Activist Judges Undermine the Constitution

I was discussing with a friend of mine that the #1 most important reason that Donald Trump needs to be elected is to make sure a Constitutionalist Judge is nominated to the Supreme Court. 

She said, "Why?"

I said, "Because we need to make sure that the rule of law is followed. Democrats, at least in the past 100 years or so, have been known to nominate activist judges who do not make rulings solely based on the rule of law."

She said, rolling her eyes, "Oh, they do not." 

Recent events have provided a perfect example of what I was trying to describe to her. To start with here, I think we need some definitions.

1. Judge. A person who considers the evidence in any given case and makes a ruling or opinion solely based on the laws that currently exist. This would include the U.S.Constitution, followed by laws created by the U.S. Congress, State Legislatures, and the various local legislatures. A modern term for this is a Constitutionalist Judge. 
2. Activist Judge. A person who considers evidence in any given case and makes a ruling or opinion solely based on his or her own opinion or political preference rather than considering the rule of law. 
3. Judicial Activism. Judicial rulings solely based on personal opinions and politics. 

Now, for our example. I can think of many good examples, but there is one very good one that is currently working it's way through the U.S. Court systems. It involves an executive order written by Donald Trump banning immigration from seven Muslim Nations and Syria from immigrating to the United States. 

The ban is because radical Islamist terrorists have entered the U.S. since and before 9-11, and 72 have come from these seven nations and Syria. So, the idea of the ban was to cease immigration from these nations until a proper system of vetting them could be put in place. 

To me, this seemed like a logical order. Why? because the #1 job of the President is to defend and protect the Constitution. It is the #3 job to create a sound economic environment. The #2 job is to keep America safe from foreign invasion and from thugs who want to destroy us. In fact, without #2, #1 and #3 are impossible to do. In other words, if we are not safe and secure, we cannot be free.

Now, there are various opinions on this executive order. Some people like it, and some people don't. Regardless, it's what the President thought was necessary given the security information that he was provided with. Okay? Now I am going to give you an example of how Judicial Activism works. 

So, you have activist lawyers who do not like this ruling. So, they create a legal case. Then they find a judge that they believe is an activist judge who will rule in their favor. Judges in Seattle tend to be the most liberal judges in all of the land in the United States. They find this judge in Seattle by the name of Judge James Robart. 

He was nominated by George W. Bush. However, he was referred to Bush by liberal Senators from Seattle. In order to appear bipartisan, Presidents have often times nominated judges in this fashion, alternating from allowing liberal Senators and conservative Senators, or democrat Senators and republican senators, to nominate judges. Then the President officially nominates them, recommends them, and ideally they are confirmed by the U.S Senate. 

So, this is how judge Robart became a judge in Seattle. Liberal activists know that most courts would rule in favor of Trump in this case. So, they know their only hope is to find a judge like Judge Robart. So, they present the case to his court. They knew that, before Trump's lawyers even considered the evidence, that their case would prevail, mainly because they knew they had a judge who would consider his own personal political views over the Constitution. 

Therefore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that Trump's executive action banning Muslim's from immigrating into the U.S. from seven Muslim nations was ruled unconstitutional. Then the case went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinion of Robart was held up. Now, this should not come as a surprise, as there was no way these judges were going to rule any way other than the way they ruled. 

Here's a little history of travel bans. President Bill Clinton imposed travel bans on certain nations 12 times. Obama imposed travel bans on certain nations 10 times. Calvin Coolidge banned all immigration. The main reason for these bans was to make sure terrorists weren't coming into our country. It was to keep us safe based on the evidence available at these various times. 

Not one of these times did the case go to court. No one even questioned the Constitutionality of these bans. If someone did, it was not enough to make a difference. The reason there was not discontent with these bans is because they are not unconstitutional. They are only unconstitutional when Trump does it.

The law is simple here. According to my sources, it comes from a 1952 law, not one created by an activist court, but an actual one created by Congress and signed by a sitting President. It's a statute that says:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Liberals have an agenda. They know their agenda is not popular with the American people. The only way they can get their agenda moved forward is by using activist judges. You can go all the way back to Rowe-v-Wade to find the first activist ruling by the courts. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion legal. However, when you have activist judges it doesn't matter what the law is: they just rule based on their political views.

It's called judge shopping. Liberals can't get their agenda passed by Congress, they don't have the support of the people, so all they have left are activist judges. They have that and the bureaucracy. They have judges and people hired by democrats who are unelected and you can't get rid of them. 

So, liberals knew how Judge Robart would rule before Trump's lawyers even spoke. It was already known he would rule against Trump. In his ruling, he never even referenced the above statute.  basically stated his own personal political views, that there is no evidence that terrorists were coming from these seven countries, so it was Unconstitutional. He said this makes it racist.

Also without referencing the above statute, the 9th circuit held this ruling.

First of all, a judge is not supposed to rule based on his opinion. It doesn't matter if there are terrorists coming from these countries or not. These judges don't have access to the same security information the President does. There is supposed to be Separation of Powers, where the President doesn't have to share top secret security information with the other branches -- and this is for security reasons.

However, that aside, it was later revealed to Judge Robart that 72 terrorists have come in from those seven countries and were convicted of terrorism since 9-11, but that doesn't matter. It should not matter to this judge. It doesn't matter if it is racist. It doesn't matter the morality of the law. A judge is supposed to rule based on the law. He is to rule if it is Constitutional or not. He is not supposed to rule on the morality of the law -- which is what he did.

Technically speaking, immigrants aren't even citizens. The Constitution doesn't even apply to them. So it's impossible for Trump's executive order to be unconstitutional. This whole issue should have been thrown away just on that fact. But, this judge is an activist, so the ruling is what it is. It was to be expected. This is what to expect from activist judges. This was planned all along.

There is another reason the case went to a Seattle Judge. This is because an appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court, which is the most liberal, activist court in the United States. They, like Judge Robart, already knew how they were going to rule, even before Trump's lawyers spoke. They knew, because they already decided how they stand on the issue politically. They were going to hold Judge Robart's standing. This is not a surprise. It is not a shock to anyone but people who don't pay attention to the news.

Interestingly, to give an example of how out of touch the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is with the mainstream of America, they are the most overturned court in the nation. Of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court, 80% were overturned in 2010, 71% in 2011, and 86% in 2012. So, they are found to be guilty of political activism greater than 80% of the time.

Of this, Rush Limbaugh said:

But at the root of all of this, is the Constitution being ignored, the will of the people being ignored, liberalism. And they have their various areas where they engage in this nefarious activity, and those areas shield them and give them authority and give them respect, like scientists in climate change and judges in the law wearing black robes eminently educated, among the best and brightest of our legal minds, educated in some of the finest liberal indoctrination centers — I’m sorry, law schools — in the country.

So, these activist judges ruled that it was a Muslim ban. It was a ban on a certain religion, so it is unconstitutional. 

A Constitutionalist Judge, of which most judges are, would have ruled based on the law. In this case, they would have found that it's not a Muslim Ban. The ban is only on seven countries. They do so happen to be Muslim countries. But if it was a Muslim ban, all other Muslim nations would have also been banned from immigrating to the U.S. As it is, 85% of Muslim nations were not banned. So, it is not a religious ban. It is not a ban on religion. If it was a religious ban it would name every Muslim country.

Putting all that aside, a Constitutionalist Judge would have thrown the case out based on one simple fact: the Constitution does not even apply to immigrants. 

But such common sense doesn't matter to activist judges. 

One more thought before I end this post. Judge Gorsuch, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump, said something interesting during his nomination speech. He said that sometimes he is unhappy with the decisions he makes.  I think what he was implying here is that he doesn't rule based on his politics; he rules based on the law. And, sometimes, he has to make rulings that oppose his own political positions. He is saying he is a Constitutionalist and not an Activist Judge.

Judge Robart and two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are Activist Judges. They are probably always satisfied with their rulings, because the Constitution takes a back seat to their political views.

Further reading and references:

• Rush Limbaugh: The History of the Statute Trump's Ruling is Based On
• Rush Limbaugh: The Best Thing Judge Gorsuch said
• National Review: Judge Robart: Not a Republican Judge
• Natural News: 72 Individuals from Trump’s seven named countries have been convicted in terrorism cases since 9/11
• National Review: Never Go Full Ninth Circuit
• National Review: Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for "Most Reversed"
• Rush Limbaugh: Ticked Off by The Lefts Takeover of the Judiciary

Are conservatives really 'backwards' and 'backwoods'?

From time to time liberals refer to conservatives as "backwoods" or "backwards."  Sometime they use the term "old school."  The truth is, not only do these terms not apply to conservatives, they apply more to the liberals who use them.

To make it simple here, all of these terms are polite ways of saying, "Primitive."  So, when a liberal says that a conservative is "backwoods," he is in essence saying that the conservative is primitive.  Now we can break the term primitive down further.

1.  Liberal definition of primitive: Traditional christian values and morals, such as those taught by the church.

2.  Conservative definition of primitive: The way of life prior to civilization.

In the primitive world, marriage is defined as Commune marriage, the system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples by which within a small community all the men are regarded as married to all the women and vice-versa, sometimes called group marriage, sometimes called polygamy.

In this system all men and women work for the collective, or state. Everything they do is collected by the state to be doled out equally among the people. In this system no one gets to keep a share of the profits of his labors, and therefore there is no incentive to excel above and beyond one's peers.

By this system, there was no incentive to become better, and so people remained primitive.  It was this system that ultimately gave birth to fascism, Marxism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism.  Their goal is always to create a euphoria, yet all that results is chaos.

Marriage had no meaning, and so culture was not taught. It did not matter if you had sex with other women while married, because you were married to everyone.  Abortions were considered acceptable.  Having a child outside marriage was considered acceptable.

Christianity recognized that there were consequences to all these actions.  They recognized that children who were born of married parents were more likely to become productive members of society.  The recognized that abortion had negative consequences on a society, such as sadness.

Christians recognized that the primitive definition of marriage had consequences, and therefore created a system whereby marriage was defined as a man and a women.  The purpose of marriage was to procreate, and then to share culture with their children.  A part of this culture was a moral code that established marriage between a man and a women.  Adultery and abortion were frowned upon.

When the first civilizations were formed they tried to live without morals.  In Ancient Greece, it was considered as acceptable to live by the primitive definition of marriage.  It was fine to have abortions.  It was fine to have sex with whomever you chose to have sex with.  These were considered fine.

Yet these immoral acts, as Christians saw them, were primitive and worked to destroy civilization rather than hold it together.  So the new moralistic, Christian world was created.  This system is now called the "Christian Right," by liberals, and "old school" or "backwoods."  These people, liberals claim, or those who still believe in this system, are considered to be "backwards."

Yet the truth is, liberals are backwards. They are trying to return society to where it was in the primitive world, where marriage had no meaning; where marriage was defined as whatever you wanted it to be defined.

To further make my point, the definition of marriage I pulled out above was from the 1989 version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Their definition of marriage, as defined by liberals, is:

Commune marriage, the system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples by which within a small community all the men are regarded as married to all the women and vice-versa, sometimes called group marriage, sometimes called polygamy.

You see, so who are the real backwoods people.  Conservatives have actually created a system that works.  Where marriage is defined as between a man and a women, people thrive.  Every study ever done on the subject shows that children born of a mother and a father, even if the father dies, are 80% more likely to become productive members of society.

Yet liberals want to make marriage meaningless.  All you have to do to see proof that I am right here is to look at any city in the U.S. that has been controlled by liberals for 30 or more years.  All you have to do is look at Detroit.  Liberals there have gotten everything they ever wanted: marriage has no meaning, abortion doesn't matter, it's okay to have sex before marriage.  And what has that gotten them.  Where is the Euphoria?

Detroit is proof that liberalism is backwoods. They have turned Detroit into a primitive world.  Rich people are frowned upon and taxed.  And what has all this gotten Detroit.  Since marriage doesn't matter, 9 in 10 children are born to single parents.  No dad is around to teach culture, and moms are too busy working. So kids do poorly in school and join gangs.

Single mothers are supported by the state, and so there is no incentive for them to do better.  Children see how their mothers lived, and they grow up to live the same.  So the cycle of poverty continues.  And it's all because liberals have gotten everything they wanted in Detroit, things they keep telling us will create a euphoric society.

So while liberals claim conservatives are "backwoods" or "backwards," the truth is that liberals are.

Further reading:

• Gallup signals the GOP: Abandon the Bitter Clingers in your Backwards Base 
• Gallup: Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues
• What is the definition of backwoods?

Speaking in platitudes

The following is a column published by Economist Donald Boundreaux in the August 12, 2014, issue of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  This one is worth publishing in its entirety.

This post is about platitudes.  To understand it better it's a good idea to have a clear understanding of what platitudes are.

According to merriam-webster.com, a platitude is a "statement that expresses an idea that is not new." Dictionary.com defines it as "a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound."

So, basically it's a statement that expresses an idea that is not new, although it's used as though it were.  Some examples of platitudes are:

• Our party is for world peace
• I just want you to be happy
• It's God's will
• Just be yourself
• You look good.
• I want to end world hunger
• I'm for helping the poor 
• I want everyone to have healthcare (who doesn't?)
• Well, here' we are (where else would we be?
• Only the good die young (then I don't want to be good)
• For a greater list of platitudes you can click here.  Or, better yet, click here. 

That said, here is our column of the day.  

Unsustainable Platitudes

Platitudes are a poor basis for policy. The reason is that, no matter how melodious they sound, platitudes are practically meaningless. People who utter platitudes often seem to be saying something meaningful when in fact they're merely stating the obvious.

A good way to test if someone is speaking in platitudes is to ask yourself if you can imagine a normal human adult believing the opposite.

Suppose someone informs you that he favors policies that promote human happiness. Can you imagine, say, your neighbor responding, “I disagree. I favor policies that promote human misery”? Probably not.

If you cannot imagine any normal person disagreeing with some proclamation, then that proclamation is a platitude. It tells you nothing of substance.

Consider today's fashionable calls for “sustainability.” The academy, media, cyberspace are full of people proclaiming support for policies that promote economic and environmental “sustainability.” So whenever you hear such proclamations, ask if you can envision a sane adult sincerely disagreeing.

You'll discover, of course, that you can't imagine anyone seriously supporting “unsustainability.” Therefore, you should conclude that mere expressions of support for “sustainability” are empty. And they can be downright harmful if they mislead people into supporting counterproductive government policies.

Substantive issues involving sustainability invoke questions that have non-obvious answers. For example: At what rate must the supply of a resource fall before we conclude that continued use of that resource is unsustainable? Fifty percent annually? Ten percent? One percent?

Because the correct answer to this question depends (among other factors) on how much humans care about the future — and because there's no good reason why we humans should care about the world as it might be many years from now as much as we care about the world as it might be a few days from now — policies and activities that will eventually result in the depletion of some resource are not necessarily unsustainable in any sense that really matters to humans today. If the appropriate human time horizon is, say, 500 years, then activities that will cause petroleum supplies to be exhausted in 550 years are “sustainable” within our relevant time horizon.

Economically sophisticated readers will respond, “Not so fast! Even if we won't completely run out of petroleum until well past the time that is relevant for human beings alive today, falling supplies of petroleum will start to raise the price of petroleum long before 500 years from now.” This claim is true — but it's a reason to worry less, not more, about “sustainability.”

A rising price of petroleum serves as a spur to sustainable practices. First, the rising price prompts consumers voluntarily to cut back on the use of petroleum. Second, this rising price creates incentives for entrepreneurs to find or create petroleum substitutes. And the steeper the price rise, the stronger are these incentives.

Nearly every resource commonly used today likely has potential substitutes — recall that newly discovered petroleum in the 19th century quickly substituted for wood, coal and whale oil. So to focus only on “sustainability” of resources commonly used today is to lose sight of the fact that these resources likely have substitutes that will become available if supplies of today's resources fall below critical levels.

Voters reject Obama's agenda: now what?

So the American people have spoken, and they have rejected the Obama agenda. The question people are asking today is: now what?  If we listen to Joe Biden, republicans must not be obstructionists and compromise with democrats in order to continue moving forward as a nation. 

So what do these terms mean.  Here I will define them, followed by a quote used by either Biden or the author of the Politico article "Joe Biden 'Ready To Compromise."

Compromise: Do it my way or else. 

Biden Quote: "Look, we're ready to compromise."

Obstructionist: Someone of the opposite party who refuses to compromise (see above)

Biden Quote:  “Going into 2016, the Republicans have to make a decision whether they’re in control or not in control. Are they going to begin to allow things to happen? Or are they going to continue to be obstructionists? And I think they’re going to choose to get things done.”

Gridlock: When lawmakers of one party refuse compromise on key issues.

Common Ground:  See compromise.

Journalist Quote:  Biden said Republicans will be particularly inclined to make legislative progress due to increasing public frustration with gridlock in Washington and he added that the White House stands ready to find common ground with the congressional GOP.

So, you see, these words are chosen carefully. Yet they were spoken by a democrat and journalist, not a member of the victorious republican party. These same people are saying this election was a defeat for incumbents.  Yet considering most republican incumbents won, this cannot be true.  

Republicans ran on only one agenda this year, and that was an anti-Obama, anti Obamacare, anti-big government agenda.  Republicans did not run on a single idea of their own.  They didn't even say what they would oppose democrats with.  They offered no alternative to Obamacare.

Yet they won and they won big.  This, in and of itself, is testament that the voter are fed up with liberalism and want something different, anything different.  They are now giving republicans that chance.

Voters did not vote for republicans to compromise with Obama to help him push forth his agenda, they voted to oppose Obama and to block his agenda.  If that means they have to be obstructionists in order to do that, then that is what they should do.

Republicans were voted into office to end Obamacare, to stop amnesty, to stop the open border policies, and to block national security policies that have allowed for the spread of terrorism. They were voted into office to stop our country from careening out of control and to stop Obama from fundamentally changing into something it was not intended to be and that few American wants.

They were voted in to create a checks on the balance of the executive branch, and to protect and defend the people from government elites who have increasingly taken away personal liberties in the process of moving forth their liberal agenda.

They voted republicans back into office to re-establish the world's lone superpower onto the national stage.  They voted for a return of American exceptionalism and optimism.  

Negative action has doomed the republican cause

Negative action is doing the opposite of what you believe in order to make people think you are not evil and wicked.  While such negative action has become popular among republican lawmakers of late, it has resulted in a poor public image of the party, inhibiting the parties ability to capitalize on an unpopular president.

Negative actions have doomed the republican party.  For example, there are christian republicans who love all people but do not support gay marriage laws.  However, some of these folks have become convinced republicans are not winning elections because they are seen as anti-gay.  To remedy this they support gay marriage laws.   In essence, they do the opposite of what they believe in order to get votes.

Most republicans are in favor of shoring up our borders in order to prevent immigrants from illegally coming into this country.  They also favor the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. They believe this is necessary to reduce the financial burden to states, and keep criminals and diseases outside our borders.  Yet since there are those who believe amnesty would secure the Spanish American vote, some republicans, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, support amnesty programs.

There are many people who believe Obama should be impeached because he has violated the Constitution with all his executive orders.  They believe this is unconstitutional on the grounds that the constitution allows this executive privilege so a president may take action in the face of emergencies when Congress is not in session.  Yet in order to not offend voters they have resisted attempts at impeachment.

The result of such negative actions is that we end up with laws the people don't want.  This should help explain why Congress is so unpopular.  It should also help explain why the checks and balance system created by the founders has not been able to stop the president from abusing his powers,

Negative actions also cause obscurations, or things that hinder people from learning the true power of what a person, or faction, can do.  When this happens, people lose the ability to see whether a politician is truly a conservative or a liberal.  A good example here is Mitt Romney, who ran for president as a conservative, but because he used negative actions to become governor of Massachusettes, many saw him as a liberal, or moderate, republican.  This might explain why conservatives were not excited about a Romney presidency.

Obscurations, therefore, create more ignorances.  The more ignorant a populace is as to the potential that could be obtained by voting for republicans, the less likely they will vote for them.  For instance, by telling the people you are for amnesty because you think people Spanish Americans would be more likely to vote republican, fewer Spanish Americans vote republican. Why would they change their vote to republican when both parties stand for the same thing?

By taking the negative action of blocking impeachment attempts you are in essence enabling ignorance on the errors of our president.  This is because, lacking impeachment, there will be no effort to educate the people as to the unconstitutional behavior of the president.  When people are not educated, they continue to remain ignorant.

By taking the negative action to not deny funding to Obama that would allow him to advance his agenda, Obama has no incentive to stop using his pen.  Lacking funds his pen would become academic, yet republicans don't want to do this because they think inaction would cause the public to hate them less.  However, the public continues to hate them due to their inaction or, more specifically, their negative action.

So, negative actions may cause obscurations that result people thinking worse about republicans, and not better. Negative action causes people to remain ignorant.  Negative action does not win people over to the cause.  Negative action does nothing more than weaken your position and draw fewer people to your side.

You see, polls show that Obama is unpopular right now.  Most people don't like Obamacare, they are upset about the way he has handled the economy, upset about how he has handled immigration reform and border security, and upset about how he has handled the Ebola crisis.  Yet republicans have not capitalized on this because they have a public relations problem that has essentially been caused by the constant use of negative actions.

Reports have it that, after the midterm elections, Obama wants to take executive action to create give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already inside this country. If republicans want to stop him they must take positive action in order to educate the public as to the worthiness of their cause.  Republicans could win on this, because, as CNN reports, 75 percent of Americans are already opposed to amnesty.

Reports have it that he wants to cut back on our nuclear stock because he thinks it will show other nations we don't mean them any harm, thus encouraging them to set down their weapons.  Yet republicans claim, and history shows, that other nations will do the opposite: they will stockpile and destroy a weakened and naive United States. This is what thug nations and terrorist factions do.  Just look at what happened in Israel for a good example.  If republicans want to stop this behavior, the only option they have is to take positive action against the President.

The lesson learned here is that republicans have a public relations problem, and it has been caused by too much negative action.  The simplest remedy for this is for republicans to simply stand up for the principles they believe in by positive actions, or actions that support the causes they believe in.