies. The House of Representatives. And the Senate. Representation in the House being apportioned by population. The more populous a state the greater that state’s representation. And the greater influence they had in writing law. They chose their representatives by popular vote. Making it truly the house of the people.
The states, though, feared a tyranny of the majority. Where the largest states could have their way. And force the smaller states to accept their rule. For in a true democracy the majority could vote anything into law. Such as the subjugation and oppression of a minority group. Like the Nazi Party passed legislation subjugating and oppressing the Jews. So minorities need protection from majorities. In the United States the Senate provided a check on majority rule. For each state had equal representation. Each state had two senators. And to further protect the interests of the states (and their sovereignty) the states chose their senators. A constitutional amendment changed this later. Which weakened the sovereignty of the states. By making the Senate a true democracy. Where the people could vote for the senators that promised them the most from the treasury.
Today both houses of Congress win elections by appealing to populism. Representatives and Senators are, in general, no longer ‘disinterested men of the Enlightenment’ but pure politicians trying to buy votes. Which is what James Madison worried about. The people in government are not angels. And they’re becoming less like angels as time goes on. Proving the need of a separation of powers. And a bicameral legislature. To keep any one group, or person, from amassing too much power. So there can be no tyranny of the many. No tyranny of the few. And no tyranny of the one.
The Obama Administration can’t use the Military to Kill Suspect Americans on U.S. Soil
Senator Rand Paul just recently completed a 13 hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate. To delay the vote to confirm John Brennan as CIA director. Not because he had a problem with Brennan. But because he had a problem with the Obama administration. Specifically with Attorney General Eric Holder. Senator Paul had asked Holder if the Obama administration could use a drone to kill an American on American soil without due process even if that person posed no imminent threat. The attorney general gave his answer in a letter. In which he didn’t say ‘no’. Which bothered Senator Paul. Because the Obama administration had killed an American or two on foreign soil without due process. Including the son of a guy that posed an imminent threat. While the son did not.
U.S. drone strikes have killed many terrorists overseas. And they’ve killed a lot of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the same vicinity. Such as being in the same coffee shop. Basically a policy of ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’. But you don’t hear a lot about this collateral damage. As the Obama administration simply counts all the dead from a drone strike as being a terrorist that posed an imminent threat to U.S. security. And the innocent son that was killed in a drone strike? Well, he should have chosen a better father. Or so said a member of the Obama administration. Which is what so bothered Senator Paul. For in the War on Terror the battlefield is worldwide. Including the United States. Which means given the right set of circumstances the Attorney General of the United States stated the government had the legal right to use a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil without due process.
In the United States there is a thing called the Constitution. Which guarantees American citizens due process. If you’re an American fighting Americans on foreign soil you have no Constitutional protections. And can be killed by a drone strike without due process. But if you’re on U.S. soil you have Constitutional protections. Which means the government can’t use the military to kill suspect Americans. No. On U.S. soil we have police forces. And courts. Miranda rights. On U.S. soil you have to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant. Then you have to collect evidence to present in a trial. And then you have to convince a jury of a person’s guilt. Then and only then can you take away a person’s freedom. Or life. Thus protecting all Americans from the tyranny of the one. The tyranny of the few. And the tyranny of the many.
Tags: American soil, angels, Constitution, Constitutional protections, democracy, disinterested men, drone, drone strikes, due process, England, Enlightenment, Eric Holder, filibuster, Hobbesian, House, imminent threat, James Madison, legislature, Leviathan, majority, minority, Obama administration, populism, power, Rand Paul, Senate, Senator Paul, separation of powers, terrorist, tyranny, tyranny of the few, tyranny of the many, tyranny of the one
Funny thing about the Americans is that they just didn’t Like Paying Taxes
United we stood. For awhile. Until we defeated the British at Yorktown. And negotiated the Treaty of Paris where Great Britain recognized our independence from the British Crown. But people grew weary of the war. On both sides of the Atlantic. And those in the once united states (small ‘u’ and small ‘s’) were eager to retreat to their states. And forget about the Continental Congress. The Continental Army. And everything to do with the confederation. Threatening to undo everything they fought for. Because of their sectional interests.
Shays Rebellion nearly pushed the country into anarchy. It was the tipping point. They had to do something. Because if they weren’t united they would surely fall. They owed Europe a fortune that they had no hope of repaying. Funny thing about the Americans. They just didn’t like paying taxes. Making it difficult to repay their debts. The Europeans gave them little respect. France tried to sell them out during the peace talks to rebalance the balance of power in their favor. Spain wanted to keep them east of the Mississippi River. And off of the Mississippi. Even refused them passage through the Port of New Orleans. Britain didn’t evacuate their western forts. The Barbary pirates were capturing American shipping in the Mediterranean and selling their crews into slavery. And Catherine the Great of Russia wouldn’t even meet the American ambassador. So the Americans were the Rodney Dangerfield of nations. They got no respect.
In 1787 delegates gathered in Philadelphia. To revise the Articles of Confederation to address these problems. Some enthusiastically. Some begrudgingly. While one state refused to attend. Rhode Island. For they were quite happy with the way things were. As the smallest sate in the union they had the power to kill almost any legislation that didn’t benefit Rhode Island. For some legislation the vote had to be unanimous. And they enjoyed charging other states tariffs for their goods unloaded in Rhode Island ports. Things were so nice in Rhode Island that they didn’t need much taxation. Because they had other states funding their needs. Thanks to those tariffs. Of course, this did little to benefit the union. While imposing taxes on their neighbors in the union. Sort of like taxation without representation. Funny thing about Americans, though. They didn’t like paying taxes.
Montesquieu said a Republican Government must Separate Power into Three Branches
Thomas Jefferson was in Europe in 1787. John Adams, too. But just about every other “demi-god” (as Jefferson called those at that gathering) was in Philadelphia in 1787. America’s patriarch Benjamin Franklin. The indispensable George Washington. The financially savvy Alexander Hamilton. The studious James Madison. The Framers of the Constitution. Highly principled men. Well read men. Prosperous men. Who were familiar with world history. And read the great enlightenment philosophers. Like John Locke. Who especially influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence. With his inalienable rights. Consent of the governed. And property rights.
As they gathered in Philadelphia to revise the Articles it became clear that they needed something more. A new constitution. A stronger federal government. With the power to tax so they could raise money. For without money the union could not solve any of its problems. So they set upon writing a new constitution for a new government. A republican government of republican states. As they began to frame this constitution they drew on the work of a French philosopher. Charles de Montesquieu. Who championed republican government. The ideal government. A government of the people who ruled at the consent of the governed. With built-in safeguards to protect the people’s inalienable rights. The key requirement being the separation of powers.
Montesquieu said a republican government must separate power into three branches. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary. A nation of laws requires a legislature to write the laws. Because the laws must respect the inalienable rights of the people the people must elect the legislature from the general population. So the legislature’s interests are the people’s interest. However, if the legislature was also the executive they could easily write laws that represented their interests instead of the people. Elevating the legislature into a dictatorship. If the legislature was also the judiciary they could interpret law to favor their interests instead of the people. Elevating the legislature into a dictatorship. Likewise if the executive could write and interpret law the executive could elevate into a dictatorship. Ditto for the judiciary if they could write the law they were interpreting. So the separation of powers is the greatest protection the people have against a government’s oppression.
If a Power wasn’t Delegated to the New Federal Government it Remained with the States
During the Constitutional Convention they debated long and they debated hard. The Federalists were in favor of a stronger central government. The anti-Federalists were not. The Federalists included those who served in the Army and the Congress. The anti-Federalists were those who didn’t serve ‘nationally’ and favored states’ rights. In general. So one side wanted to increase the power of the central government while the other side wanted no central government. For their fear was that a new federal government would consolidate power and subordinate the states to its rule. As if the last war never happened. And the states would still bow to a distant central power. Only this time to one on this side of the Atlantic.
So the balance they struck was a two-house (i.e., bicameral) legislature. A House of Representatives. And a Senate. The people in each state elected a number of representatives proportional to their state’s population. So a large state had a large representation in the House. So that house represented the will of the people. To prevent the tyranny of the minority. So a small privileged class couldn’t rule as they pleased. Whereas the Senate prevented the tyranny of the majority. By giving each state two senators. So small states had the same say as big states. Together they represented both the majority and the minority. Further, states’ legislatures chose their senators (changed later by Constitutional amendment). Providing the states a check on federal legislation.
To round things out there was an executive they called the president. And a judiciary. Providing the separation of powers per Montesquieu. They further limited the central government’s powers by enumerating their powers. The new federal government could only do what the Constitution said it could do. Treat with foreign powers. Coin a national currency. Declare war. Etc. If a power wasn’t delegated to the new federal government it remained with the states. To give the new federal government some power. Including the power to tax. While leaving most powers with the states. Striking a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.
Tags: 1787, anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, central government, Charles de Montesquieu, consent of the governed, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, dictatorship, enumerated powers, executive, federal government, Federalists, Framers, House of Representatives, inalienable rights, Jefferson, John Locke, judiciary, legislature, Locke, Montesquieu, Philadelphia, republican government, Rhode Island, rights, Senate, separation of powers, states' rights, tariffs, taxation, taxes
Magna Carta led to Constitutional Monarchy and Representative Government
Medieval kings liked doing as they pleased. From living well. To expanding their kingdoms by force. Or trying to. As kingdoms got larger, though, this was more difficult to do. Because the larger the kingdom got the more food they had to produce. And kings didn’t feed their kingdoms from their castle vegetable gardens. They needed the wealthy and powerful landowners. Who owned the land. Grew the food. And provided the kingdom’s wealth.
These landowners made land valuable. By growing food on it. As famine was no stranger during the Middle Ages there was nothing more important than growing food. Those who did became wealthy. And their estates became mini kingdoms. With lots of peasants working the fields. And lots of soldiers to defend their land. And to fight for their king in times of war. Kings needed to maintain good relationships with these wealthy landowners. To keep them supporting their kingdoms. And to prevent any one of them from rising up and challenging the king for his throne.
King John of England was hurting his relationships with the wealthy landowners. He fought a lot of expensive wars across the English Channel in France. Which required high taxes on the English landowners. The barons. Worse, King John lost a lot of his battles in France. Losing the barons some of their Normandy lands. So the barons were becoming a little disgruntled with their king. And they rebelled. Eventually forcing the king to place his Great Seal on Magna Carta. Limiting his powers. It didn’t change things much at the time. But it would lead to constitutional monarchy. And representative government.
The Patriots of 1776 were none too keen on Creating a New Central Power
Kings don’t like limits on their power. King John would go on to renounce Magna Carta. And got the Pope’s approval to not honor the promises he made with the barons. But these barons sowed the seeds of representative government in England. And the Western World. Greatly influencing the Founding Fathers in America. Whose Constitution placed great limits on the government’s power.
The Americans were having some problems with their Articles of Confederation. The sovereign states were taking care of themselves. Sometimes at the expense of the other states. Or the new nation. And the new nation wasn’t making much progress in the international community. A bit of a laughing stock to other nations. Who were all sure it was only a matter of time before the American colonies would be British again. For once the war was over there was little united about the states anymore. So James Madison urged a meeting of the several states to revise the Articles of Confederation. To help make a more perfect union. And to move the new nation forward. They met in Philadelphia in 1787. And caused a firestorm. For they didn’t revise the Articles. They threw them away. And wrote a brand new Constitution.
This inflamed a lot of the Patriots of 1776. Who had voted to sever the bonds from a distant central power about a decade earlier. And they were none too keen on creating a new central power to replace the one they just banished. It took awhile but with the presence of George Washington and some words from Benjamin Franklin, two of the most trusted and experienced Americans who sacrificed a lot in securing their independence, they completed their task. It wasn’t a perfect document. But it was the best they were ever going to produce considering the sectional differences in the country. And they sent it to the states for ratification. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay helped to secure ratification by writing a series of articles that we know today as the Federalist Papers. Some of the finest Constitutional scholarship ever written.
As Few as Five People in Black Robes can Fundamentally Change the Nation
Key to the Constitution was the separation of powers that restricted the power of the new federal government that no one trusted. There was a legislature to write law. An executive branch to enforce law. And a judicial branch to interpret law. To make sure that the other two branches did not violate the Constitution. Such a system would have really crimped King John’s style. For the law was above all the people. Including the executive. He could only do the things the laws allowed him to do. And the things the laws allowed him to do he could only do if the legislature agreed to pay for them. It was a system of checks and balances that helped the nation to grow while maintaining personal liberty.
King John would have been particularly irked by the legislature. Made up by representatives of the people. Who enacted legislation that was in the best interest of the people. Not him. Fast forward to modern times and you find history littered with people who wanted to expand their power only to have that representative body of the people foil them. Ruling elites. Modern aristocrats. Those who feel an entitlement due to a superior education. A superior bloodline. Or simply like-minded people who would rather have the days of unlimited power like they had in Medieval Europe. Before the barons had to muck up the works with Magna Carta.
Over time they learned how to bring back some of the old ways. The easiest way was just to get people to vote for them. And they did this by giving them a lot of free stuff. But there were some things that they just couldn’t bribe out of the people. So they turned to the courts. And did a little legislating with activist judges. Sometimes bringing a suit all the way to the Supreme Court to create a law where there was no law. Abortion is now legal even though there was never any federal legislation addressing it. While there was plenty of state legislation forbidding it. Until seven men in black robes overruled the will of the people in those states.
The Supreme Court is powerful. For as few as five people in black robes can fundamentally change the nation. Which is why presidential elections are so important. Because presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court. And those on the Left depend on the timely deaths and/or retirements of Supreme Court judges so they can nominate activist judges. To get a majority on the high court to rule in their favor on bad law. Such as Obamacare. An unpopular law. A law the majority of the people want repealed. A law that became law only with subterfuge (the mandate is not a tax). A law that clearly violated the Constitution (forcing people to buy something). Yet five people in black robes just fundamentally changed the nation by voting that Obamacare was Constitutional (the mandate is a tax). Which just goes to show you that where there is a will there is a way. A way to rule like a king. Against the will of the people.
Tags: activist judges, Articles of Confederation, barons, black robes, central power, Constitution, constitutional monarchy, courts, distant central power, England, executive, judges, judicial, King John, kingdoms, kings, landowners, law, legislation, legislature, liberals, Madison, Magna Carta, mandate, medieval kings, Obamacare, Patriots of 1776, representative government, Supreme Court, Supreme Court judges, taxes, wealth, wealthy landowners, will of the people
Week in Review
Representative government transferred the power from the privileged few to the people. And once they did things got better for the people. Because the government started serving the people instead of the people serving the government. And to keep it that way representative governments introduced separations of powers. And checks and balances. They created legislative bodies to write laws. Where legislators represented the people in proportion to the population. So laws represented the will of the people. And not minority interests.
Of course, this made it difficult to pass some laws. Especially those that went against the will of the people. So some found a way to get around the will of the people. By legislating from the bench. Where instead of needing a majority of hundreds of legislators you only needed a majority of a handful of judges. Which has been the legislative tool of choice for liberals to write laws. Using the judiciary to write law that they could not write in the legislature. Violating the separation of powers. And going against the will of the people. Such as making abortion legal in countries where the majority oppose it. Like the United States. And Ireland (see Ireland Takes Up Bill on Abortion Access by DOUGLAS DALBY posted 4/18/2012 on The New York Times).
One of the most deeply divisive issues in Irish society was reignited Wednesday night when the Irish Parliament began debate on a bill that would provide for limited access to abortion.
As in the United States, it was the Supreme Court here that legalized abortion, although in strictly limited circumstances. But in the 20 years since the decision in the “X Case,” successive governments have shied away from enacting the legislation needed to carry out the order…
“We believe that it is only a first step for abortion to be legalized in Ireland in all circumstances. We have waited long enough,” Ms. Daly said. “Over 100,000 Irish abortions have taken place in Britain for many different reasons, none of them easy, all of them valid. The hypocrisy, injustice and expense of having to travel to England for terminations, away from family and friends, is a disgrace.”
But in this conservative and Catholic nation, sentiment against abortion runs strong, and over the past few months anti-abortion groups have been pressuring politicians to oppose the bill, and are confident it will be defeated.
Governments shy away from putting abortion in the hands of the legislature. Especially in countries with large Catholic populations. Which is why there are no abortion laws on the books in the U.S. or Ireland. Just Supreme Court rulings that created an abortion law from the bench. As Supreme Court justices typically serve for life they don’t have to worry about the political fallout of their decisions. Which gives some a green light for judicial activism. Giving them leeway to disagree with laws they don’t like. Or creating laws they like that the people don’t. They can do this. Legislators can’t. Which is why they shy away from abortion law. Because a legislator usually has another election to try to win. And that isn’t easy to do when you go against the will of the people. As many found out in the U.S. after they voted for Obamacare. And lost their jobs in the 2010 midterm elections. Because they not only acted against the will of the people but against their own constituents.
Ireland is a Catholic country. And they take their Catholicism pretty seriously. Which is why so many Irish hate the English. Who are Protestant. If you’re not familiar with this history read up a little on it. Perhaps looking up some names like Elizabeth I, James I or the Earl of Stafford. Then you’ll get a feeling for the love between Irish Catholics and English Protestants. So the Irish are Catholic. And fiercely so. They stay true to their Catholic beliefs. Which includes an absolute opposition to abortion. Which is why there is no abortion law in Ireland. Only a Supreme Court decision. Until now, perhaps. As the Irish legislature is now debating this subject. What will the Irish Catholic do? Whatever they do one thing is for certain. It won’t make the issue any less divisive.
Tags: abortion, abortion law, Catholic, Catholic nation, Catholicism, checks and balances, England, Ireland, Irish, Irish Parliament, judges, judicial activism, legislating from the bench, legislators, legislature, Protestant, representative government, separations of powers, Supreme Court, will of the people, write laws