Thursday, April 21, 2005

"What Liberals Want..." the title of piece by Powerliner John Hinderaker discussing the insane fantasies of socialist Utopia to be created out of thin air by liberal judges and how the Left's jihad against Dubya's nominees has nothing to do with their being "extreme" and everything to do with remaking America via irrevocable judicial fiat. It just goes to show that for all their blather about democracy and empowering the people, liberals seek to rule by dictate and not democracy. The punchline of the article is...

The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections. And how will the Constitution be changed? Through a constitutional convention, or a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures? Of course not. The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation. It only awaits, perhaps, the election of the next Democratic president.

IF THE IDEA OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to government-funded child care, "adequate" recreation, and $80,000 in cash seems outlandish, remember that these concepts are no more eccentric than the idea of a right to abortion was, prior to Roe v. Wade. As a law school exercise in 1972, my class was charged with trying to formulate an argument for a constitutional right to abortion. We were stumped. None of us could think of one. A few months later, the "right" to abortion was born.

So Republicans are right to put top priority on the president's ability to get a vote on his judicial nominations. Liberal interest groups have flatly declared their intention to filibuster any nominee to the Supreme Court whom they regard as conservative. The stakes couldn't be higher.

The reference to "$80,000 in cash" comes from a proposal that "Economic citizenship--stakeholder society in which every young adult gets a form of citizenship inheritance of $80,000, funded by a wealth tax . . ." That's right, the rich will be raped and kids will be handed enough money to buy a Porsche. If you saw the "Chappelle's Show" skit about what happens when blacks all get a billion dollars each for slavery reparations, you have a hint as to how ridiculous this idea is.

But it could happen. Scary. =O

No comments: