Thursday, December 30, 2010

The right is right

Judicial Activism and the Left

The left long ago attempted to expunge the derided label of "liberal" in favor of "progressive" (John Kerry's unconvincing plea that "liberal" wasn't a bad word notwithstanding), and THEY ARE NOW ATTEMPTING A SIMILAR LINGUISTIC MANIPULATION. Rather than saying that they don't favor "activism," they assert that conservatives also favor the practice, and so we might as well shift the conversation elsewhere.

I assume most liberals recognize the disingenuousness of their argument. Marbury v. Madison expressed the valid definition of judicial review to which conservative scholars subscribe: should an act of Congress and the Constitution contradict, the Constitution wins - and the courts are required to enforce the law of the Constitution. Judicial activism seeks to remedy perceived social ills through the courts, in order to circumvent the unenlightened laws of a democratic majority, by EMPOWERING COURTS TO STRIKE DOWN LAWS WHICH ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, BUT (IN THE VIEW OF THE PROPONENT) SHOULD BE.

The latter exalts THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OVER THE LEGISLATIVE as a sort of enlightened priesthood, enforcing a particular social preference on the evolution of American society - IT IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, PHILOSOPHICALLY INDEFENSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. Exalting the constitution (as per the conservative view of judicial review) is entirely different from exalting the Supreme Court (the result of liberal judicial activism).

The author hits the nail on the head with this. Every time SCOTUS makes a ruling the left doesn’t agree with, they call it judicial activism while the right says judicial activism is finding a new right or restriction that doesn’t appear in the Constitution.

Woman banned from flying

The woman who made national headlines for her near-naked protest at the airport in Oklahoma City is back and once again banned from flying.

A YouTube video put Tammy Banovac in the national spotlight. Banovac says she went through security wearing next-to-nothing, to protest new security rules at airports nationwide.

This truly is a case of my way (the governments) or the highway (banned from flying).

Cliff Collapses, a Homeowner Begs for Help

There are traces of last week's storm all over San Diego County. On Tuesday, one Encinitas woman was still waiting for permission to begin shoring up a cliff that runs along her backyard.

Barbara Lynch must ask the Coastal Commission for permission to fix the bluff that runs along the back of her home at Grandview and Neptune Streets, which collapsed on Friday morning.

Lynch says she has been trying for a decade to get approval from the Coastal Commission to build something to better restrain the bluff from collapsing.

According to Encinitas city officials, the bluff is part of Lynch's property so she is responsible for all repairs, but she is required to get permission from the Coastal Commission before doing any work. Lynch will also have to get a permit from the city to get access to her property from the beach.

Cliff Collapses, a Homeowner Begs for Help
NBC San Diego

Don’t you just love having to ask permission to live your life?

Obama Blocks Probe of Fired IG

Violating its own guarantee of unprecedented transparency, the White House is blocking an investigation into the controversial firing of an inspector general who exposed one of President Obama’s political supporters—a California mayor—for misusing federal funds.

First Lady Michelle Obama was reportedly behind the contentious June dismissal of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin and congressional investigators want to interview the aide (Jackie Norris) who may have given the order. At the time Norris was the First Lady’s chief of staff but the White House counsel’s office has blocked investigators from interviewing her, according to a national news report.

Hmmm, BHO will not be able to stop a congressional probe of this issue. Elections do have consequences.

The Road to 60

Years ago there appeared in the "Humor in Uniform" regular section of Reader's Digest the story of a young soldier at Tank School who had three classes. The first, run by the communications office, stressed that a tank without radio contact with its officers would be incapable of finding and engaging the enemy. Second, the driving class highlighted that a tank without mobility was a stationary artillery piece good only for fixed point defense. And third, THE ORDINANCE CLASS TOLD THE SOLDIERS THAT A TANK WITHOUT A GUN WAS A RATHER LARGE, EXPENSIVE, PORTABLE RADIO.

There are THREE NECESSARY COMPONENTS OF POWER IN WASHINGTON, D.C. The majority of the House of Representatives. The presidency with its pen for signing or vetoing legislation. And third, a 60-vote majority in the upper chamber to overcome a filibuster and pass legislation through the Senate. One or two of those allow you to play defense. You need all three to go on meaningful offense……

The good news is that it is entirely possible -- indeed likely -- that Republicans can win 13 more Senate seats in the 2012 and 2014 elections.

Indeed, it is likely the Republicans could win a 60 seats in the Senate by 2014. It would require that they win 55% of the seats that will be up for grabs (they won 65% in 2010). The Democrats will be defending 65% of the seats that will be contested in these two election cycles, so their job will be much harder.

No comments:

Post a Comment