In the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy stated in the majority opinion, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe and the mystery of human life.”
Concerning this strange and dangerous statement by the U.S. Sure Court majority, columnist John Leo declared: “This ‘mystery passage’ can be cited easily next time to justify suicide clinics, gay marriage, polygamy, inter-species marriage or whatever new individual right the court feels like inventing. We are moving firmly into the court’s post-constitutional phase.”
Liberal elitists attempt to intimidate the American people by telling them they’re not allowed to question the rulings of judges or have an opinion on legal rulings—particularly if they don’t have a law degree. But book sense is not a substitute for common sense. As Vance Havner said, “You don’t have to be listed in ‘Who’s Who’ to know what’s what.” The real bottom line is that liberals don’t want to be held to any standard other than their own mushy amalgamation of sound-bite thinking on issues of epic significance. They don’t want to be accountable to the rule of law—they want to be the law.
In January 2001, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a speech at the University of Melbourne Law School in Australia. Ginsburg attacked U.S. Representative Tom DeLay, who has a long history of condemning members of the judicial branch who attempt to make law instead of interpreting it. Mr. DeLay often has spoken of the need for the U.S. Congress to reign in the runaway judiciary by using the Constitutional remedy, impeachment. Mr. DeLay believes impeachments might “intimidate” judges by holding them accountable and cautioning them not to stray from their constitutional responsibility and limitations.
Justice Ginsburg used the “you are not an expert” strategy by portraying Mr. DeLay as a dumb, blue-collar worker who was beneath her education and wisdom as she quipped that he is “not a lawyer but, I’m told, an exterminator by profession.” The truth is, Tom DeLay gets in the way of Justice Ginsburg’s long-standing strategy to have her way with American law. Even before joining the Court, she advocated decisions that “creatively interpreted clauses of the Constitution . . . to accommodate a modern vision” of society. She approved of “boldly dynamic interpretation, departing radically from the original understanding” of the Constitution. She also believed courts could “repair” or even “rewrite” legislation to reach desirable results. (Footnote #29)
Despite invoking the “you aren’t qualified” rhetoric against Mr. DeLay, what Justice Ginsburg knows, but doesn’t want to acknowledge, is that the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers so the average American—who at that time was a farmer—could understand their writings. Authored by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the Federalist Papers describe the reason and original intent behind the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, and these writings were printed in newspapers throughout the young nation. If you had lived at the time the Federalist Papers were first published, you would have been among a citizenry that understood, and had a great interest in, their new country’s founding documents.
Americans should not be silent concerning the laws and court rulings that impact their lives. While judges may wish it, we are not slaves of the black-robed usurpers. Perhaps it is because judges are lawyers—and most lawyers are liberal—that they seem to be so readily capable of ignoring truth, distorting reality, and quickly accepting the fallacies of a postmodern worldview.
Thomas Jipping, Intimidated Judges Judge Well, February 15, 2001, syndicated column, www.Worldnetdaily.com.