Justice Antonin Scalia died recently. He was an originalist, a judge who thinks courts should use the meaning intended by those who wrote a law or a constitution. Within the legal community, his viewpoint is considered comical, quaint, or impractical. Among the citizens, his viewpoint is considered faithful to the law, which the citizens' representatives enacted on behalf of the citizens. So, to what should a judge aspire - faithful interpretation of the law and the facts or cleverness in finding a way around the original meaning in order to impose your personal opinion upon the law? With very few exceptions, law schools do not teach constitutional law; they teach how to change the U.S. Constitution by ingenious argument. It's the way to obtaining large attorney fees and to a professional reputation that makes you're the toast at cocktail parties.
Thus, with a few conservative exceptions, the citizens are being undermined by the legal community. You know, those professionals with "esquire," a title of nobility, behind their name. The citizens elect people to represent them, then the courts, which are comprised of those from the legal community, "interpret" the "law" to mean something contrary to what the people voted for. The judge's opinion is fed to him or her by the argument of the attorneys who use their ingenuity to create a philosophical lever the judge can use to alter the law. Then the judge changes the law to something completely unintended by the legislators, the executive branch and the voters. This is then called "the rule of law," and you are expected to obey the new "law." These "judges" deceive the people, then say, "You must obey our opinions, or you're violating lawful authority." This is the rule of law in action in today's America. Is this why Americans fought the Revolutionary War - to be liberated from a tyrannical king and parliament, only to be delivered into the hand of lying deceivers?
Justice Antonin Scalia was not right merely because he was a conservative judge. He was right because he was right. And he was honest. He actually cared about being honest when determining the facts and the law in a case. Liberals are not wrong because they have a different political perspective from me or Justice Scalia. They're wrong because they're wrong and completely dishonest. They really don't care about the law and the facts of a case. They want to force us to "progress."
Perhaps you're thinking, "You're just extremely arrogant about your position." But my assertion is not so hard to believe and accept. Think about someone who believes the founding fathers of our country are just "dead, white men," who were bigoted slave owners and some of whom were superstitious because they actually believed the bible is the word of God. In the mind of progressives, the U.S. Constitution, as originally conceived and written, holds the human race back from progress; it's not the premier governing document that helped the human race leap forward in progress.
In other words, from the moment these "liberal" judges swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they have no intention of following, upholding, or obeying the U.S. Constitution. They lie when they swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Why would we expect them to interpret the facts of a case accurately or apply the law honestly? Each case presents a potential opportunity to advance the "progressive" cause, which often involves total distortion of the Constitution.
These "liberal judges" should not be judges; they shouldn't even be legislators, even though that's closer to describing the type of attitude toward law which they hold. Or they should be community organizers. Then they could pass laws or urge the populace to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But then they would have to remain lawyers and not be judges, and it might be difficult to get paid an adequate lawyer salary for such endeavors. They would also have to convince voters to favor abortion, gay rights, and other issues that the voters do not favor. Apparently, that's just too hard and takes too long.
The more cunning and well-educated among "liberal judges" are able to write lengthy, persuasive opinions which pretend to follow the Constitution. The more difficult it is to fit a square, progressive peg into the round, constitutional hole, the more complicated the writing. And the more that judge or justice is lauded as a genius within the legal community. That's why Scalia's writings, which cut through the legerdemain of liberal judges and went to the heart of the issue, were so good. Not only was he correct on the law and the facts, but he couldn't resist scalding the dogs who would complicate and subvert the Constitution with high sounding, but deceptive rhetoric.
Liberals will tell you that liberal judges simply make room to apply reason when applying the law. In other words, conservatives are wooden, inflexible, unable to apply the law to the real world and real people. But this is a straw man argument. Originalism as a system of interpretation has plenty of room for application of the law in the real world and to real people. However, the liberal has again lied when making such an argument. They don't care about flexible yet faithful application of the constitution or a statute; they simply want an excuse to change the law. And they know that once they've set precedent by misinterpreting a law or constitutional provision, conservatives will have to follow. Why? Because they respect precedent. But liberals don't. So, it's like a ratchet, a tool that will twist a screw or bolt only one way. The liberal despises the conservatives judicial philosophy publicly but secretly loves it because they can use it to hold conservatives to their agenda even more effectively and permanently. They tell the conservative judge: "We get to change the law, then you have to adhere to it. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Conservative?"
Then there's the living constitution lie. You've heard it before. The liberals believe in a living constitution; therefore, the conservative must believe in a dead constitution, right? But it's the other way around. The liberals kill the constitution by making it a dead letter. In making the constitution so flexible that they can fit their own personal beliefs into it whenever it's convenient to do so, the liberal kills any meaning a constitution should have. A constitution is like a foundation is to a house; it's supposed to be something solid and unshifting and that will keep the house from falling. By making a constitution flexible, the liberal destroys its very purpose. And by changing a law from what it was intended to be, the liberal removes one of the most important aspects of the law - the foreseeability as to what conduct is forbidden.
What the liberal does with the constitution is kill it. They don't believe in a constitution at all. They believe in being limitless, so they can advance their own personal agenda or their favorite philosophy's agenda. It's the killing of the law for which the liberal is culpable. So who is it that believes in a living constitution - the liberal or the conservative?
Lastly, the liberal is an unbeliever and covenant-breaker. Law and faith are inextricably connected concepts. God is a lawgiver, and his law is effective for all of human history, not just a flexible or temporary guide. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-8.
Unlike the bible, the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what some devotees effusively promote, is merely a man's document. An ingenious document, but in any event, a human creation. The Constitution may contain some timeless truths, but it is nonetheless subject to error. That's one reason the authors placed within it the ability to amend the document. The bible is infallible and inerrant. It cannot be amended -- ever.
So, what does that say about non-Christians who allege the bible is merely a man's document, to which we are not obligated to obey if we choose not to obey it? It means they don't respect the word of the living God, the creator of them and all things. They are rebels to the Creator, the origin of all law. They are traitors to the truth and refuse to submit to God's law. If they do not respect God's law, how much less would they respect a 230-year-old document written by men? If such persons cannot respect God's foundational document for life and governance - the bible, how can we expect them to honestly and truly swear an oath to defend and uphold as judges a document created by men? How foolish can we be?
What is sad is the conservative judge who believes in adhering to law and constitution and precedent. They're a tool of the progressive, who has no problem upending precedent completely to advance their personal agenda, then the liberal hypocritically demands that the conservative adhere to the new precedent. "It's the rule of law now, you know," the liberal says. It's like casting pearls before swine: The liberal simply swallows up your precious judicial principles with the slop without a thought for high jurisprudential principle, then they turn and rend you to pieces if you try to grab up your pearls before they eat them. Thus we see the high-minded liberal judge in action.
These are the so-called "moderates" nominated by liberal presidents. Conservative presidents attempt to nominate Scalia-type judges, but these judges are labeled "extremists" and are borked by the liberals in the Senate. Then the conservative president is forced to nominate a "moderate conservative," who will adhere to liberal precedent. See how it works? Heads they win, tails we lose. Believe me when I say that this process is what liberals call even-handed, non-partisanship. For them, dishonesty is judicial non-partisanship, and faithfulness to the law and constitution is right-wing extremism. There was a time when such betrayal of the people and undermining of the law would have called for impeachment or tar-and-feathering. Now it gets them a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court or a professorship at an Ivy League Law School, where they can teach the next generation of lawyers and justices.
No comments:
Post a Comment