Supreme Court Justices – The Last Completely Opinionless People On Earth

The recent Sotomayor Senate hearings  attempted to propagate a lie that is as old as government justice itself. The lie is that judges are a unique breed of mammal that hold no opinions. They hear a compilation of facts, then dispassionately grab a dusty tome of statutes off of the shelf and slavishly apply those statutes to the facts. And what comes out of the hopper is justice.

Now, here on earth, nobody believes that particular lie. For the most part, people believe different lies. There’s the one in which Justice Antonin Scalia is a constitutional originalist, watchdog of truth and justice, protecting you from those heinous “living Constitution” pretenders. And there’s the one that says that the “liberal” wing of the court cares more about the little people.

And then there are the unabridged, irrefutable truths that we are never told:

There are no originalists on the court. How could there be, when not one of the justices is consistent at all, much less consistently heeding the lessons of the country’s founders.

And the “liberals” do not care more about you unless you want an abortion or don’t mind that your stalker is a lot bigger and stronger than poor little defenseless you. Or more likely,  you don’t mind that some person in another zip code’s stalker is a lot bigger and stronger than poor little him or her.

Future Justice Sotomayor, as I’ve noted in previous posts, is rabidly in favor of rendering you defenseless. No surprise there. The president who nominated her is the same way, as are nearly all politicians of both major parties, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It is part of her DNA. The essence of who she is starts with a tungsten-like, indestructible core built on trust in government and distrust of you to protect yourself.

So, how does that translate to the U.S. Senate hearing room? Well, when asked if a fundamental right to self-defense exists, Ms. Sotomayor wouldn’t answer. Why? Because that’s a general question and she needed the facts of a particular case so she could apply the law to those facts. See? She’s a legal blank slate, slavishly devoted to applying law to fact. Law one, fact one. Knit two, pearl two. But with that answer, she is merely attempting to propagate the big lie that none of us really believes. She made her opinion known on the matter years ago, back when she was a law student. Back before the recent selective lobotomy that removed her brain’s opinion center.

There are lots of laws, many of them in conflict with each other. There are questions of jurisdiction and standing. Lots of questions. And there are the ever popular “cases of first impression.”  That’s the gambit in which judges just make stuff up. And there is no court in the land where it’s more possible to just make stuff up than the Supreme Court. No other court can overrule them. And they are there for life, or longer if you consider that the stuff they make up is then used as precedent by future courts looking to make up even more stuff while looking like they’re not.

Allow me to give you a concrete example that proves what we all know: That supreme court justices all come to the court with firm belief systems, which color all of their opinions, no matter what they swear to during their confirmation hearings. I mentioned Justice Antonin Scalia earlier. He wrote the Heller v D.C opinion that held the right to own a gun is an individual right. And if he’d stopped there, all would have been right with the world. That is surely the “originalist” opinion we were hoping for. But solidly stamping his previously held, overriding belief in government authority over your fundamental individual rights, he went on to enumerate a list, although not an all inclusive list, of instances in which governments can abridge that right. Turns out, SURPRISE, that he trusts you to protect yourself exactly as much as Ms. Sotomayor, and all of her future brethren and sistren. And his basis for abridging your rights is . . . . . feelings, nothing more than feelings. In fact, maybe you can enlighten me. What is the definition of an “activist judge?” Exactly.

See? He never had his brain wiped by that “flashy thingy” the Men In Black use to render people memory free. He never had that “previously held opinionectomy” so many justices swear they’ve had under oath before the senate. He spliced one sentence of originalism together with a lifelong belief in the state as all that is good and holy. They are your protector. Not exactly originalist or even very original. Even the – GASP! – lefties on the court would agree with Mr. Scalia’s governmentalist tendencies as noted in the ensuing sentences.

So, let’s not hear of these mythical judicial cyborgs, who apply the facts to the law, rinse and repeat. These judicial creatures are unicorns who live in Neverland. They are Santa Claus – not the real one, but the fake department store ones. They are justices from an alternate universe. The one I wish we all lived in. Until next time.

Published in: on July 21, 2009 at 1:42 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: