History And The Judiciary
By Paul M. Weyrich
July 11, 2008
Page 2 of 5
After three centuries of Americans exercising their right to control their communities as citizens and to keep pornography out of public view, several judges opined that the Founding Fathers had given pornographers a right to pollute us and our children, a right that does not exist in the United States Constitution. They put us on a course that has almost obliterated the ideal of fidelity of body, mind, imagination and the heart, upon which marriage, family and child-rearing are built.
Nevertheless, lawyers, journalists and politicians announced that this opinion was to be the new law though it had no basis in the Constitution or in any law authorized by the American people via their chosen lawmakers.
Likewise, judges -- acting on behalf of a tiny, anti-constitutional, self-styled cultural "elite" dedicated to turning America into an ideological utopia -- opined that the American people may neither protect children from violent murder in their mother's womb, nor outlaw sodomy, nor restrict their civic blessing upon marriage to nature's definition of it, nor ensure that parentless children are placed with parents as nature defines them: one father and one mother.
Nor should I forget to mention judicial disregard for centuries of customary, legal and constitutional protection of private property in order to provide legal sanction for powerful, corrupt politicians lusting after other men's land or buildings. "Take what you please," they said in essence. And this was now the law. One hand washes the other.
Many of us received in shock and sadness the Goodridge v. the Department of Public Health of Massachusetts opinion on homosexual marriage. Why do self-styled "conservatives," lawyers, politician and pundits among them, spread the assertion that judges have powers that the American people have never given them?
The truth is that the ruthlessly enforced illusion of judicial supremacy did not merely empower judges and disenfranchise the American people. It made journalists, lawyers and clever politicians more influential culturally. Most, after all, are of the same ideological bent as many judges. And those who were not, the "conservatives," played within the new rules: judges' opinions are the law in the United States of America.
If Americans paid attention, understood what is at stake and agreed upon the solution, their long-term strategy would require:
- a string of primary victories by candidates who fully grasp the fact that judges have no authority to change our laws and who aggressively will oppose all claims to the contrary;
- an unbroken series of triumphs by such constitutionalist candidates in general elections, year after year;
- an unbroken series of nominations of judges who will interpret the law and will reject the noxious and absurd myth that previous court opinions are "the law of the land"; (Presidents Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush gave us activists such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter!);
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4 5
| 
