- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Voters awake from their quadrennial slumber about this time every fourth year to prepare themselves for the business of electing a president. We cast all our cares and concerns on a man or woman we think can save us from our excesses, our personal responsibilities, our enemies here and abroad.
By the time the election rolls around, most know very little about the man or woman who gets their vote. We simply don’t care enough to reach beyond the rhetoric. We pick the one who looks, sounds or acts more like the Superman (or Superwoman) we would like him to become.
Is it any wonder our country is in such a mess?
Frankly, this year, I would rather cast a vote for NOTA (none of the above). However, the consequences of doing that are much too grave.
The truth is, the most important job of a head of state is his or her judicial selections, who will be at their posts serving justice or wrecking havoc long after the next president leaves office.
Our Founding Fathers wisely created three coequal branches of government, each with important checks against the other two. This little wrinkle in our experiment with democracy is the primary reason our Constitution has stood the test of time.
What would happen, if two of those branches become one and the same? It would be the death knell of the United States of America.
Our Constitution guarantees that everyone receives “equal protection” under the law, whether he or she is poor or (horrors) rich, minority or (horrors) just an average white male.
Barack Obama and liberals – like the Clintons – want to change that. In their view, the Constitution is like Play-Doh (they refer to it as a “living instrument”) that can be shaped and pounded into any form to serve the idea du jour of social justice.
Truth is most of the problems in our country can be directly traced to activists judges who effectively made laws that never could have been approved by a Congress directly responsible to the people.
While I disagree with John McCain on many issues, he puts his judicial philosophy on his website: In appointing judges, McCain would not only insist on “persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity.”
Barack Obama is not that forthcoming. There is no mention on his website of the important role of the judiciary or how he would go about filling vacancies on the bench. However, he issued this statement through spokesman Tommy Vietor: “Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Did you get that?
Judges are to mete out “social and economic justice.” In this economy, it’s not who is right or wrong. A jurist should consider a person’s bank balance, race or gender, or perhaps the size of a person’s house, then rule in favor of the little guy or a member of a minority group.
When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tried to pin Obama down on his “vision” for the Supreme Court, Obama admitted that, in cases where the law is not crystal clear, he would apply the Play-Doh principle. “(T)he judge has to, then, bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.”
Obama has given us a clue as to the type of justices he would appoint. He admires Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter – three of the biggest activists on the high court. On Monday, the latter two were the only dissenters in U.S. v. Williams, a case that upheld a law that punishes people who promote child pornography on the Internet.
Yes, liberals are fond of saying they do it all “for the children,” but when it comes to protecting them from pedophiles, their activist judges are always willing to throw the kids under the train in the name of “free speech.”
All of us have issues we consider important, but justice is not about picking jurists we think will rule in our favor on those issues. It is about upholding the Constitution! When there is a doubt about whether some law passes constitutional muster, strict constructionists attempt to abide by the original intent of the framers.
Our forefathers made it possible to amend the Constitution, but it was never meant to be easy. When activist judges apply the Play-Doh principle, the end result is more like Silly Putty.
Related special offers: