The Astounding Next Level of Judicial Arrogance in America by Jan Ireland

The Astounding Next Level of Judicial Arrogance in America

By Jan Ireland

October 20, 2003

Increasingly overreaching rulings from activist judges in recent years, suggests that public schools are inadequately teaching the constitutional makeup of our federal government. That the three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) were designed as co-equals to form a system of checks and balances, seems missing from the collective public knowledge. Our unaware citizenry made no large outcry at the quickly-reversed ruling of the three-judge panel to stop the California recall election recently. But a few noted with alarm what the small panel based their initial ruling on, fearing that it reveals an even more ominous level of activist judicial intent. The cause for alarm was the portentous ruling on 'what might possibly happen' in the future.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the 'distinction' of being the most reversed court in America, in percentages as high as the 80's. When a federal appeals court is reversed, it is usually the United States Supreme Court that does the reversing. Before the expected appeal could even be mounted, virtually as soon as the small panel's ruling was announced, the full Ninth Court proclaimed that it would reconsider the ruling. This almost never happens, perhaps signifying that even the severely liberal judges of the full Ninth recognized what their small-panel brothers could be unleashing. Courts ruling on what someone says could 'possibly' happen in the future.

Courts of course take the future into account in some decisions. Granting a restraining order requires that they consider a person's potential toward violence in the future. Granting damages for harm entails looking at future earnings that would have accrued. Granting eminent domain petitions calls for envisioning the harm that could be caused to the public if the land is not acquired. But dabbling in the future of politics is an entirely different arena, especially when the ACLU, with its partisan agenda, is making the request and supplying the reasoning.

Recall in California is provided for in the California constitution. Contrary to being a power grab, it has strenuous provisions for time and signature requirements. It is the ultimate exercise of democracy, requiring that many individuals be directly contacted and specifically asked to 'vote' their opinion by signature. A huge percentage of California voters - far more than could be generated by one party, especially the minority Republicans - did just that.

The ACLU's position was that the punchcard ballot voting machines - in place in many precincts, and due to be replaced before the next presidential election - would disenfranchise up to 40,000 minority and poor voters. Additional reasoning held that minority and poor voters would be unable to find their polling places, since the number of polling stations would be lessened. University students would be disenfranchised because thousands would not have a voting booth on-campus.

All these 'reasons' are specious and, it must be reiterated, were the same kinds of arguments used in the Florida 2000 election.

Punch card ballots perform perfectly well in counting machines, and in fact have an error rate far below some touch screen voting machines. Punch card ballots 'handled' by rabid partisan counters can have their chads loosened or compromised for sure. But many studies are emerging that show touch screen voting machines are far more susceptible to fraud in the hands of computer-literate campaign workers. In the wake of the many millions of votes cast in the recall election, in person as well as by mail-in absentee, the ACLU's contentions that minorities and the poor would be unable to find a polling place, or figure out the ballot, seem ludicrous and laughable. And if actual college students could not figure out a way to vote, despite their being no polling station at arm's reach, California's education system should be downgraded even further than has already occurred.

The left in this country is trying to use the court system to acquire victories they never would win at the ballot box. To continue implementing their agenda, they need judges who will usurp the power of the Legislative branch; who will inveigle rather than interpret; who will ignore the co-equality of the branches; and who will consent to rule on whatever an ally says 'might' happen.

That is why unprecedented filibustering, or the more comfortable version that now passes for filibustering, is occurring against the President's judicial nominees. Spurious 'charges' and 'questions' dog any Republican or conservative nominee for the bench. Democrats ask improper questions, and claim 'stonewalling' when nominees don't answer. They 'have a problem' with any judge who has deeply held religious beliefs. Stellar nominees are dragged through the gutter, with destructive insinuations and specious charges, and forced to keep their personal futures on hold for months or even years.

There is even a troubling tendency to look to 'international' law for guidance, hoping to find more liberal, less moral 'precedents' to build on. But the only guidance American judges should be looking to, is contained in our Constitution.

The Legislative and Executive branches of our government are not doing enough to reign in the out-of-control Judiciary. But then neither are the American people, who continue to vote for politicians who support the un-American liberal agenda. If you vote for a liberal - any liberal - you may be inviting this astounding next level of judicial arrogance to America.