Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Your 3WN guide to judicial activism
A lot has been, and will be, written about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Here's a handy reference to keep by your bedside to understand the terms of the debate.- The court has a liberal agenda. Although there are 50 state courts, some with elected judges and some with appointed judges, plus a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees, American Courts are a monolithic bloc of egg headed atheists hell bent on destroying America.
- Activists judges are tyrants. Judges who defer to the will of the legislature usurp the democratic process and are tyrants. Judges should not make law, but they should refuse to enforce laws that we don't like.
- Judges are unaccountable. Judges who abuse their lifetime appointments by ruling according to their learned understanding of the law rather than deferring to the popular will of the people abuse their constitutional role. As James Dobson explains, "The people are not given a chance [to make laws] because an un-elected, unaccountable court -- appointed for life -- is making the decisions for them."
My point is just this -- words have lost all meaning in this debate. Dobson wants judges who will abide by the Constitution, but laments the Constitutionally mandated role for judges. The FRC calls a court "activist" for deferring to the California legislature. And, at bottom, the Religiously Correct see themselves as victims despite having firm control over all levers of government. It makes me worry about what would happen if the Religiously Correct understood how firmly in charge they are. What is it that they want that Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George Bush won't put into law?
2 Comments:
What do you think about Roberts doing pro-bono work for a gay case - Romer v Evans?
By 
lloydletta, at
11:11 PM
Romer (1996), which upheld an injunction barring the enforcement of a Colorado constitutional amendment denying homosexuals any protection from discrimination, is an important equal protection case. Roberts apparently contributed his expertise behind the scenes.
I think this is one piece of the Roberts puzzle, but we won't know the whole picture for quite awhile.
