That's Exactly the Problem with the Courts

An article from Forbes today identifies exactly the problem we have with the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

Looking "beyond the Constitution" isn't a part of Breyer's job. The Constitution is the highest law of our land, and it is the law upon which the justness of all other laws are based. It isn't within the scope, mandate or authority of judges to "make it up as they go."

In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context - not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued - because society is constantly evolving, he said.

It is true that society is constantly evolving, but human nature is not. What's more, right and wrong are not "evolving." They are transcendent and unchangeable. Something that was wrong yesterday doesn't suddenly become right today because 51% of the people say it is.

"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' - neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.

How can someone this obtuse be a judge??? The internet didn't have to be invented at the time the First Amendment was written in order to be able to apply it to the internet. That's like saying, "Well the law doesn't specifically prohibit me from killing a person named 'Arthur G. Jones,' so it it must be okay." There are principles that reasonable people can apply across a broad variety of settings. But Breyer, by his own admission, lacks the reasoning ability and discernment to do this (just one more reason why he and his ilk should be impeached for betraying their oath to protect the Constitution--something you can't do while you're subverting and ignoring it).

Here's another doozy:

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.

Where in the Constitution is the "exception clause" that says you can ignore it if ignoring it will "make things more fair?"

One last pearl of wisdom from Breyer here. In his defense of a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child, he refers to Roe v. Wade:

"The more the precedent has been around, the more people rely on it, the more secure it has to be," he said.

Secure. Secure like the precedent of NOT allowing women to kill their unborn children was BEFORE they threw that one out in the name of convenience? Like the precedence of states being able to outlaw sodomy, before they threw that one out in 2003?

The simple fact of the matter is these judges are a law unto themselves. The doctrine of precedence doesn't mean squat unless they want it to. If there is precedent they like, then we roll out the holy doctrine of stare decisis. If we DON'T like precedent, well then our society has just "evolved" beyond that.

Congress needs to do it's job and rein in this lawless bunch NOW...and the people need to do their job and hold congress accountable for doing theirs.