How is judicial tyranny manifested? When the judge acts as a legislator. The liberals contend this is how judges should act. Truly, they are not wanting judges to act as judges behind the bench; they are advocating for judges who exceed their power and act as legislators. They are advocating lawlessness. The judge who acts as a legislator violates his oath and seeks to wield power over all three branches as a legislator and judge. It is not a legitimate option. There is only one type of legitimate judge in American jurisprudence, one who believes in a conservative judicial philosophy. And the Originalist Judge is the only one whose opinion on the law and Constitution can be an honest attempt to apply that foundational document to our legal controversies in the courts.
It is not overturning the law, when a people or their representatives in a state join in a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution or their own state constitution; it is a lawful method of altering such documents as stated in Article V of the U.S. Constitution and the amendment provisions of most state constitutions. Whereas the action of a judge, who is supposed to review individual cases pursuant to the law and legal rules but who instead alters, re-interprets, and overturns the law, using only the status as a judge instead of the law itself to do so, is a violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
And that is exactly what has happened in the marriage debate in this country, at least in the legal machinations that have occurred thus far. In more than one state, the people or their representatives have spoken by lawful, constitutional means as to the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, or their legislatures have spoken by laws passed in a lawful process. Yet, judges, with no law backing their decisions, have called those laws unconstitutional. Attorney generals, governors, and other chief executives of political jurisdictions, even before such decisions were announced, have refused to execute the laws they are sworn by oath to uphold. These are the ones who act lawlessly and violate their oath.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that that there is "no rational basis" for defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? No rational basis! In fact, there is no lawful basis for the decision in U.S. v. Windsor (the DOMA case), which is one of the most lawless impositions/perversions of the law by five persons' personal opinions in the history of this country.
As long as the liberals' view of judges is perceived as just another political alternative, instead of a travesty of justice and a mangling of the constitution as our foundation, then legislators, disguised as judges in black robes, will continue to wreak havoc upon our body politic.
Most recently on this front, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of several Circuit Courts of Appeal which overturned state's laws on this issue. They didn't need to, for the Appellate Courts followed the cue of the DOMA case from the summer of 2013. They fulfill the prediction of the Anti-Federalist Brutus, who in 1788 stated:
"There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."
Brutus, Anti-Federalist Papers 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at "The Federalist Papers," http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment