- Constitutional Patriots Info Handout - Click to Download… I'll seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.
Read full Article here
Reading this statement from our glorious leader the other day, I was struck by just how talented this man is. The one thing that impresses me is that he does not hide his beliefs… they are right there on full display, if you take the time to understand what he is saying… that is.
Most could read the paragraph above and think “yeah so what”, or “that sounds reasonable” and for most of my fellow citizens that would be the end of it. I however make no bones concerning my distrust of the man, and for me alarms bell ring loudly when I look at that those same words.
Its hard to pin down exactly when “Social Justice” became an overriding legal factor for selecting our judiciary. For most common Americans we have a more simplistic classical view of justice… “it applies equally and is blind”. However, Obama and his ilk see a “Lady Justice” peeking from beneath her blindfold at a balance tilted by “social” considerations such as minority advocacy, gender fairness, right life issues, and same sex marriage rights, to name just a few.
I am a firm believer in “equality” under the rule of law. It is the backbone of every free nation’s legal system. However when jurisprudence is used to right the wrongs done to a “social class or group” by another “social group or class” rather than an individual to an individual, that tenet is being perverted.
True justice involves the “righting” of wrongs, for that process to be applied fairly means that “he who did damage, should pay for his crimes” It’s very difficult to apply that when the vagaries of classes are applied to it. Just as every southerner was a not a slave owner, nor every white man is a racist/chauvinistic/homophobe. We are a nation of individuals, with individual liberties, and individual rights.
That is why my radar goes off when I here proponents of social justice such as President Obama say:
… in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens
How am I to take that?… sounds like this man would nominate a replacement for Justice Stevens that will “look out” for the “common man”. That's what he would like us to believe. Except for one sticky little fact… Its not the job of a jurist on any level to prevent, influence, halt, or otherwise stop, “powerful interests” from “drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens”. They are selected to do one thing… fairly apply the laws, (chief among them the Constitution) to prevent, influence, halt, or otherwise stop, “powerful interests” from “drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens”.
When the “voice of ordinary citizens” are unheard because the social class, position, or status is injected into the process as a codetermining or “sole” determining factor how can that be anything but “injustice”. The Lady Justice is portrayed as blind for a reason… she is not meant to see skin color, gender, sexual persuasion, size of your bank account, or which Ivy league school you did or did not graduate from. And most importantly of all “your politics”. Yet here is a President seemingly calling for the complete antithesis of that.
Our law is meant to be shaped and crafted by the people themselves through the legislative processes… period. The judiciary is to see to the fair and just application of the law… period. And never shall the two meet… period.
When judges change laws through their rulings they have become in effect “unelected legislators”. And our Constitution was not written to establish a “Kritarchy”. it is not the way our government and legal system was meant to interact. However it has become an all to common practice… even for the Supreme Court.
I make no claims to be a legal scholar, Obama however does. And he were truly upholding his oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution” he would nominate a justice that does the same. However if his past actions reveal future plans he will not. He will nominate a person that views application of the rule of law, like he views the accumulation wealth. As something gained unfairly that needs to be redistributed to the “socially” less fortunate. Someone that will perform his “redistribution of justice.”
