Representative govt. victim of activism
Published 4:28 am Wednesday, July 9, 2003
By By Gary Palmer
If you are among those who think that the present battle over President Bush's nominations to the federal courts is just about partisan politics, then think again.
The recent decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturning all state anti-sodomy laws and upholding the right of states to impose racial preferences are an example of what is at stake in the nomination of federal judges.
More than anything else perhaps, the real consequence of the Supreme Court's latest rulings striking down all anti-sodomy and anti-racial preference laws is that thoughtful people are beginning to realize that the American experiment in self-government may be coming to an end.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in political science to understand that the federal courts have become the vehicle of the left for advancing cultural and political agendas that can not be advanced through the legislative process.
These edicts by the courts that go against the grain of what is politically feasible are possible only because they are imposed by an unelected judiciary that is usurping the powers of our legislative bodies. Moreover, these acts of judicial legislating deprive us of true representative government, giving the appearance of a nation ruled unconstitutionally by a judicial oligarchy. This not only diminishes respect for the courts but for the law as well.
Fortunately, the liberal establishment that controls just about every institution in the country from our public education system to the news and entertainment media has not yet fully succeeded in changing the moral and spiritual values of the entire country.
Liberals are constantly frustrated by the inherent common sense and faith of the average American.
Try as they might to undermine our religious values, the majority of us still believe in God and still hold to fairly conservative moral values. With the majority of voters clinging to these values it makes it nearly impossible to legislate social change that undermines them.
For instance, even in a state as liberal as Hawaii, a gay marriage referendum was defeated by an overwhelming majority.
Consequently, the only way the left can advance their agenda through the law is by having it imposed on us by the courts.
To do that, they must ensure that nominees such as Miguel Estrada, Patricia Owens, Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor or any other nominee that will strictly adhere to the Constitution or that is a committed Christian can never be confirmed.
If such people were to one day sit on the Supreme Court, the liberal establishment fears that the most egregious fabrications of constitutional rights would be reversed.
With its most recent unconstitutional decisions the Supreme Court has laid out the political battleground in next fall's elections over the nomination of judges to the federal courts.
Whether some in the Republican Party like it or not, since gay rights and affirmative action are unpopular with the majority of voters, this theme could very well dominate the next presidential election and the election of United States senators.
Moreover, among otherwise loyal Democratic Catholics, many of whom were part of the Reagan Democrat base, the infringement of the federal courts into areas of morality could be enough to turn them out in support of candidates that run on a pledge to replace activist judges with judges that will adhere to and uphold the Constitution.
The fact that Democrats in the U.S. Senate are engaged in de facto discrimination against judicial nominees who are faithful Catholics may also impact the 2004 elections. But, of course, that will only be the case if voters are able to connect the dots between liberal judges and liberal senators.
Frustration with judicial activism runs deep in this country.
Still, up until now it usually only manifests itself in complaints when federal judges rule against Christmas displays or the Ten Commandments, put the interests of criminals above those of their victims, declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," or seriously undermine the moral fabric of society such as the Supreme Court has done in the Texas sodomy case.
Perhaps the greatest fear of liberals is that grassroots Americans will wake up in the next election and realize that they have been sending traitors against the Constitution to the U.S. Senate.
Those fears could materialize if the voters realize that federal judges are taking us down a long slide into a moral and political abyss.
While citizens cannot vote for federal judges that will uphold the Constitution, they can vote for candidates for the U.S. Senate that will allow such judges to be confirmed. Even though the majority of justices on the Supreme Court have apparently abandoned the moral foundations of our nation we can hold out hope that the majority of Americans have not.
We should find out in the next election.