Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with “public servants” who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad, or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal — which is to say, they are dismantling America.
Advertisement
The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.
The same thing applies to judges. The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is more or less common among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
It was a surprise to many — and a shock to media liberals — when three judges on Iowa’s supreme court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing.
These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue — so-called gay marriage — was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.
That is ultimately a question of deciding what kind of country this is to be — one ruled by “we the people,” or one where the notions of an arrogant elite are to be imposed, whether the people agree or not.
Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.
If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.
Media liberals, who like what liberal judges do, spring to their defense. The media spin is that judges were voted off the bench because of “unpopular” decisions and that this threatens judicial “independence.”
Since this was the first time that a justice of the Iowa supreme court was voted off the bench in nearly half a century, it is very doubtful that there was never an “unpopular” court decision in all that time. The media spin about “unpopular” decisions sidesteps the far more important question of whether the judges usurped powers that were never given to them by the Constitution.
As for judicial “independence,” that does not mean being independent of the laws. Being a judge does not mean being given arbitrary powers to enact the liberal agenda from the bench, which means depriving the citizens of their most basic rights that define a free and self-governing people.
While removing three state supreme-court justices at one time in Iowa is news today, the very same thing happened in California back in the 1970s. Every single death penalty imposed by a trial court in California was overturned by the state supreme court, with Chief Justice Rose Bird voting 64 times in a row that there was something wrong with the way each trial had been conducted. That was world-class chutzpah.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Arizona does not have a right to require proof of citizenship before someone can vote. Where does it say that in the Constitution?
The time is long overdue to stop treating judges like sacred cows, especially when they have so much bull.
As usual Mr. Sowell hits the nail squarely on the head. The 9th Circus Court is at the top of the list of reversals by the Supreme Court, but it is no wonder. Located in San Francisco, I have long suspected that its members have caught the same loonie virus that affects such luminaries as Gavin Newsom, its ex-mayor and new Lt. Governor.
Court judges will gain credibility when they start acting like judges and make their rulings based on the Constitution, rather than on their own political beliefs.
"If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians."
Amen.
As one of the Iowans who voted against retaining the three state supreme court justices I completely agree. I'm no legal expert but have read enough of the written decision handed down to see it for what it was: the justices started with a faulty premise and just worked their way down to an absurd conclusion. It was, in every respect, a case of the jurists being political, then attempting, with liberal media complicity, to drape themselves in quasi-independent righteousness. Fortunately, the voters saw through the charade.
And, like my fellow Iowans, I did not take the matter of judge removal lightly, but saw it only as a last resort: an electoral answer to an outlandish spectacle of judicial verdict-rigging, followed by refusal by stonewalling legislators to consider a constitutional amendment to recognize the will of the electorate.
The justices ran a kangaroo court and the voters stood athwart history and yelled "Stop!"
Great article Mr. Sowell! Judges are powerful and, can in fact humiliate party affiliates opposite of their own in court. Judges can and do misuse their power by swaying large populations of people by their so-called liberating views. They can in fact have individuals believing that right is wrong. Watering down the law in support of small interest is corrupt, immoral, and just plain wrong. It is time to right the wrong!!!
In the end, the only sure way to stop such judicial tyranny is to amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meanings, including an amendment restricting judges to the original plain meaning of the constitutional or statutory language and making it an impeachable offense if they don't.
To achieve this the new Congress should be urged to enact a constiutional amendment giving the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without the convention now required by Article V. With this grassroots constitutionalists can launch amendments restoring the Constitution's original meanings and structure and end the arrogant judicial legislating decried by Professor Sowell.
But, then Republicans would also have to contend with something like "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" and the fact that 80% of the country opposed this change in election law interpretation. This law has helped conservative campaign spending more then the democrats. Consider the possibility that the current very conservative supreme court is then voted out of office. Judicial activism doesnt just occur on one side.
Some special interest group will always have a negative opinion on one thing or another. Depending on how liberal or conservative that election cycle is (2008 versus 2010), one side or the other can use the momentum of that election to railroad their vote through.
I also don't like the idea of judicial campaigning. Campaigning costs money and giving money to a campaign depending on how big the contribution always comes with certain expectations. I dont like the idea of judges being beholden to people who can write large checks.
"But, then Republicans would also have to contend with something like "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" and the fact that 80% of the country opposed this change in election law interpretation."
Your argument is lacking several vital points, however one stands above the rest:
80% of the people in the nation did not vote against the SCOTUS ruling. Why? Because there was no national vote taken on it. Therefore, your claim of 80% is dubious at best, and most likely stands on some polling. And as we all know, polling does not determine these things.
If we suggest you spend some serious time reading that case, the positions, and the logic upon which the SCOTUS ruling stands.
Unless your in favor of the government being able to round up a citizens books and burn them, you'll likely find you actually agree with the ruling.
