As I reflect on the current state of the federal judiciary in America I am becoming aware that the courts can become the puppet of any regime, any despot or any ideology and yet still maintain an air of arrogance and mystery sufficient to elicit reverence for its authority; that it somehow knows best about constitutions and rights and all those dark legal things. Progressive ideology and moral relativists have gotten into the judiciary and we, like Jefferson bemoan the damage that has been and will be done to the constitutional system while they remain on the bench. “The principal [leaders of the opposition]” Jefferson lamented, “have retreated into the judiciary as a stronghold, the tenure of which renders it difficult to dislodge them.” Today in what is becoming an all too familiar scenario, a lone federal judge overrode the will of the people in the state of Pennsylvania to define the institution of marriage. This is not surprising considering he’s the same federal despot who ruled that teaching intelligent design in high school is “unconstitutional.” Think of all the awful regimes in history and remember they too had judges who pretended to impartiality and rule of law. Here’s how Jefferson laid it out, “The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.”
The ruling itself, which was predictably reliant on a tortured interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses, was inflammatory and is anathema to constitutional government, popular sovereignty and right morality. “We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,” Jones wrote with revolutionary fervor in his opinion, further emboldening the forces of the gay agenda and driving a wedge between Americans. Someone should remind the judge that he does not occupy a seat in the legislative branch. The bedrock principles upon which western civilization itself was founded and thrived on for millennia should not be thrown away so lightly “into the ash heap of history.” Rather, the misused, enhanced and extralegal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment at the heart of these recent off-putting and embarrassing federal judicial opinions, the root of much constitutional mischief, deserves a collective toss by those in traditional marriage states into history’s ash heap and then set on fire. If those ancient and time worn marriage traditions are going to be tossed by anybody, in our system, it must be done by the sovereign people in their legislative branches.
Post script–I read this Breitbart article recently that sums up this “Republican” judge quite nicely. It really is another article pointing out the court vs. country party battle that is raging for the soul of America. When the dust settles what will we have? A unitary political system that prizes conformity over liberty and the rule of law.
Telling was this passage:
The new Obama Republicans are members of the bureaucratic classes, are pro-government, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-NSA, and pro-amnesty. They are sophisticated, urban, and have utterly nothing in common with the Tea Party Reaganites. Indeed, they are culturally closer to Obama’s and Romney’s view of the world than Reagan’s.
The County Election, 1852
GEORGE CALEB BINGHAM
In this painting that celebrates the sovereignty of the people from an age that is gone and will never be recovered without great injury, Bingham painted these words in the blue banner:
The Supreme Law
Jefferson wrote, “A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” When judges blatantly overrule the will of the people, as in the gay marriage cases, they are violating more than fundemental law, they are violating the very spirit of a republic.