Connect with us

Opinions

Why Do We Have Judges?

Published

on

With the Democrats in full scream over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it’s worthwhile to consider just why we have courts and judges.

The earliest record of judges is in the story of the Exodus. Moses, the prophet and leader of Israel, “judged between a man and his neighbor, and made known the statutes of God and His laws.” (Exod 18:16 NAS) He was overworked, since there were many disputes. At the urging of his father-in-law, Moses appointed “able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain” (Exod 18:21 NAS) as judges for these minor disputes.

These judges applied God’s laws to the disputes brought to them. This required absolute loyalty to the law and the truth (they “feared God”). They were also supposed to avoid accepting bribes. In short, they were the model of what we should expect a judge to be.

It took a long time to get from Moses to modern courts and judges. Our current system started under Henry VIII in 1178, when the king appointed five members of his household to “hear complaints and do right.” Over time, judges became more educated, and laws enacted by Parliament became a firm standard for their decisions. Even the King was bound by the law.

In the 17th century, it became clear that it was necessary to forcibly separate the functions of making law, executing law, and adjudicating disputes under the law. If the King was able to make law by decree, carry out laws he decreed, and remove judges at will, the King was the law. He could rule with a pen and a phone.

The three independent functions of government became our American separation of powers doctrine. Congress writes the laws, the President makes sure that the laws are “faithfully executed,” and the Courts apply the laws to disputes. Within that structure, we added one key element: the Constitution.

The Constitution is our highest law, and is the standard by which all other laws must be measured. A law contrary to any part of the Constitution is unconstitutional, and can properly be ignored. The question is, “By what standard do we assess constitutionality?”

The Left pushes a theory called “the living Constitution.” That is, the Constitution is subject to change as society changes, without any need for the inconvenience of going through the amendment process. As the late Justice Brennan said, judges must “give meaning” to the Constitution, implying that it has no meaning until the Court declares it. The appeal of this view is that it responds to political pressure. It turns the Courts into what the Wall Street Journal calls the Left’s “preferred legislature.”

The Right prefers an approach that is variously called “originalism” or “textualism.” That is, the Constitution is a document that had a very specific meaning when it was adopted. If we wish to apply it properly, we must understand what its text meant to the Framers. If we wish to change it, we must go through the difficult process of amending it.

That tedious process makes amending the Constitution really hard. Six amendments that were submitted to the states, including one still pending from 1789, haven’t made it. Even with a great popular push, the Equal Rights Amendment didn’t make it. This difficulty stands directly in the path to fundamentally transforming America the way the Left wants to do. So they love it when judges adopt legal theories that let them ignore the original understanding of the law. And that brings us to our next question.

What is “the Law?” Conceptually, the law is a set of principles and statutes that allow us to have an orderly society. In short, if you act in a proper manner, your actions will be lawful. But to know what is proper, you must have public standards of behavior that do not change from day to day. The easiest way for this to happen is to have recorded laws. These are specific, written documents that describe what is and is not acceptable. Short of such statutes, all of us look to what “The Average Reasonable Person” might do. Common law embodies this TARP standard, which often makes its way into written statutes.

All of us depend on the fundamental premise that law is reliably fixed. It doesn’t change when the wind blows. It isn’t necessary to bring policy preferences to the process the way a “wise Latina” might. The text of the law tells us how to (not) behave. Questions only come when the text is unclear.

Suppose that the law is whatever a particular judge decides it is. If I’m called before a racist judge because my trash talking on the basketball court offended someone, I might expect to experience harsh penalties. If the judge is a conciliator, he might take the two of us out to lunch and expect us to “get over it.” How should I know how to behave?

But if I’m taken before a judge who reads the law carefully, I’ll receive whatever treatment the law regards as just. Thus, when Congress passed mandatory sentences for crack cocaine possession that were ten times those for powder cocaine, judges who hated the law found themselves imposing the harsh sentences on lots of young black men. No “wise Latina” could get around the plain text of the statute.

The remedy for this inequity in cocaine sentencing could not properly come from the bench. Our separation of powers does not allow a judge to rewrite the law. No executive with “a pen and a phone” can do it, either. Only the legislature has the power to change laws.

How does a judge determine what a law means? The first step is to read the text. Most of the time, that’s all that’s needed. But what if the language is unclear? The President may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Does this term of art mean that the President must have committed an indictable offense under criminal law? President Clinton perjured himself. That was indictable and impeachable. But is Tweeting personal insults impeachable? Alan Dershowitz argues that it is not. Even researching what the Framers thought leaves us with questions.

Most laws aren’t that big a problem. But administrative law-making is a real problem. Congress has become fond of passing vague laws that will say “XYZ agency shall implement this by regulation.” And XYZ agency goes to town. Since 1984 (George Orwell, can you hear us?) the Supreme Court has let them expand their powers through a doctrine called “Chevron Deference” (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984)). The Supreme Court declared that if an agency was not unreasonable in its interpretations of a statute, its rulings should be accepted by the Courts.

As Judge Cavanaugh notes, Chevron encourages agencies “to be extremely aggressive in seeking to squeeze its policy goals into ill-fitting statutory authorizations and restraints.” “Chevron is nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.” Administrative agencies have used it to make rules that stretch the law to the breaking point. A classic is the “Waters of the USA” rule, where a farmer who cleared brush out of a ditch was fined for “destroying wetlands.” But the statute only addresses “navigable waters.” The EPA had become a super-legislature, an unaccountable fourth branch of government that cannot be found in the Constitution.

Should the farmer have expected that his fully reasonable act of maintaining his farm would be illegal? Of course not. But when the Courts accept interpretations that fall outside the text and meaning of the law as enacted, the rule of law vanishes. Policy preferences now create “law” that no one can know and punishes even the most law-abiding.

But this is exactly what the Left demands. They have been unable to get their policy preferences translated into law. So they demand that they be allowed to transform the law to match their policy preferences. Yet at the same time, they demand that a judge be bound firmly by stare decisis.

This Latin phrase means “let the decision stand.” It says that once a question has been decided by the Courts, that decision should govern how we understand the law. The Left demands that stare decisis is crucial to a judge. And why should we argue? Stare decisis creates a stable understanding of the law so an ordinary person can know how to act. But the Left only wants stare decisis in certain areas.

Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct. No judge should ever, ever, ever consider overturning it. But where in the Constitution do we find Roe’s “right to privacy?” It’s not there. And how does a “right to privacy” excuse the destruction of unborn life? Those are real questions that aren’t answered in Roe.

But what about Dred Scott, which protected slavery, or Korematsu which legalized FDR’s imprisonment of US citizens of Japanese heritage? Those decisions were stare decesis and overturned, with nary a peep from the Left. But when Janus overturned Abood, the Left went into full cry. Why? Janus took away money that unions could use to support Democrats.

Let’s put this in simple, declarative language. The Left supports a stable set of laws when it suits their policy purposes. Stare decesis is wonderful when it protects a Leftist legal standard. But when the clear text and meaning of the Constitution won’t let them do what they want, suddenly we have to have a “living Constitution.”

Americans must have a set of laws they can understand. Those laws cannot change because some bureaucrat or judge wants a different outcome. There is a prescribed way for laws to be changed. Laws must be rewritten by Congress or the Constitution amended by the States. There is no other way for ordinary citizens to be able to obey the law.

It is crucial for judges to protect the law as written. Anything else leads to the destruction of civil order and ultimately destroys America. No judges should be allowed near any court if they do not faithfully apply the text of the law to the questions before them. Fortunately, Judge Cavanaugh has shown himself to be fully committed to the law. He deserves our support.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Donald Trump and Ivanka introduce Common Core for college

Published

on

Donald Trump and Ivanka introduce Common Core for college

Using the high cost of a college education as cover, Donald Trump and senior advisor/daughter Ivanka released the Proposals to Reform the Higher Education Act. As is always the case whenever Washington uses the word “reform,” the result will be bigger government, more spending, and less liberty.

“We need to modernize our higher education system to make it affordable, flexible, and more outcome oriented so that all Americans, young and old, can learn the skills they need to secure and retain good-paying jobs,” Ivanka stated in a call with reporters.

Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Did you notice the absence of words like “personal accountability” and “free markets” and the use the pronoun “we” to describe the federal government? Nancy Pelosi would be so proud.

In reality, Daddy’s little girl is promoting the equivalent of Common Core for colleges where government money will only be doled out to those who “make the grade” — pardon the pun — as established by the government.

It makes sense when you think about it. Common Core fails to prepare students for college, and college fails to prepare students for the real world. Merging the two was inevitable.

In his overview of the proposal, Trump bragged about how he has “reversed regulatory initiatives that increased the cost of college, fueled skyrocketing student debt levels, and hampered innovation.” Ironic because he concluded by renewing his commitment to reform higher education “through legislation and regulatory reform.”

While including a mixed bag of good/bad principles, every “problem” came with a several big-government solutions.

“Congress should expand… Congress should reform… Congress should require…”

A few of the most troubling suggestions are: focusing on “student outcomes,” increasing “institutional accountability,” supporting “returning citizens,” and simplifying “student aid.”

While harmless-sounding on the surface, “student outcomes” and “institutional accountability” are buzzwords right out of the Common Core playbook.

Supporting “returning citizens,” aka criminals released from prison, sounds great. How else will the drug traffickers and gun felons released early from prison, thanks to Ivanka’s and Van Jones’ prisoner reform legislation, go to college?

Simplifying “student aid” sounds like a good idea until you get to the part where Trump proposes the expansion of student loan forgiveness. I guess borrowing money you never have repay is pretty simple. And as a man with numerous bankruptcies to his credit, it’s no surprise that he supports defacto bankruptcy on school loans.

Never having to repay taxpayer-funded student loans has always been a key part of Ivanka’s agenda. In Sept. 2018, she supported a bill proposed by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) that would allow companies to cover student-loan payments as a tax-free benefit, the same way they are allowed to pay for college tuition reimbursement or for health insurance.

You may be thinking, “Doesn’t that mean the loan gets paid?” Yes and no. The loan is repaid, but as a tax-free benefit the employee pays no taxes on the money and the employer is able to reduce compensation costs. In the end, the cost of the student loan is shifted to the taxpayer.

Neal McCluskey, director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom blames the high cost of college on government handouts and tax breaks. And he believes that creating more giveaway programs will only make the situation worse.

In response to Davis’ bill, McCluskey stated that the government should get out of the education-financing business. “The root problem in American higher education is government subsidies, especially to students in the forms of federal grants, loans, and tax credits,” McCluskey said. “They enable colleges to raise their prices, often at rates well in excess of inflation, and students to demand lots of things that have little, if anything, to do with learning.”

McCluskey is right, but I have a feeling that Ivanka is about to chalk up another victory for her socialist feminist agenda by working “across the aisle” to make Common Core for college a reality … with Daddy’s blessing.

Free college at government taxpayer expense is in Bernie Sanders’ platform, but it looks like Trump will beat him to it.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Opinions

Simply speaking the names of countries notorious of human rights violations is taboo to the U.N. Human Rights Council

Published

on

Simply speaking the names of countries notorious of human rights violations is taboo to the UN Human

The United Nations is a joke. They are an anti-Israel organization that gives an effective pass to any nation that commits human rights violations other than Israel. Even the simple act of listing the names of nations that participated in condemning Israel while having their own blatant human rights deficiencies is too much for the United Nations Human Rights Council. They shut down the listing of names almost immediately.

Nobody believes the nation of Israel is innocent, but the weight given to denouncing their actions versus the combined weight given to every other nation is the world is lopsided. Of the 27 resolutions passed by the United Nations against an individual nation in 2018, 21 of them were against Israel.

This video is a clear example of the deafening silence forced upon anyone who speaks against the actions of nations other than Israel. It is unquestionable. Only a true antisemite can not witness this without noticing the bias.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Turkish President Erdoğan says Christchurch was not an individual act but rather an organized part of a wider attack on Turkey

Published

on

Turkish President Erdoğan says Christchurch was not an individual act but rather an organized part of a wider attack on Turkey

See also previous NOQ Report articles:

Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud, needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

Was Christchurch a lone gunman or a conspiracy?

Today Radio New Zealand published an article entitled, “Erdoğan says attackers targeting Turkey will go home ‘in caskets’“.

Following are pertinent excerpts:

“President Tayyip Erdoğan on Monday described a mass shooting which killed 50 people at two New Zealand mosques as part of a wider attack on Turkey and threatened to send back ‘in caskets’ anyone who tried to take the battle to Istanbul.”

“‘They are testing us from 16,500km away, from New Zealand, with the messages they are giving from there. This isn’t an individual act, this is organised,’ he said.”

The Turkish tyrant, in reference to the “1915 Gallipoli campaign, when Ottoman soldiers defeated British-led forces including Australian and New Zealand troops trying to seize the peninsula, a gateway to Istanbul,” told today’s citizens of New Zealand and Australia: “Your grandparents came here … and they returned in caskets.”

“He has said the gunman issued threats against Turkey and the president, and wanted to drive Turks from Turkey’s northwestern, European region.”

“‘You will not turn Istanbul into Constantinople,’ he added, referring to the city’s name under its Christian Byzantine rulers before it was conquered by Muslim Ottomans in 1453.”

The RNZ article confirms that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was in Christchurch and visited Turkish citizens wounded in the attack.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is no friend of New Zealand, Australia or the United States of America. As former Prime Minister and current President of Turkey, he has transformed his NATO-member country from a staunch ally into an ideological, political and military adversary of western nations, Israel and Christians throughout the Middle East.

Erdoğan’s delusions of grandeur revolve around restoring the Ottoman Empire as a new Islamic Caliphate and enthroning himself as new Caliph. That is the only reason he ever opposed ISIS as it was a competitor for control of the Sunni Dar ul-Islam.

The Christchurch gunman is obviously a very conflicted man with many competing concepts and objectives. We will not reward his evil bloodshed by recognizing him by name here.

The perpetrator could have been manipulated by those with motives different from his own. That’s why the report about the suspicions of Turkish intelligence is so significant.

See previous RNZ article:

Turkish intelligence investigating Christchurch accused – report

There are factions in Turkey who oppose Erdoğan for reasons of their own, altruism not being among them. Consider a young uneducated Aussie traveling throughout the world seeking to define himself and to find a cause to champion.

In Turkey and the Balkans, he learns about the Ottoman Empire and the assault of Islam on Europe centuries ago. He comes in contact with elements in Turkey that see a conduit through which they can accomplish their own different objectives.

The young fellow from Grafton, New South Wales believes an armed assault on Muslims during Friday prayers in a city named Christchurch across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand will further his own concepts of white supremacy and that it will suppress Muslim immigration. But elements in Turkey see this as a way to instantly change the narrative and remove the focus on Islamic Jihad as a world threat, substituting a mad rush of useful idiots in western governments to come to the aid of Muslim victims of religious bigotry.

Today, a 37-year-old Turkish male killed three and wounded five on a tram in Utrecht, Netherlands. Europe is under siege. Alas, this is far more common in the world than the anomaly in Christchurch! But politicians will continue to beat their breasts and say we ♡ diversity. Diversity and open borders are who we are. Welcoming the unvetted world is our raison d’être.

We’ll conclude today with an urgent reminder:

There is reason for New Zealand authorities to put your political correctness aside and mount serious international investigations of the Christchurch gunman’s potential handlers in Turkey. Censorship and gun grabs in NZ will not keep you safe if this was orchestrated abroad.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report