No more Liberal Justices

Geoffrey R. Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago contributed an Op-Ed to the NYT on 14 April extolling the alleged virtues of liberal Justices. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/opinion/14stone.html?hp


The Constitution makes no mention of liberal Justices or Conservative Justices; it requires only that the judiciary assure that the laws of the US are consistent with the Constitution.

The Constitution does not “…define our most fundamental rights and protections…”. It does identify some rights, endowed to each of us by our Creator, that are superior to any government of man. It identifies individual rights over which the federal government is specifically denied any authority.

There is nothing in the Constitution about ‘separation of church and state’: what it says is that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion”; Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech (no mention of people or corporations, but corporations have no ability to speak, only people do).

The 2nd Amendment denies the federal government any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If ‘regulation’ in anyway infringes, the federal government has no such authority. The 14th Amendment prohibits State or local governments from any such infringement on US Citizens.

Affirmative action, aside from being a failed policy, is a violation of equal protection under law; as are hate crime laws. These laws were not instituted to solve problems, but rather to assuage the need of elitist liberals to impose their will and self-imagined moral superiority on others. These laws are more discriminatory than the behaviors they allege to eliminate.

As to gay Scoutmasters, I find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to force gay Scoutmasters on anyone. I do know that homosexuality is specified in the Bible as “an abomination in the eyes of God”; and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept that as true. Therefore it would appear that any law that denied Believers the right to apply that belief to their lives is a violation of the 1st Amendment that denies the federal government any such authority.

Apparently you have a different set of framers than the rest of us. The actual framers were adamant that America would be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy because democracy is no more than mob rule: two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. The actual framers deemed that America would be governed by law, not popular opinion, or worse yet, elitist dictate.

As to judicial empathy, nothing could be further from the requirement to apply law equally to all litigants. If empathy were permitted in the courtroom, Boston public schools would still be segregated. To suggest that something other than the law should be considered in any threat to Life, Liberty, or Property is an anathema to our legal system. Justice Sotomayor, a self-avowed racist and sexist was in fact a poor choice as is so clearly demonstrated by reversal of the racial terms used in her famous “Wise Latina” comment so often voiced by her over many years.

Let us see how ‘medical privacy’, key to the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, fares under challenge to ObamaCare that makes medical records nearly universally accessible.

The Constitution is not some “living document” subject to wild interpretation by activist liberal judges. The intent of the framers is clear in their insistence that the responsibility of every federal officer is to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”. The COTUS was created to define the federal government based on a clear comprehension of human nature, and human nature, contrary to the fantasies of elitist liberals, never changes.