Remember not too long ago, when a footnote in a routine DHS law enforcement report mentioned that there is an increased chance that some right wing lunatics might engage in violent acts, since we currently have a left-wing government? Remember how it became this huge deal, with talking heads galore -- even the GOP chairman -- saying that the report implied that every conservative was a potential terrorist? And remember how obvious it was that people saying this either hadn't read the actual report, or were being disingenuous for political gain, since the report said nothing of the sort?
Well, guess what? Now we see that the report was absolutely right. Sure enough, we have now had two incidents where crazy right wing extremists have murdered people. Like the report said, they were single-issue extremists -- anti-abortion and anti-semitism. Looks like telling law enforcement to keep a look out for unstable zealots was a good idea. Can we at least agree now that they should be allowed to do so without making a big political show about it?
And now that we see firsthand what the report was talking about, I hope those who got all excited can see reality. No one ever said that suburban republican moms were potential terrorists. No one said that military veterans were more likely to become terrorists. What was said, and perhaps misinterpreted because the author of the report surely thought his or her audience would be police agencies who understood rather than pundits and bloggers whose livelihood depends on stirring up discontent, is that right now the unstable right-wing portion of our population is likely more dangerous than the unstable left-wing portion, since the right wing is angrier at the moment. And low and behold, common sense was right. Perhaps a valuable teaching experience for next time. (Oh, who am I kidding?)
North Korea has presented a rare situation in American politics: a situation so difficult that no faction really has the ability to rant and rave at the other. No one has a good solution, because there isn't one. During the Clinton, Bush and Obama years, I, like everyone else, have been frustrated with our approach, but have had no idea what we should do differently. All of our normal routes don't work when you have a truly insane person on the other side with the ability to kill millions even without nukes. He really has us and the rest of the world over a barrel. What to do?
Obviously, our diplomacy is not working, whether it's carrots or sticks, talking to him or not, one-on-one or multi-nation. He just breaks every agreement we make. He doesn't seem to care about sanctions. But the only other option -- military force -- would be essentially condemning to death not only millions of completely innocent victims of his regime in N. Korea, but also millions of people in S. Korea and Japan who would be swiftly retaliated against with his huge arsenal of weapons and massive army -- apparently the only people who have regular access to food. Do we have the right to make that call? I don't think so, and obviously so has the international community and our presidents of both parties.
The only thing that I can think to do is the approach we've been taking, which is mitigate the disaster that is Kim Jong Il for as long as we can, in the hope that he'll die soon and his son won't be as criminally insane. Obviously it's not a great plan, since so many have to suffer and die while waiting for him to croak and he is a menace to the world in the meantime, but at least we're not the direct cause for even more deaths. Are there any other thoughts out there on the least bad solution, or do you, like me, think that they are all horrible?
I must admit that I get some morbid enjoyment watching people who are used to acting like they have all the answers get stopped cold. This happened equally under the Bush years -- professional Bush bashers would start to go off on a rant about how he's an idiot who is screwing up with N. Korea, then realize they have no better suggestions, then change the subject. The same is happening now with Obama. We don't seem to enjoy discussing a topic unless we can yell at each other.
Judicial activism is a sadly overused and misunderstood term. I believe that it was first made mainstream by Nixon as a coded way of saying that he wanted judges who would stop overruling the will of the people by granting civil rights to blacks. Since then, it is used by both sides as a shorthand way to disparage a judge by saying he or she doesn't follow the law, but tries to make it.
The most common definition of judicial activism, then, is when judges strike down the will of the people expressed in a law. If that is the definition, then every single judge is a judicial activist, because every single judge worth a grain of salt has done so. The SCOTUS judges that have been most activist in this respect have been the conservatives.
So really, what people mean when they call a judge an activist is that they don't like the results they reach. People are fine when the court strikes down laws they don't like, they cry "activist" only when it's a law they like. And I guarantee that conservatives who are calling Sotomayor an activist will be searching for active judges when they bring lawsuits to invalidate laws and actions from this administration and congress. But no complaints. That is a judge's job, the reason for existence. They are there to enforce the Constitution, which overrules ordinary laws. We can overrule judges through our representatives by changing the law or amending the constitution. But each branch must play its part.
Active judges are what brought us Brown v. Board of Education, and so many other absolutely essential rulings. These would never have come from legislation -- in the 100 years after slavery ended, racial division and oppression only got deeper. While the 30 or 40 years it would take to convince the electorate to change its mind might seem short in a historical perspective, the courts are supposed to resolve current cases and controversies, not let whole generations be deprived of basic fairness so as to not offend the majority. The Bill of Rights was created specifically so that minorities would not have to wait patiently, or violently revolt, for the majority to decide to grant them basic rights. In B v. BOE, the court did what it was supposed to do: it overturned the will of the majority, interpreted the Constitution in a different way than the slave-owning founding fathers would have, and ensure that the concept of equal protection enshrined in the constitution was more than just words. It was a wonderfully activist moment, and there have been dozens more.
The third branch was not created to be a lapdog for the other two. The drafters of the constitution were unanimous on this point: a strong judiciary is needed to protect minority groups from overreaching majorities and to protect the people from the government. This cannot be done with passive judges. In order to fulfill their constitutional role, judges must sometimes strike down the will of the majority, or tell the president he can't do what he wants.
Yes, judges can certainly overreach. Good judges understand that they can only be active within the constraints of their constitutional authority. When they do overreach, there are luckily checks and balances to undo it. But they didn't overreach just because you don't like their conclusion. And they need to be free to do what they feel is right, hence the lifetime appointments. So while we are blessedly free to disagree with specific rulings, we should celebrate our strong, active judiciary. It means it's doing its job, and we live in a more free and fair country.
Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, is it as obvious to everyone else that the CA constitution is plain useless? The point of a constitution is to guarantee minority rights from being taken away by a simple majority vote. If you can amend a constitution by a simple majority vote, why bother even having one?
Comments (3)
Add Comments
Read More
