Judge Porteous Should Just be the Beginning
By: Craig Chamberlain
Judge Thomas Porteous, a federal judge from Louisiana, appointed to the bench by President Clinton, was unanimously impeached by the House of Representatives earlier this year, and was unanimously convicted by the Senate on December 8th, 2010, removing him from the federal bench. He becomes only the eighth federal judge to be removed from the bench in the history of our country. Let’s hope that he is not the last.
The federal judiciary is in need of a cleansing. The founders of our republic never intended for the unelected, lifetime tenured, judges to have the power that they currently have. The proper job of a federal judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law. However, over the last 80 years, the judiciary has taken it upon itself to act as an unelected congress and decree from the bench the laws that they think our nation should have. They ignore statute and constitution in the pursuit of their agenda, which is big government, and the redefining of traditional American culture.
We’ve seen this going back the the presidency of FDR there the court started its crusade to remake America if they were unable to do so at the ballot box. They grossly expanded the powers of the commerce clause, declaring that the government has the right to regulate any interstate activity even if it is not inherently commercial, and they have the right to regulate commercial activity that is not interstate. They can even regulate people growing food on their own property, even if the food is for their own consumption, and will never be sold. Then there is the cultural crusade which is an unending war against Christianity, and the family. In the 1960′s the Supreme Court, with no constitutional or statutory backing, banished religion from the public square. Why? Because the court’s sympathies lied with the American Atheists, a shrill, thin skinned, group who believes that no one should have the right to exercise their beliefs in public except them. Now it’s illegal to put up a Christmas tree, or a nativity scene, but it’s ok for atheists to put up signs in state capitol buildings(they did this in Washington state) declaring that there is no God, and invited people to ditch religion, and embrace “reason”(their reason is never that reasonable. They cling more to their articles of faith than the most fundamentalist Christians I know)
Then there was abortion. The infamous Roe V. Wade decision did not make abortion legal as so many people think. Abortion activists would have the American people think that prior to the judicial proclamation that all abortions were illegal, and inherently life threatening. What Roe really did was nationalize abortion laws. Taking restrictions and regulations from the state, and declaring that any restriction to an abortion, for any reason, was a violation of a woman’s rights. Once again there was no federal law for them to interpret, there was no constitutional right to an abortion so they just made one up. Why? Because their personal sympathies were with the abortionists. Rather than see if congress could pass a abortion law that would pass constitutional muster, they simply made their decree from the bench, and let the holocaust begin.
Now we come to gay marriage. Is there any article, section, or amendment to the constitution that allows for homosexuals to get married? The short answer is no. Once again, this is an invented “right” by leftist judges because their personal beliefs are such that marriage is an entirely civil arrangement, and any exclusionary practices on marriage are entirely motivated by bigotry towards people who don’t conform to the norms of society, rather than a desire to defend an essential rite of society from an unending assault that would reduce it to nothing. Of course this is what the oligarchs want, marriage should mean nothing, family should be entirely subjective in its definition, and to expose children to Christian beliefs is- in their minds- nothing short of child abuse.
The State of Iowa made a big move in clearing up its judicial mess. You may remember that the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled, by a 7-0 vote, that gay marriage was legal. The Iowa voters rightly responded by voting out the three judges who were up for a vote. Unfortunately, the federal judiciary is beyond the reach of the voters. But it is not beyond the reach of Congress. The federal government needs to be put back into its proper role, it needs it in relation to the states, but also in relation with itself. Congress has given up much of its powers and responsibilities to the executive branch, and the judiciary. This was partly due to cowardice, they would rather have the President or an unelected federal judge take the blame for something controversial, and partly due to laziness. It just makes their jobs easier to let someone else have the final say.
Now, let me be clear, I am not advocating Congressional control of the federal judiciary. An independent judiciary is a hallmark of a free society and shouldn’t be tampered with. But putting the judiciary back into its proper constitutional place is not an attack on the judiciaries independence, but a reassertion of it. If there truly is an unconstitutional law then it is necessary for the courts to step in, but the cases in which they should have jurisdiction should be few and narrowly defined. It’s not their responsibility, or right, to change a law or make a law. Only to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. If a law passes muster then leave it alone, if it doesn’t strike it down and let the legislative branch start over again. They have no right to strike down a perfectly legal law, and then declare something new in its place so they can by pass the lawmakers and the voters.
What needs to happen is that judges need to be held responsible for the actions, both in and out of court. Judge Porteous took money from parties in his cases and disgraced his office. For that he was rightly removed from the bench. But many more judges disgrace their offices by the half brained decisions they issue contrary to law or constitution without ever falling into corruption. There must be consequences for attacking the constitution to advance your personal agenda, that is not why the federal judiciary exists. If we impeach judges for activism( and we should) then we should impeach Judge Vaughn Walker. In his decision for the prop. 8 case, he completely ignored the law, the state supreme court ruling, and the voters of California to impose his own personal vision on the country. He did this for no other reason than he is a homosexual himself, and feels that the traditional idea of marriage is outdated and bigoted, so he simply made a new law from the bench.
The new incoming GOP House of Representatives should impeach him once they take office. This type of Judicial rule is harmful to the country, the constitution, and the judiciary itself, by taking them out of their constitutionally mandated roles. Perhaps the federal judges would be better behaved if more than eight judges had been kicked off the bench.