Libertarian Librarian

There was, wonder of wonders, a wonderful essay in this Sunday's Milwaukee Jourtinel editorial section. A buried gem amongst the anti-war/anti-Bush screeds that seem to be popping up a lot again, with little or no counter perspective. This essay had nothing to do with Iraq, the military, or Gaza but instead had a LOT to do with how our country is supposed to work, and why it seems to not be working all that well of late.

It has to do with the increasing politicization of our court system. Justices, Supreme or otherwise, are supposed to intrepret the law based on the Constitution (State and/or Federal) and precedent-- they are not supposed to legislate, and, in theory, their particular political orientation shouldn't matter a whit as they are not making law, only adjudicating it when someone feels a law is unconstitutional.

Well, maybe I should just let the article's author explain it. He does it better than I, and has a better understanding of the process:

It is the right of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to pass laws.

It is only when the legislative and executive branches exceed their powers under the Constitution that the Supreme Court has a function.

Over past years, the Supreme Court has made the rule of law meaningless. Under the Constitution, laws are the responsibility of the various legislative bodies exercising their power, within constitutional limits.

When nine (or more often five) unelected justices create the law, this is judicial tyranny, ignoring the will of the people.

Got that everyone? Only when the legislative or executive branches exceed their powers-- only when they do something unconstitutional in other words. Not when the justices disagree with or dislike what those other governmental bodies have done. Only when those bodies have done something that exceeds what the constitution allows them to do.

Open to intrepetation, sure, but something that should not be validated, or invalidated, because the law or action in question is one with which a justice agrees/disagrees. The author than cites a number of recent cases in which the Supreme Court has failed in its appointed duty:

The McCain-Feingold bill limiting political speech gave the court an opportunity to exercise its proper function.

However, they ignored the clear words of the Constitution that the "Congress shall make no laws respecting freedom of speech" and upheld the statute.

They have stretched the establishment of religion clause to a point where the framers would not recognize it and, for the most part, have ignored the free exercise clause.

Recently, they turned the Fifth Amendment-taking clause on its ear when they changed the long-established meaning of the words "public use" and put every citizen's property at risk.

Yes! Yes to all of that, then yes again. It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if some of the SCOTUS justices have even read the Constitution.

But wait! There's more:

In view of the above, it should be clear that our senators should forget the words "conservative," "liberal" and "moderate" when considering a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Instead, they should use as a guide his or her intelligence, character, knowledge of the law and respect for the people's law, the Constitution.

Perhaps then we would return to the rule of law.

Bravo! What a radical concept! Judging a justice based on his or her capabilities rather than his or her ideology. I like it. I like it a lot.

Okay, you're dying to know who wrote this, right? tc has got his anti-Coulter, anti-Limbaugh, anti-"whoever the heck this conservative loon is" pen all ready to go. John H. wants to put his bust above his keyboard. Fair enough.

I give you:



Frank Zeidler. Milwaukee's socialist mayor during the 1940s and '50s. The full essay is available here.

So, when I say that I believe there are good ideas all across the political spectrum-- that they are not the sole purview of liberals or conservative-- I'm not kidding. I think socialism is a wonderful theory and a dreadful way to govern-- but that does not mean that socialists don't have good ideas or that they can't express intelligent, insightful, concepts.

Whether you agree with the War in Iraq or not, it has now become a fight to establish some sort of republic. In other words, a place where the rule of law, rather than the whims of a despot, hold sway. As we work to achieve that goal in Iraq, perhaps now is also a good time to evaluate how good of a job we're doing of that in our own country these days.

Labels: War on Terror