It’s time we hold our highest courts accountable for judicial activism

There’s an old saying about the Supreme Court: it isn’t final because it’s supreme; it’s supreme because it’s final. That sounds clever, but let’s review some of the court’s more memorable decisions from the modern era to see how “final” they actually were, at least in terms of ending the debate.

In Roe v. Wade, it discovered a constitutional right to kill unborn children, yet most Americans believe abortion is murder and want it abolished or significantly limited.
In Kelo v. the City of New London, it told us that government had a constitutional right to seize private property for whatever reason it deems appropriate, yet most Americans believe the notion is absolutely tyrannical.
In the two Obamacare cases, it said the law’s authors meant to use the words “tax” rather than “fine” and “federal government” rather than “the states,” even though Congress chose those precise words for specific reasons. People know what those words mean, and know we’re now living under an unconstitutional law.
And now we’re told that hundreds of years of American federalism and thousands of years of human tradition mean nothing – our constitution suddenly mandates that marriage be redefined. Yet most of our churches will forever teach differently.
It’s easy to see that the Supreme Court didn’t bring finality to these debates. They sowed thicker discord instead. By gathering to themselves all power of law and assuming that they know best, these justices have denied our democratic republic the opportunity — the necessity, in fact — to thoroughly debate these issues, to persuade or be persuaded, and to have a natural argument that could eventually lead to a compromise where we could all live under the same national roof together.
Instead, they’ve walked into the middle of an argument, told everyone to shut-up, chose a side, and walked away. Nothing was settled.
There has been a great deal of talk about how the gay marriage ruling is now “the law of the land” and that advocates of the exclusivity of traditional marriage ought to just move on. 
Sadly, this subservient attitude isn’t anything new.
“There is in all a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate,” wrote Frederic Bastiat in his book “The Law” published in 1850. “This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.”
We shouldn’t end our opposition to something illegitimate simply because it becomes “the law of the land.” In fact, because it’s the law means it should be opposed with even greater vigilance.
Meanwhile, what’s ever to be done about this incessant judicial activism? For starters, we must hold these courts accountable. Our constitution provides a path for throwing a judge or justice from the bench the same way we can toss a president from the White House, “on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
But does that standard – particularly the ambiguous “high crimes and misdemeanors” section – apply to clear judicial activism? Sadly, these days the answer is probably “no.”
In his book “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,” legal scholar and radio host Mark Levin notes that judges “must act in a flagrantly illegal fashion before that conduct would be considered beyond the constitution’s ‘good behavior’ standard as it is currently interpreted.”
Levin goes on to argue, therefore, that the ambiguous standard must be raised, not lowered.
“There is considerable merit in recognizing that it would not compromise the independence of the federal judiciary to treat egregious abuse of judicial authority as a ‘high crime’ worthy of impeachment and removal from office,” Levin wrote. “Knowingly doing harm to the constitution … is not the sort of ‘good behavior’ the framers envisioned justifying continuance in office.”
Levin is right, and the unconstitutional power of the courts will only grow unless it’s checked by an outside force — the people. It’s absolutely undemocratic for five of nine lawyers to have the final say on nearly every question before our society. The final word belongs to the people. It always has, and it always will. It’s just time for us to be heard.

(First published on Al.com)

11 thoughts on “It’s time we hold our highest courts accountable for judicial activism

  1. 醫學美容 DR CYJ 髮胜肽健髮療程 cosmedicbook

    當蛋白線埋入皮膚後,皮下組織會將蛋白線視為異物,啟動異物反應,因此刺激膠原蛋白生長,且可促進新陳代謝,更新老化肌膚,所以客戶在術後也會發覺膚質變得較透亮白皙。膠原蛋白提拉線像一個“磁力線”一樣,將埋入處附近的肌肉和脂肪固定在原處,不會往下墜,其後會吸引皮下組織往蛋白線集中部位移動,就會逐漸產生提拉的緊實效果。也被用於填充美容的微整形,蛋白線材就好比蓋房子的鋼骨支架,先埋入皮膚當作基底結構,然後再注入好比水泥的玻尿酸或自體脂肪,因為有吸附力不易擴散,就可穩定固定住填充物,讓立體支撐力效果更好。

  2. 醫學美容 修復 cosmetic.wiki

    簡單易整!浪漫微鬈長髮 Marie Claire (HK) Edition 隨著步伐搖曳,一頭微微鬈曲的長髮不經意地散發出性感慵懶的氣息,亦滲透出浪漫主義,讓人著迷不已。情人節當日,除了要ready妝容,還要弄好個頭!要營造微曲髮型,不一定要用電捲棒。塗搽造型產品後,可先用雙

  3. 醫學美容-大波-清盈-cosmetic-wiki

    一舊梘K.O粒粒 性價比高軟化角質去粒粒「神梘」 造型打扮 Grooming 新Monday 終於熱喇,可以換季喇!Yeah!但冬天懶磨砂,經常著厚衫焗到毛孔堵塞,搞到個背脊、手臂同心口有好多粒粒,點著小背心呀!人生最灰莫過於熱到爆但要著到密密實實無得show body,好彩小編朋友多,老友介紹用一舊番梘就可以去角質K.O啲粒粒,即刻試用先得!唔使$200,就可以同粒粒、暗瘡、暗啞講byebye,即用!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.