Thursday, February 23, 2006

Payback's a Bitch When the Chickens Come Home to Roost and the Worm is Turning on the Other Foot

Perhaps now liberals may pull back on their notion that judges "make" law based on interpreting a living, breathing, self-aware (and sometimes peckish) Constitution. In fact, I'll bet they're shitting in their pants over this - a brazen attempt to put the validity of Roe v. Wade back before the court.

This is madness.

But it's what you get when you insist on imputing more power to the judial branch that it legitimately possesses.

There's a way to stop the abortion "debate" insanity. I'm not the first to point this out. But the South Dakota legislature from the right, and the my-Roe-pic (def. - holding the belief that the single most important and overarching human rights issue in the universe is the preservation of a "right" discovered in some constitutional "penumbra" and declared in a howlingly tortured Supreme Court opinion) spittlefleckers from the left have brought it to this.

You want to end all the wasted time and energy and emotion that one stupid little Supreme Court desision has wrought over the past 30-odd years? It's easy. It's right there in front of all of us. And it sure as hell ain't rocket surgery. But more on that in a minute.

But we have conditioned ourselves into believing that 9 justices and 2 lawyers arguing for an hour and a half can somehow grant new insight into a 250 year old document; a document that was purposefully drafted broadly so as to allow the democratic and deliberative processes to fill in the gaps as new issues and fresh problems presented themselves, rather than trying to preemptively anticipate and solve all of them. The liberal view of the role of the courts is that those 11 people are sufficient to decide public policy on certain issues for the other 300 million people.

As has been pointed out before, and will not be belabored here, that isn't democracy.

Don't believe me when I say that we (and by "we" I mean "they") have convinced themselves that a justice's public policy positions are more important than their legal chops? Take a look at the most prominent topics of questioning during the Alito confirmation hearings (helpfully compiled by Sisyphus), a man who's job it would be to interpret and apply the Constitution (and other federal laws):

1. Roe

2. Stare decisis (to be read along with #1. Apparently the Senators never heard of Plessy v. Fergussen or Loving v. Virginia. Nor do I recall ever learning anything in law school about "super-duper" precedents.)

3. Sandra Day O'Connor

4. Vanguard (finally something at least tangentially related to Alito's fitness to serve on the bench)

5. Princeton (and remember: when they were talking about Princeton, the weren't talking about his legal education)

(Has anybody noticed anything missing from this list yet?)

6. Chief Justice John Roberts

7. Concerned Alumni of Princeton (see 5)

8. Unitary Executive (I have no idea what this even means)

And finally, all the way down the list at #9...

9. Commerce Clause/Interstate Commerce we get a topic that has anything to do with the organic or Federal law of our country.

We have become fixated on the people inside the robes at the expense of the integrity of our law. No longer are we concered about the faithful application of our laws, but the favorable application of them.

But that's no problem as long as more of OUR guys are in those robes. But then the pendulum shifts back the other way...

And so the cycle of jurisprudential violence continues.

This is a dangerous place where we're headed. One faction gets in and makes their own laws (which bear little resemblance to anything written down in any official document); then, gradually another faction takes control, reverses the decisions of the first group (and maybe writes some "laws" of their own), and meanwhile the populace at large imputes this madness to each other, and the public debate grows shriller and more hopeless. Ad nauseum.

That being said, er, I have a question:

What the hell ever happened to Article 5?

You know - the one about how to amend the Constitution?

If the constitution is silent as to whether or not there's a privacy right, how about engaging everybody - not just 11 people - in the debate?

LEFTY: Ohh. But it's so haaaaaaard to get an amendment ratified!


600,000 people died in order to get the 13th amendment passed. Would it be harder than that?

The U.S. Constitution is a compact among and between her citizens, under which we all agree to be governed. When you have 9 - out 300,000,000 - people rewrite reinterpret the document's latest self-aware convulsions, you create a situation where the social contract element of the law is gone, and is replaced by a dictatorship of fashionable intellectualism.

If you go about it the way in which the document itself commands, you have peace, even if you wind up on the losing side.



No comments: