I recently wrote about how Federal judges Henry Hudson of Virginia and Roger Vinson of Florida got it right when they ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional. I think Vinson and Hudson got it right. I also recently wrote about hypocrisy in how the media is relating Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. I think it’s hypocritical to praise Obama for being like Reagan as though it’s a good thing (and it is) when the media so passionately hated Reagan during and after his presidency. Today, I’m stringing the two together.
I’m taking this opportunity to call out both the conservatives and the liberals for their blatant hypocrisy and ignorance about the judicial system. When the judge rules their way, that’s a tremendous success and the system doing what it’s supposed to do, namely act as a check and balance against tyranny. However, when the ruling goes against them, they condemn the system and ‘activist judges legislating from the bench’. The ruling is demonized as indicative of a corrupt system needing change. They also claim the judges are playing politics and going against the will of the people (I’ve never understood the latter because, by design, one function of the judicial system is to ensure the rights of the minority by interpreting the law correctly even if it’s not a popular with majority).
Let me make it perfectly clear that I have no problem with people disagreeing with court rulings on legal grounds (I often do). I’m also ok with people who think the system needs to be changed even when it’s yielding results they agree with. I disagree with the need for major reform, instead thinking that it may need some minor tweaks, but it’s still a reasonable and non-hypocritical line of thought due to consistency.
I didn’t see any conservatives complaining about judicial activism when Obamacare was declared unconstitutional. I also have seen plenty of liberals condemn the judges as activists who are playing politics and taking the law into their own hands. On the flip side, when judges were ruling that outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional, liberals said the legal system provided justice for all while conservatives quickly attacked these judges for being activists and ruling against the will of the people. This hypocritical line of thinking is completely nonsensical. It shows the media’s and politicians’ contempt for us as viewers/voters. They think we’re stupid and lack memory. It’s also hypocritical when conservatives/liberals attack each other for criticizing activist judges after they just did it themselves on a different issue.
Ignorance about the judicial system among politicians also bugs me. A while back, Sarah Palin was asked to name one Supreme Court ruling she disagreed with. Her basic response was, “Gosh, the Supreme Court has reviewed so many cases.” Seriously? At the very least, name a case. She’s a social conservative, so she could’ve easily said Roe v. Wade on abortion. It’s a well-know case and wouldn’t have been a shocking or original answer, but at least she would’ve named a case. Bush v. Gore on the 2000 presidential election would probably be the liberal equivalent.
To be fair, Palin is not alone. Chuck Schumer, the democrat senator from New York, recently said, “[…] we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a President.” He forgot the Judicial branch. Plus, the House and Senate are both part of the Legislative branch. I hope it was a joke, but I doubt it.
In case you’re curious, I’d say Kelo v. New London, CT. It’s a somewhat obscure eminent domain case from the 2000’s. The Supreme Court sided with the town 5-4. It resulted in a broad expansion of the government’s eminent domain powers, which allows the government to take private property (usually land) for public use, provided it pays the owner a fair price. It is outlined in the 5th amendment, “[…] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
When I criticize the ruling, I say why the Supreme Court got it wrong and how dangerous of a precedent it is for personal property rights, but it’s not indicative of a flawed system where judges are out of line. I don’t condemn the judges for being activists and I don’t say the judicial system should be reformed. Critics have the right to say those things. I just take issue with their hypocrisy if they’re only selectively calling for major reform only when they disagree with the ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment