What's with the asterisks in "puppycock"?

I maintain that the following commentary merits being made the subject of its own blog post.

The conservative judicial preference is "strict constructionism" and that preference for good-faith interpretation of the laws is partly the result of the view that anything other than such interpretation is merely oligarchy. The constructionist preference amounts to a preference for "democracy" in a republican mold, and most especially for a republic capable of enduring. For the Founders had little confidence in the ability of just any republic to endure. They thought that powers must be carefully balanced against powers or a republican regime will sooner or later turn into something else, and probably sooner rather than later.

Judges are not to be exempted from the accusation of oligarchy merely because their loose decisions are intended to favor "the people," "the poor," "the little guy," or what-have-you. For one of the most-used and best-known ways of seizing power as monarch or oligarch is to pretend to be "a man of the people" and to have "the people's" interests at heart.

I want to advance here, for the first time, a notion that I think most readers will consider very strange: It should be the foreign policy of every nation to maintain the U.S. judiciary as "conservative" or "strict constructionist." Such moderacy as the United States has is grounded largely in the fact that its internal forces are balanced against each other in such a way as to lead to generally moderate political decisions and to make it difficult for one or a few people, with purposes of their own, to seize control of the U.S. and use its power for those purposes. The United States has become too powerful for any nation with prudent rulers to be willing that the U.S. be anything other than a carefully constituted republic. Yet every time judges subvert the Constitution through loose interpretation, they subvert the balance of powers that maintains the U.S.'s regime in its current form. However much other nations' rulers may envy or hate the U.S., they will like it even less when it is no longer a federal republic. It would be so dangerous for the amazing power of the United States to fall into the hands of a dictator or a "junta" or "central committee," that I am entirely serious when I say that everyone on Earth has an interest in maintaining the U.S. as a federal republic. It is a matter of national security and personal security. Activist judges in the U.S. deserve the special attention of prudent rulers and their intelligence agencies everywhere, because the alternative to a well-ordered, republican U.S. has become unthinkable.

"Activist judges in the U.S. deserve the special attention of prudent rulers and their intelligence agencies everywhere, because the alternative to a well-ordered, republican U.S. has become unthinkable."----TKH.

Are you suggesting that as a matter of policy foreign nations should use their intelligence agencies to compromise/target for assassination/remove from power by hook or crook judges they deem activist?

I don't much like activist judges either. But I damn sure don't want some assclown country like France/Iran/China/North Korea/Syria/etc. deciding what constitutes "activism" against "their best interests".

Ace wants to ban the Air Force, since the Constitution doesn't allow for an Air Force.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

"Ace wants to ban the Air Force, since the Constitution doesn't allow for an Air Force.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."---Downtown Lad

The above quote? That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

"Ace wants to ban the Air Force, since the Constitution doesn't allow for an Air Force. "

It does specifically empower Congress to raise an army, of which the Air Force was originally part. When it was the Army Air Force.

Furthermore, it doesn't say Congress cannot establish an airforce.

You're a right twit, DL. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Congress (and the President, through the veto power) are empowered in the Constitution to create new laws. *Judges are not.*

Do you, like, get that?

If Congress tomorrow wanted to legalize gay marriage, I wouldn't have a problem (well, I might have a problem based on federalist concerns). Congress has a lot of power to change the laws. That's, you know, dummy, their job.

But judges can only overrule a law to the extent it conflicts with the Constitution. And if the Constitution hasn't changed via the process expressly provided in it (the amendment process), how can judges claim that X is now the law whereas 50 years ago the law was not-X?

If they're not basing their judgments on the Constitution, then they're basing it on their own whims and preferences. And no where in the Constitution are they empowered to do so. Congressmen, naturally, have that right; that's what they're supposed to do.

Judges aren't.

Question for DL:

If judges are permitted to claim that gay marriage is mandated by the constitution, despite no mention of such in the document, would he also support conservative/traditionalists judges outlawing gay marriage and civil unions in a state where the legislators approved of such provisions?

I.e., does he only support this bizarre and undemocratic notion of judicial supremacy only when his side wins? Or does he support it in all cases, come what may?

I can answer that question myself, easily: Were a state to enact, through legislation, a gay marriage or civil unions bill, judges could NOT overturn their decision, unless they could find (and they couldn't; I'm saying hypothetically) a clause in the state constitution specifically forbidding such a thing.

So, I'm consistent: Judges may only overturn legislation, whether I'm in favor of it or not, when the state or federal constitution specifically conflicts with that legislation.

I now invite DL to entertain us with his reasons why judges can only do "liberal shit."

There's a name for this dumb idea-- it's called the "one-way ratchet theory of equal protection jurisprudence," and yeah, a lot of lefties and liberals claim that judges can only overturn lawfully-passed legislation when they do so in a liberal direction. Hence, the ratchet goes one way and one way only; to the left.

DL?

****crickets****

DL?

Come and answer Ace's question logically and rationally. Then maybe we'll invite you to the blogger "March Madness" party which will be held in Instapundits 7,500sq. foot Upper West Side Penthouse, equipped with a 90 inch HDTV!!!!!

GROOOAAANNNN

Why, why WHY are you inviting this narcissistic drama queen to start spouting again.

Priming the nonsense-pump.

Starve it. For the Love of Gaia!

Concur with lauraw...stop the madness now!!!

Don't encourage DL - he's a fookin' moron.

Perhaps what we need is a constitutional amendment that will place some limits on judges' (or at least federal judges') ability to invent and rewrite law (eg, no judge shall issue any ruling not based on the actual text of the Constitution), and that will make it possible for a majority or supermajority of both houses of Congress with the approval of the president to overrule federal court rulings.

Ira, the limits the judges are supposed to work under are pretty clearly delineated in the Consititution. What we need a way to get rid of some of these yo-yos short of having to prove treason. Something like term limits or quadranial reviews of judicial actions resulting in either reconformation or ouster without prejudice.

If you want a way to get rid of the yo-yo's, sign the petition at Vote for Judges.

Here's what I have a real issue with: "...Founding Fathers encrypted the constitution with secret rights that weren't necessarily written out in black in white."

I give you Amendment the Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's pretty vague, as is much of the Constitution (elastic clause, anyone?). Deliberately so. The Constitution was never meant to list the rights of the people, and the Bill of Rights served only to guarantee certain fundamental rights. Judicial review is a necessary component to the checks and balances of the US system, it prevents the Congress from establishing tyranny by legislative fiat.

As to why X is unconstitutional now when not-X was constitutional 50 years ago, justices are human and can make mistakes. Maybe they were wrong 50 years ago, maybe they're wrong now. I'm no lawyer, but to say there's no basis for their decision is patently false, even to this layman.

This just in:

The bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie is a killer-SUV bulldozer that is wanted in 20 countries!

30 IDEAS TO CORRECT JUDGES RUN AMUCK IN THE US (A WORKING DRAFT)

PART I

1) Make Judges pay compensation to the victims groups they create due to their negligence, or tax the Judges salaries and have their money redirected toward victims groups of Judges;
2) Arrest Judges for criminal abuse of power/corruption, treason, hate crimes, aiding and abetting the enemy, etc., and send to jail for a day for ever person they’ve directly or indirectly killed or injured.
3) Have the Executive or Legislative branches selectively understand and interpret the Judges opinions, or redefine the meaning of the Judges opinions as they feel.
4) Impose sin taxes on behaviors that society has to directly or indirectly pick up the tab due to Judges opinions (i.e., pornography, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, divorces, dysfunction, uneducated/ignorance, STDs/HIV/AIDs, etc.).
5) Have the Judges pass a certification test on the Constitution to see if they know it (like in a manner that people take drivers license tests); or have the Judges pass competency exams on all subjects, since they pretend like they are experts on all subjects (despite having narrowly focused careers with a narrow understanding of the vast universe).
6) Have the ACLU pay compensation to the victims of 9/11, terrorist activists, and deaths of military personnel killed in action (and their grieving families) due to the ACLUs efforts to weaken and undermine policies/laws directed at protecting this country and its citizens; and have the ACLU pay for hate crimes and discrimination against religious persons and groups who they target with hate, discrimination, and attempt to deny their rights and due processes.
7) Have all the pedophiles and murders released early by Judges provided housing near where the Judges live.
8) Have Schools and Universities pay compensation for censoring free speech (Victims of PC), promoting hate against various religious groups (Catholics/Evangelicals/Jews) or ethnic groups/nationalities (Americans), and discriminating against cultural views not shared by liberals (Normal Heterosexuals who support the Natural Family).
9) Place the Judges in jail cells with sex starved prisoners since they believe that sodomy is so harmless and should be promoted in society;
10) Have the police, firemen, and doctors in the nearby communities of Judges go on strike when Judges violates their rights.

PART II

11) Let the people vote for the Judges every four years and make the Judges run on a political platform (i.e., they can run on the Elite Party, the Know-it-all Party, the Idiot Party, etc.) like in a true Democracy.
12) Bring sexual harassment lawsuits against those groups trying to impose their perverse and sick behaviors onto others and force them to participate, support, or subsidize such unwanted practices and advances.
13) Have Judges extradited to local communities to serve prison time via community service for violating State and Community’s Constitutional rights of all rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the States and Communities.
14) Have the cost to enact the new legislation created by the Judges legislation come from their salary or their courtrooms budgets.
15) Have Hollywood studios and Broadway face job discrimination lawsuits for being selective and discriminating against fat, ugly, sex-gender, religions, people of color, etc.
16) Have the Judges faces placed on coins with a caption for the victims of the Judges on the reverse side (license plates, too).
17) Have the children of Judges be forced to live with homosexuals or be sent to gay-only schools where homosexuals constitute 30% of all sexual abuse cases despite being only 2% of the population;
18) Make the Judges put down on paper their opinions in a draft Constitution, and have them submit their opinions/ideas to the 50 states for ratification and approval by the people to which they exist to serve (and since they are so smart and in touch with the people it should pass with no objections).
19) Demand refund of tax money so that people can send their children to the school of their choice and association, rather than a state run hate/propaganda machine of the political left.

PART III

20) Protest in front of the Judges houses so that they know that there is a public that is impacted negatively by their opinionated rulings.
21) Allow the citizens to pick and discriminate against which judges will hear what cases, instead of judges picking and discriminating against which jurists can be selected.
22) Force the Judges to car-pool with disabled American drivers, or be force bused to work everyday in courtrooms located in ghettos.
23) Make the Judges go live permanently in the countries that they admire so much and want to incorporate into their opinions, or make them invent a more accurate national polling device where people can let the Judges know what the latest poll results are so the Judges can stay hip/in fashion in terms of public fickleness on executions/abortion/homosexual special rights/terrorism/etc...
24) Have the Judges take mandatory sensitivity training on Constitutional issues they ignore such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech for all, and freedom of association (from liberal tyranny).
25) Have Judges participate in job rotations with other branches that enrich themselves with diversity (i.e., dig graves at funerals of the victims, be a prison guards for the criminals they help create, walk the beat as a cop and get shot at by criminals they put on the street, fill out/drown in the paper work created by bureaucracies and regulations, etc.).
26) In the name of EQUALITY, make homosexual activists reimburse the non-homosexual tax payers for their fair and equal share of 60% of all HIV/AIDs injuries and deaths that homosexuals are responsible for in the US (250,000 dead male homosexuals out of 450,000 total deaths, not to mention the 180,000 reported living with HIV/AIDS…despite being only 2% of the general population (See US Centers for Disease and Prevention figures).
27) Have Judges do situational-empathy exercises to understand better what the US would be like with conservative activist judges (instead of the currently dominated field of liberal activist judges).
28) Have the Executive and Legislative branches just ignore the judge’s rulings and just not fund them (which is in their right since the judges have no power to fund or execute).
29) Have the original Constitution thrown out completely, since it no longer represents in any way shape or form the original will and intent of the people that ratified and created a binding contract between the people and they government which they chose to create through democracy (i.e., no longer a binding contract since the Judges broke the agreement with the people through abuse and corruption).
30) Defy the Judges rulings based that are based on personal feelings and give them the middle finger through principled stands against tyranny (make them arrest people for celebrating Santa Claus and Christmas, St. Patrick’s Day, saying Prayer in Public, arresting little old ladies for not participating the perversions of others, saying the Pledge of Allegiance out loud, etc.). The more defiant, the more silly they will look.

What law schools (or high schools that taught no US history) did all the "judiciary has no authority" types graduate from? This has no basis in our history or our law. See a quite healthy English tradition, even when parliament ignored it, and then see the Founding Fathers and specifically Marbury v Madison. The Constitution provides for the Supreme Court and its authority to interpret. This authority, so despised by strict constructionists, would be quite cheerfully used by strict constructionists to cheerfully knock down anything they disagreed with under the "strict constructionist" facade. Grow up, folks.