The Unrepentant Individual

...just hanging around until Dec 21, 2012


May 31, 2005


Hypocritical Elephants

As I was driving to Indiana this weekend, I tuned into AM 700 out of Cincinnati to listen to my Reds beat Pittsburgh (wonder of wonders). While I was entertained by the game, I nearly swerved off I-70 while listening to a radio spot for the upcoming election in Ohio’s 2nd district for the US House. The hypocrisy of this ad was too much for me not bring up in a short rant.

It seems one of the Republicans running for the position wanted us to know he was a good family man, and would say no to the evil democrats who are ruining America from Washington. He went on to mention that the Democrats in Washington continue to tell us how to live our lives (yes they try to), they raise our taxes (or certainly would if they held a majority), they spend our money (amen brother), and try to make us live with their “definition” of marriage (WHAT?).

Now I will be the first to admit that I don’t read the paper every single day. And there are times that I will read about a story that is clearly a week or so in the making and wonder why it is the first time I’ve heard about it. But I have never heard of a Democrat trying to enact a law that defines marriage. I have however read a lot about a law defining marriage being written by REPUBLICANS. Apparently this candidate doesn’t so much have a problem with the fact that the Democrats are trying to tell us how to live our lives, but that they are trying to tell us how to live our lives in a way different from the way HE wants to tell us how to live our lives. Follow me?

It isn’t limited to the gay marriage “crisis” either. All I hear lately is that liberal activist judges are going too far in their rulings and must be stopped. Well, as it turns out, Republicans like activist judges as well, they just prefer them being activist in opposing directions. Why isn’t the mainstream media calling them on this?

Posted By: JimmyJ @ 2:26 pm || Permalink || Comments (8) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized

8 Comments

  1. Exactually where do you fit into this Jimmy?

    Comment by Lucy Stern — May 31, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
  2. I’m not sure I understand the question, Lucy, where do I fit into what? Hypocracy, political spectrum, the gay marriage debate?

    Comment by JimmyJ — May 31, 2005 @ 8:05 pm
  3. Jim,
    The mainstream media realizes that the whole of the liberal, New Deal, democratic socialist framework relies on liberal judicial activism. If they come out against conservative judicial activism, they themselves will be seen as hypocrites. But more importantly, it might draw attention to judicial activism in general, which threatens that framework.

    It’s easier for them to brush it under the rug than bring something to light that threatens their own position, even if can score political points in the short term.

    My biggest fear about Bush’s judicial nominees is that too many of them will simply be conservative judicial activists, and not strict constructionists, which is what we could really use these days.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 31, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
  4. Folks,
    Sorry to inform you all of this, but I deleted the last three comments. The reason for this was published a while back. See the Hard Rule.

    Sorry for the inconvenience. And sorry to Jim, Lucy, and Mike, who had left comments. Nothing personal intended.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 1, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
  5. Brad, I didn’t know about your “hard rule” but at least you know how I feel about it now, so I promise not to bring it up again on your blog. Like you side in “why you like to blog” maybe a person can see a little of the other side thru discussion. I certainly don’t think I know all the answers, and I reapect your opinion soooo…sorry I violated your hard rule.

    Comment by Lucy Stern — June 1, 2005 @ 12:40 pm
  6. Alright, I’ll rewrite my last response in a way hopefully respectful of the rules, as my last response led us into, well…you know.

    My point was simply that there are Republicans who are ready to scream foul everytime a “liberal activist” judge uses personal opinions to rule on something like the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. While it is likely that these same conservatives would happily applaud a judge who in the future may (AS AN EXAMPLE) uphold the Defense of Marriage Act even when it may violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

    Comment by JimmyJ — June 1, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
  7. Much better, Jim…

    And I’m inclined to agree. Republican hypocrisy re: small government and individual rights is what pulled me toward libertarianism in the first place.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 1, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
  8. FWIW, that Molly Ivans article doesn’t explain why any of the opinions were judicial activism. She complains about ruling on contributor’s cases, but in states with elected judges, that is just the way things are. Companies contribute to all judges, as do most law firms. Thus, it is common to have all the parties in front of a judge, and their attorneys, who have contributed that that judge’s election campaign.

    Overall, judicial activism from the right is usually pretty benign. It results in not striking unconstitutional laws, not making new law. The whole marriage redifinition by the Courts is activism — pure and simple. The ONLY reason people started worrying about defense of marriage acts and constitutional amendments in marriage definitions is b/c the people the Courts were about to go against the will of the people on this subject. I don’t care about civil unions (I don’t think a “same sex marriage” even exists b/c you would have to change the definition of marriage – opposite gender is buit into the definition) politically. I do care about the Courts, and not my legislature, making the law on the subject.

    Also, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It reads:

    Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    That is, “Congress may prescribe the effect thereof.” This is generally accepted to mean that Congress can also make exceptions. Also, the Courts have long held that public strong public policy can overcome the FF&CC, which has included marriage. For example, in Alabama, a marriage between an adult and a 14 year old is valid. In Georgia, the age of consent for marriage is 16. Georgia refuses to recognize Alabama marriages of 14 years olds. The House of Prayer, a now infamous child abuse church in Atlanta, takes 14 year old girls to Alabama to marry. Georgia does not recognize those. That policy will not be undone by the FF&CC.

    I hardly ever link myself in comments, but my full opinion can be found here: http://nogovernmentcheese.blogspot.com/2005/05/left-view-of-judicial-debate-off-base.html

    I will excert the most applicable part:

    It is not good for a conservative justice to not uphold the constitution and strike an unconstitutional law. The power of the Federal and, to a lesser extent, the state governments, were intended to be limited by the specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But when abuse comes from the legislative brach, we have remedies even if the Courts fail us. We do not, today, have remedies from the Courts (though the power of the Executive and Legislative branches to ignore a Court decision exists — with the political will to do so).

    The risks to our government are much greater with the leftist judge. No matter how conservative a judge reads the “establishment clause,” the judge will not “require” a school to have school prayer or lead Bible classes. No matter how conservative a judge is, he or she will not force a state to ban abortion. The conservative judge is simply going to leave these issues up to the legislature. That may result in a good or a bad law — even an arguably unconstitutional law. But the people still have a remedy to change the law. The public policy preferences of the Bible thumping theocratic judge only become law if the legislature passes the law. The judge is otherwise impotent to make it happen, and his only sin would be to not strike the law down.

    The leftist judge, however, takes over the legislative process. The issue is removed from public debate, the legislature is powerless to act in what should be a broad range of public policy preferences, and legitimacy to the activist’s new discovery of law is lacking.

    Comment by KJ — June 1, 2005 @ 7:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.