The Ignorance Of Liberal Judges

By: Guest Authors

By: Brooks A. Mick, MD

With the probable appointment of liberal activist judges by President Obama, it is worth noting what such judges think about the Constitution.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens just this past summer uttered one of the most stupefyingly ignorant statements ever made by a Supreme Court justice.

“In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”"

If he doesn’t believe the Framers wrote the Constitution to limit the tools available to elected officials, precisely what would be his explanation for their writing the Constitution? It was precisely to limit all branches of government–the executive, the legislative, and even the judiciary–that the Constitution was written. And Justice Stevens might note that there was no expiration date stamped on the bottom of the Constitution nor any of its Amendments. There is no sunset provision on the Constitution. The Framers did indeed mean its limitations upon the powers of government to last as long as the country existed.

As Benjamin Franklin replied when he was asked what the Framers had wrought in the hall in Philadelphia, “We have given them a republic–if they can keep it.”

Justice Stevens quite clearly has no grasp of a nation under the rule of law. He believes, it is clear, that this is just a nation ruled by the whim of the moment, the latest political fad–mob rule, in other words. Moral relativism, it would seem, but a moral relativism with himself as the chief potentate, able to make decisions which negate the legislature, which negate the executive, and which even negate the Constitution.

What part of “…shall not be infringed” doesn’t Justice Stevens understand?

Applying the Stevens Doctrine to the churches, one might expect him to ask “Do the preachers really believe that Moses wrote the Ten Commandments thousands of years ago expecting that they would apply to human behavior today?”



There is that little “amendment process” that must be satisfied if we are to change it. The US Supreme Court may not change the Constitution on a whim. It SHOULD not change the Constitution anyway.

Well, given its Boumedienne Decision re the Guantanamo prisoners, I suppose it can change the Constitution if it can gin up a majority of ignorant and arrogant liberal justices. I am sure the Framers would go into cardiac arrest from the shock, wondering where the Supreme Court got the idea it could rewrite the Constitution by its own initiative. If only we could resuscitate the Framers and allow them to pound some sense into the heads of the Whim Du Jour jurists on the court, the Malleable Law folks, those who believe in the Constitution as a “living, breathing document,” perhaps we could stop the liberals from doing their wanton dancing on the bodies of the Framers. Nine Dudes Dancing on Dead Men’s Chests. Judicial pirates, plundering the Ship of State. My metaphor mixer is set to “puree.”

We need another strict constructionist or two on the court if we are to have a chance to save the country. Fat chance with a President Obama.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.