Philosophy For A Judge

By Charles Krauthammer - Friday, July 8, 2005 - Washington Post

Unlike a principled conservative such as Antonin Scalia, or a principled liberal such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, O'Connor had no stable ideas about constitutional interpretation. Her idea of jurisprudence was to decide whether legislation produced social "systems" that either worked or did not.

But that, of course, is the job of the elected branches of government.

And that of course is the problem with our court and it's justices. They are eager to subvert representative democracy and force their view of what law should be onto a populace they apparently hold in contempt. They appear equally contemptuous of the elected officials of our nation. An appropriate response is to hold them in contempt.

Restoring appropriate balance within our system of government is a critical necessity. Judges are rapidly destroying respect for the "rule of law", by making the "rule of judges" the subversion of any law they do not agree with. They simply make up some perverted logic to defend their rulings relying on whatver passes for logic to them. If they can't find logic in some former ruling that professes to be an "interpretation" of our Constitution, they simply throw out the Constitution and rule based on a "global consensus" that only they can see.

We are not idiots. Their rulings are clearly a joke. If they are going to be politicians, they should resign and run for public office. Until then, we must persuade the legislatures to impeach them.