Saturday, July 4, 2015

Tyranny of the Minority (of One)

America was once a country that admired individualism. We respected guys like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison even if we didn't necessarily like them. We admired what they accomplished and would never begrudge them their just rewards. We were not a collectivist nation.

Now, ironically we are being pushed in the direction of collectivism by one lone individual, Justice Anthony Kennedy. One guy is making law to the supposed benefit of a tiny minority that overturns thousands of years of tradition, statutory law and common law against the wishes of the majority which has spoken on this issue in plebiscites over thirty times. His decision ignores the separation of powers, ignores the Constitution, ignores the will of the majority and goes against everything American republican government stands for. As the "swing" vote on the court he well knows he has the power, and I think he's loving every minute of it. He is a willful tyrant plain and simple, and he enjoys the roll.

Our founders didn't envision an all powerful court. Judicial review was established by the courts, not the Constitution. I personally don't have a problem with judicial review... in theory. A check on the other branches is desirable in many circumstances. But they're there to call balls and strikes, not to wear pinstripes in Yankee Stadium. Writing law is not their function. Bending over backwards in some sort of legal gymnastics to somehow arrive at a decision they deem worthy is not their function. Reading the law, applying the process of legal reasoning and judging the Constitutionality is their function, NOT to create rights that don't exist or to minimize rights that are clearly enunciated. They have forgotten their purpose.

In the "gay marriage" ruling no precedent was cited, no case law mentioned, no common law referred to. Two of the justices had previously performed marriage ceremonies for a gay couple. Elena Kagan is openly gay for Pete's sake. But neither justice thought they should recuse themselves in this case. Neither thought there might possible be a conflict of interest. Where did they get THEIR legal advise from, Anthony Kennedy?

This has got to stop. Roe v Wade has been a divisive issue for over forty years because the law was NOT arrived at democratically and therefore NOT accepted by the majority. It was an issue for the States NOT the Federal judiciary! The gay marriage ruling was more of the same. The fact is we have a government controlled by elites who don't trust the American people enough to arrive at the decisions THEY want. So when they can't bully State legislatures into doing their bidding (like they can Congress) they take the decision out of the States' hands.

Tyranny is tyranny be it Caligula, George III or an American oligarchy. The States need to negate these laws. We should provoke a Constitutional crisis and get these issues out in the open. Let's have a NATIONAL CONVERSATION about the role of the courts and the consequences of their power grab. If we don't, this wound will fester and weep and be just another cancer on the American experiment in truly representative government. But that's the ultimate goal isn't it, to tyrannize us into accepting tyranny?



5 comments:

  1. Mark GorenfloJuly 04, 2015

    Interesting how the "Supreme Court tyranny" crowd comes out on the gay marriage ruling. Where was this outrage at Citizens United? Or, even more to the point, the judicial evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, which is explicitly enumerated in the 15th Amendment, to wit:

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Congress overwhelmingly passed what they considered appropriate legislation (it was passed unanimously in the Senate in 2006 - unanimously!). Its unprecedented support was cited by the Supreme Court majority as a reason to strike it down. Kafka lives.

    One can object to the legal reasoning of Obergefell if one wishes, but extending rights and liberties obtained by the majority to despised minorities for no good reason seems a core function of the judicial power (see The Federalist 78, where Hamilton discusses judicial review, whose existence is a logical result of our system of separation of powers as envisaged by the Founders and not something created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court).

    The Hammer's tears at the "judicial tyranny" of the Obergefell decision, which neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg, are of the purest crocodile variety.

    And if The Hammer doesn't like it, he is free to work to amend the Constitution to fix the error. Surely the massed weight of tradition and public opinion he cites would support such a noble effort. Contributors to this blog frequently cite this remedy.

    Now I'm off to a barbecue with friends and family. Happy Independence Day to all!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tubby BenghaziJuly 05, 2015

    "The Hammer's tears at the "judicial tyranny" of the Obergefell decision, which neither picks his pocket..."

    Calling bullshit on that one. It's all about the money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're missing my point Mark, this isn't about this case or that (although I do use the "gay marriage" case as an illustration). The Supreme Court is by it's nature anti-Democratic. It didn't have to be that way. But when law is created out of thin air by judges appointed for LIFE, well the system of checks and balances is a sham. That my friend is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark GorenfloJuly 05, 2015

    To "The Hammer" - thanks for clearing up your point. It is often hard to see through the trees of extraneous comment (closeted Justices, gay-marrying Justices) and of complete error (no precedents cited in the decision - a cursory glance at the decision shows numerous precedents cited - Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia numerous times. You may disagree with their applicability or relevance, but they are there for all to see) to get to the point being made.

    You're right that the Federal judiciary didn't have to be the way it is. The Founders argued about its place and role and they specifically rejected the English judiciary model, which was dependent on the Crown and subordinate to the supremacy of Parliament, as too susceptible to abuse by an overweening executive and too feeble to stand up for the rights of despised minorities. Interestingly, the judiciary of the UK has evolved into a system resembling the one we chose more than 200 years ago.

    As far as I can tell, you want checks that are no checks and a balance in favor of elected legislatures. That is an honest and honorable opinion. It has analogs around the world. I disagree with it but I understand it.

    And again I ask - why this overwhelming concern when gays are allowed to marry? Why not provoke a constitutional crisis when voting rights laws are overturned? I think the answer is clear. You were happy with that decision. You are unhappy with this one. Hence the calls to the barricades in favor of the paramountcy of legislatures.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJuly 08, 2015

    "And again I ask - why this overwhelming concern when gays are allowed to marry? Why not provoke a constitutional crisis when voting rights laws are overturned? I think the answer is clear. You were happy with that decision. You are unhappy with this one. Hence the calls to the barricades in favor of the paramountcy of legislatures." {translation - why are you SO HOMOPHOBIC YOU HOMOPHOBE?}

    Because pastors, bakers, photographers, et al, may have to abandon their religious beliefs and participate in "sin" else face jail time. Violation of literally the very first amendment.

    ReplyDelete