Posted by
John Caile on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 12:42:28 PM
With a sappy sentimentality more appropriate in a Dr. Phil than in a U.S. President, Mr. Obama listed the "qualifications" he will seek in his first Supreme Court appointment. Not surprisingly, absent from Mr. Obama's description of the ideal Supreme Court Justice were any of the skills and qualities that even liberal judicial experts would agree are vital.
Things like experience in both the criminal and civil legal courts, a sound knowledge of the Constitution, and, most importantly, a clear understanding of the role (and limitation) of the courts in the American legal system. Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia are stellar examples of this sort of judicial restraint.
But instead of seeking judicial excellence, President Obama seems more interested in nominating someone who "comes from outside" the system, someone who "knows what it's like to be a single mom." He would likely appoint someone like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, whose rambling opinions defy logic. She consistently rules based on her own emotional biases, rather than the dictates of the Constitution - her decision in the Heller case makes one wonder if she's ever even read the Constitution.
Now, we shouldn't be surprised. Like most neo-liberals, Obama does not view judges as the unbiased "umpires" they were intended to be - no, he sees them as potential advocates for a political point of view. The problem is that this creates what amounts to a second legislative branch of government, and the result is an over-reaching Judiciary that can override the lawful will of the Legislature.
It is astonishing how many Americans today do not understand the principle of separation of powers, much less the inherent danger when that separation is blurred, or worse, breached. Courts exist to see to it that the process follows the law - not to MAKE the law. Even if they don't personally approve of a particular law, the duty of judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, is to rule solely on the Constitutionality of that law.
Naturally, this means that some rulings might not give you the outcome you want. When this happens, the process is that you go back to your legislative representatives and try to persuade them to adopt the changes you espouse.
And this is where modern liberals and conservatives differ. Conservatives do not merely want "right-wing" judges in the way that liberals want "left-wing" judges. Conservatives, (and classical liberals) want judges to stay out of law-making altogether, even when the courts rule against them. But when today's liberals lose, they want to use the courts to get around the legislative process.
So-called "Gay Marriage" is a good example. Currently, most states define "marriage" with a variety of restrictions (age, sex, relationship limitations, etc.). Want to change that? No problem - just persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to agree with you.
But, other than in a handful of states, the neo-libs have failed to get "gay marriage" initiatives passed in state legislatures - even liberal bastions like California have rejected it. So, they should just role up their sleeves and try, try again, right?
Wrong.
You see, when the modern Left can't get its way in the legislature, they don't simply redouble their efforts - they turn to the courts. Because they have come to see the judiciary as a kind of "alternate legislature" - a way of by-passing the People in order to get their agenda into law. The preferred method of dealing with legislative failure is now to file a lawsuit, usually claiming that some sort of "right" has been violated.
That the "rights" they claim as being infringed are often nowhere to be found in the Constitution means little to them. As long as they can pack the courts with judges who are willing to stretch the Constitution to the breaking point, they can magically "find" the rights they seek (Roe v Wade is a perfect example). Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to pack the court with judges who promised to "rule his way" - that is how he was able to pass a sweeping, and blatantly unconstitutional, spate of left-wing social programs.
Have no doubt that Barak Obama hopes to do the same. But if that happens, we will have what amounts to an Imperial Court, usurping the role of the legislature.
And then, the law of the land will no longer be determined by the People through their elected legislators, but by 9 unelected men and women in black robes.