I heard an interesting synopsis of the dangers of Liberal court philosophy on Mr. Limbaugh’s radio program the other day, and want to sum it up, and my reaction to it. The synopsis goes something like this:

Liberal political theology cannot be sold to a thinking public. This is because Liberal ideology is not only un-American, it is anti-individualist, and oppressive. The Liberals know they can’t sell their positions because the positions aren’t popular. Therefore they mask their true intentions with double-talk and refuse to offer their real solutions. They don’t want real solutions, they want a new system.

Therefore, the traditional means of establishing law (ie. popular vote leading to Congressional initiatives leading to changes to law via Congress) cannot happen. The only remaining avenue for Liberal ideology to spawn itself upon the American public is to circumvent the standard process. Liberals accomplish this by giving Liberal judges positions which allow them to ‘re-interpret’ (read: insert their own political views into) the Constitution. They thereby create law via reinterpretation and precedent instead of Congressional action.

This process has been titled ‘judicial activism’ and as far as I can tell, both Conservatives and Libertarians abhor this process. I know that I do. The question then becomes “how do we prevent it from happening?”. The first, and most obvious choice, is to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who don’t practice such kind of law.

The role of a Supreme Court justice, as I see it, is to look at existing laws, evaluate if the court case in question violates existing law by using the principles of judicial language (the jargon of the profession). If the case in question covers a topic not explicitly covered in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then the consequences of allowing the case to stand as precedent are examined to see if those consequences violate the intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If so, that case is struck down. If not, it stands. End of story, end of job description.

The problem is that objectivity, by definition, requires apolitical thinking. So how do we isolate judges from political ties? The current system of lifetime appointment was supposed to accomplish that. It may have once, but doesn’t any longer. What do you think?

Term limits? (How do you prevent ‘leaving a legacy’ from being a motive for rulings then?)

A Liberal (and aparently secular?) caller to Rush’s program made the comment that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were enduring and copied by other nations because they contained timeless truths that were central to our system of rule. Really?! Should we take that to mean that just as some natural laws are plain and cannot be countered without consequence (see Gravity), that perhaps there are some basic principles of human behavior that cannot be violated without consequence? Well, if we admit that, than how do we discover what ‘standards’ work? Perhaps judges who match that ‘standard’ should be appointed? How do we agree on a standard?

Tough questions. And the answers will not come easily. But at this point, the Conservatives and Libertarians are the only ones stating real positions that can be considered for a ‘standard’. Any liberals care to step up to the plate and become a spokesperson for your party? It starts by telling people what you believe and why. And you’d better figure both what AND why before you go trying to convince others. If you think that your position can’t or won’t convince others, why are you still holding onto it?

Don’t get me wrong — I no longer fit neatly into any of the ‘Big Two’ political parties, but if you want me to join you politically, you’d better come to me with something more than emotion alone, and something more than intellect alone. The party that masters the balance of logical and intellectual reasoning balanced by tempered emotion to guide their political philosophy will reap a bumper-crop of misrepresented Americans. Perhaps they’ll be able to suggest some judicial guidelines?

~Ted Hamilton