Op-Ed: A Liberal Judge Makes Conservatives’ Case Clear
The evidence before us is incontrovertible. There is no need for the jury to retire. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, has made it so very clear why liberal judges are so troublesome, so outside the intended framework of our system of government.
America was founded in a rather Federalist manner. Limited powers were given to the Federal Government. According to James Madison – the Father of the Constitution – “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
Indeed, it was the Founding Father’s vision that the States would be the crucibles of the varied legislation that would govern the lives of their citizens. It would be the role of Courts, especially Federal Courts, to objectively judge merely whether challenged laws violated the constitution – not to determine whether particular laws were good, effective or right. That latter determination would be made by voters sitting in judgment of the legislators that passed the laws, laws that would be subject to repeal, legislators that would be subject to elections.
Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Jay, Marshall, notwithstanding, that is not how modern day liberals view our system of government.
Simply stated, they believe that judges not only have the power to legislate, but they should also be determine whether laws are good, effective or right.
So says no less than Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court.
In a speech to law students lightly covered by the press, Breyer laid bare the liberals near rejection of our form of government. The relevant AP story reads as follows:
Breyer talked about other differences in how the justices make decisions, saying they can consult six basic criteria in assessing a law: the language of the law, the history of the text, tradition behind the text, precedents, the purpose of the law and the consequences of letting the law stand or striking it down.
“I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences,” said Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by Bill Clinton. “Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition  believing that those help you reach a more objective answer.”
As examples of his own stress on consequences, Breyer pointed to two decisions last year involving the Ten Commandments. He decided a display of the commandments in front of two Kentucky courthouses was unconstitutional because he concluded their display would cause religious conflict. But he found that removing a similar display that had been in front of the Texas State Capital for years would not, so he ruled it constitutional.
There are two very serious consequences to Breyer’s actions.
First, his decisions clearly tend to muddy the legal waters because he subjectively decides cases. This one yes and that one no is not a cognizable legal standard.
Judges who act without clear standards or who refuse to objectively view laws – judges who are, in a highly technical phrase, “wishy- washy,†encourage litigation. They encourage litigation because the litigation business is based in part on uncertainty. Uncertainty gives lawyers something to argue about. That litigation business is also sapping billion and billions of dollars of strength from our economy every day and lowering our standard of living.
Second and perhaps even worse, Breyer’s form of government is simply not what the Founding Fathers intended.
Unelected judges should not attempt to act like legislators. That is undemocratic and, oh by the way - we have enough legislators.
That much is clear.
Case closed and the jury can go home.
I only wish Breyer made his remarks before the Alito hearings so that a real discussion of judicial philosophy could take place not the smear campaign practiced by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Thomas G. Del Beccaro is the publisher of Political Vanguard. In addition, Tom is President of the California Republican Party’s County Chairman’s Association which represents all of the County Republican Parties in California. He is a Member of the Board of Directors of the California Republican Party and the Chairman of the Contra Costa Republican Party.
RELATED:
Breyer’s Big Idea
February 17th, 2006 at 8:46 am
In my fondest dreams decisions made by “living document” judges would come back to bite them personally, instead of biting those who have to abide by them in real life.
For instance, wouldn’t it be nice if Breyer’s city council or county commission decided his property would be better used by some private company as a mall?
Or if Bader Ginzberg had to live by several rapists that roam freely because of some of her decisions?
Or better yet, Bader Ginzberg could not go to an A.C.L.U. meeting because it was determined that it was in fact a religious institution, and all religious institutions had been banned as being “mean-spirited” and against the separation theory of the Constitution because tolerating such infects public discourse?
Those yoyos aren’t on a slppery slope with their decisions, they’re blasting out of a 28ga shotgun full of birdshot, and couldn’t agree with the premises of the Constitution if their lives depended on it.
Unfortunately, it is my children and their children who will pay for their communism.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
It strikes me as odd that conservatives believe in less government intrusion on their lives but are willing to turn over immense power to the executive out of fear, even if it means giving up some of your liberty.
“Those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither” - Benjamin Franklin.
Would you rather have power in the hands of the people you elect, such as Congress, who represent the people - or total power given to the executive branch (the President) without oversight?
All three branches of government are equal. It’s called checks and balances. Things aren’t always going to go your way, no matter what side you’re on. But in the last 200 years I think we’ve done a great job of keeping the balance that is dangerously close to coming to an end.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
O.K., A.J., let’s put it all out on the table: You see the executive as end-running for a power grab. I, on the other hand, see years of liberal pet projects getting absolutely nowhere (even when the donkeys were in control of both the White House and Congress) so they have used a liberal and anti-American judiciary to get through policies and laws that attack the crux of what America is.
If given the choice between a strong executive and a judiciary run amok, I’ll take the executive any time because they can be voted out. Your Breyers and Ginzburgs are there for life, and that scares the crap out of me.