NON ILLEGITIMI
CARBORUNDUM!
(DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN)
CARBORUNDUM!
(DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN)
THIS IS MY SITE – I CHOOSE THE
TOPICS
THE
OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN
CLICK TO COMMENT 
FAVORABLY OR UN
FAVORABLY OR UN
STATE OF
CAPE COD
THE LAUGH'S ON ME
Library Blonde
ARCHIVES
Four
Previous Columns
CHARLIE DANIELS
The Country Music Star
On Our Government
from the
Charlie Daniels Soapbox
VOCABULARY TEST
STATE OF CAPE COD
visit
CAPE COD TODAY
Who Am I?
Why this Page?
Suggest A Topic
Link Your Page
Link This Page
In the infamous Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal, the court somehow found that the constitution approves infanticide. The argument is that it’s covered by the penumbra found under the imaginary right to privacy and that a woman may do as she pleases with her own body. Well, she did. That’s why she’s pregnant in the first place. And why, one must ask, does this same convoluted reasoning not legalize prostitution? Could the reason be that Rush Limbaugh’s aptly named “Femininazis” favor the one but not the other?
More recently, the pompously titled Supreme Judicial Court of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts has told us that same sex marriages must be recognized by the Commonwealth because they are not specifically banned. In doing so, four judges have redefined a word whose meaning has been perfectly understood by everyone, everywhere, practically forever: that “marriage” means the union of a man and a woman.
Most of these decisions run counter to the will of the people. A judge’s job is to rule on questions of constitutionality and legality. The constitution is pretty clear and literal. It wasn’t meant to be distorted by a bunch of political appointees, who are answerable to no one, in order to promote political correctness. Judges should not be allowed to usurp the power of the legislature and make law. Legislating from the bench must be curtailed. The legislature can do so easily, by rectifying the imaginary laws judges sometimes discover, but they apparently lack the necessary fortitude to do so.
Electing judges instead of appointing them is one way to solve the problem. Forcing them to stand for reelection periodically would make them accountable for their decisions. The argument against electing judges is that it would politicize them. Some feel that a lifetime appointment makes a judge independent of political pressures. Wouldn’t it be better for a judge to be a political hack than to have him appointed by one as a reward for party loyalty? At least we’d have a chance to learn his qualifications and evaluate his track record.
Another way to improve conditions would be to continue having judges appointed, but for a specific period of time, not for life. He would then be subject to a periodic review and an up or down vote of the legislature for another term. It would then be incumbent upon the people to pressure their legislators to approve or disapprove judicial candidates. This would make judges accountable without forcing them to raise funds and campaign for election, or reelection.
Neither solution is perfect. Perhaps some of you know other, better, ways to stop judicial legislation. Whatever the method, It’s obvious that something must be done to restore the balance of power which the founding fathers intended - and soon. Soon our elected representatives will be asked to approve Mr. Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Soutar. One must wonder how she would have voted on the aforementioned issues. We can make a fairly educated guess on how our esteemed president hopes she will adjudicate. Let’s hope that the president’s selection will not simply be rubber stamped out of party loyalty or liberal bias.
