Staggering. That there are judges out there who would even briefly flirt with the idea that they should hold their opinions – formed by their perceptions of a “world view” – as superior to the Constitution when passing judgement is merely proof that activist judges are a serious threat to American freedoms.
Update: The Washington Post has a more in-depth story on the Scalia-Breyer debate. I took particular note of this series of comments:
|::::::::|| “These are human beings called judges who have problems that are similar to our own,” he remarked. “Why don’t I read what he says if it is similar enough?”
“What does the opinion of a wise Zimbabwean judge . . . have to do with what Americans believe,” Scalia asked Breyer, “unless you think it has been given to the courts” to make moral judgments that properly should be left to elected representatives. “Well, it’s relevant in this way,” Breyer replied. “They are human beings there, just as they are here. You’re trying to get a picture of how other people have dealt with it.”
“Indulge your curiosity,” Scalia joked, “just don’t put it in your opinions.”
Indeed. Breyer simply highlights the problem many of us have with the judiciary. The job of the judicial branch of our government is to make decisions about 1) whether an action has violated a law or 2) which of two parties has the greater weight of law behind them. The “law”, in these statements, refers to that body of law passed by our legislative branches, be that federal or state. Key word: “our”. That Breyer thinks he should be consulting the rulings of foreign judges in a matter before his court while “trying to get a picture of how other people have dealt with it” simply shows he thinks the opinions of judges in other countries should be held in higher regard than the written law here in the US. This goes against everything I’ve ever known about America’s system of government. That such an view is openly held by a member of our highest court should be of huge concern to any American.
Welcome, readers from Of The Mind!
I was getting an update today on the situation in Washington State on the gubernatorial election. A quick read over at Power Line and then a jump over to Sound Politics suddenly had me thinking about what’s going on in a different light. The big news today is that, in spite of overwhelming evidence of voter fraud and a filed civil complaint that the recount process that led to Christine Gregoire’s “victory” was irreparably flawed, the “Governor-elect” was inaugurated yesterday at noon. End of story? No, it’s not. Seems that the successful prosecution of the civil complaint could still force a revote and, if Republican Dino Rossi were to win, Gregoire would be out. It’s actually happened before, just not in Washington State. (Still looking for that link – I thought it was in Minnesota, but I’m still looking.)
Now, I might just be paranoid here, but what if the point of allowing this inauguration to proceed was to put a fresh precedent in the minds of the public about an elected official being yanked from office even after an inauguration? Anybody care to bet on how many civil complaints we’ll see suddenly filed to have a national revote should the Washington State vote be ruled invalid?
With a headline like this one, I’m sure people would expect to see that I’m writing about the Secret Service smacking down a muslim or pagan. Not this time. This time, the Secret Service has written into their Inauguration Day protocols a specific ban on the display of the Cross. As you might imagine, Christian groups aren’t pleased, nor should they be. The Secret Service says they don’t mean to be repressive:
|::::::::||The Secret Service was working on a clarification Monday to resolve the flap. Spokesman Tom Mazur said the ban on crosses “is strictly in regards to structures — certainly not the symbol.”
“There is no prohibition on crosses, symbols or messages based on content — only structures made of materials or of a size that could be used in a potentially threatening or harmful manner,” Mazur said.
Good try, Tom, but why does the ban then not say that it’s restricting “structures made of materials or of a size that could be used in a potentially threatening or harmful manner”? It says it’s banning Crosses. Does that mean all religious symbols are banned? Nope. The ban is on items “such as puppets, papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues.” Note that:
|::::::::||“The way it’s written, it’s an unequivocal ban on crosses,” said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. The group is seeking to have the prohibition overturned in federal court if the Secret Service fails to retract it.
“They are not banning large displays of the Star of David or Islamic symbols,” Mahoney said. “The only resolution is that they would have to pull ‘crosses’ out. And they could easily protect religious freedom by saying, ‘We ban all structures made of wood.”‘
(Of course, such a ban would no doubt give rise to the theory that the Bush Administration is comprised of vampires, but that might be redundant.) The ban clearly singles out 1 religion’s symbol, not all. Had that symbol been a cresent, the ACLU would have been all over it. Their action regarding this ban? Yawn. No action of any kind. Puts their actions of late against Christian symbols quite into perspective and indicates their stance quite well.
This ban is poorly worded and should have been fixed within seconds of the issue being raised. That it’s not is an injustice and that needs correcting. The Secret Service should make the change immediately.
The Iraq Survey Group, tasked with searching for WMD in Iraq, is being closed down having failed to find large stockpiles of such weapons since the invasion of Iraq. Personally, I’m surprised this wasn’t already closed down. I thought I had read months ago that the head of the ISG was stepping down and they had all but concluded they weren’t going to find any.
I’m sure the news has brought smiles to many on the Left, however, who are going to fire up the “Bush Lied!” commentary again. They’ll casually step around the 9/11 Commission Report that showed no such lies were present and that, with the information available, the conclusion that Iraq did have WMD was reasonable. They’ll skip lightly over the Duelfer Report that shows Saddam did, in fact, have programs in stasis, ready to be spooled up within months of the lifting of the UN Sanctions. They’ll ignore the solid proof of Saddam’s financial support of terroist organizations in the form of funds paid directly to the families of suicide bombers. That a man can look at all this information that they’ll pretend doesn’t exist and conclude the same things that scores of other intelligence services did will mean nothing. All that will matter is the fact that we didn’t find bunkers filled with nukes, VX shells, and gallons of Anthrax with big pretty labels on them. That a man can conclude something from evidence he was told was solid and be wrong isn’t something they appear able to conceive or admit. Such a man can only be a liar, nothing else. Not just a liar, but a greedy, murderous, tryannical liar; so clearly the worst such that humanity has ever seen.
The fact that WMD was never the sole reason for invading Iraq will be likewise completely forgotten and any suggestion to the contrary either hushed quickly or loudly condemned. Or, at least, that’s what my intel says.