Search Archives:

Custom Search

Monday, November 27, 2006

Hate the Judiciary, Hate Democracy

I think I've said before that Cliff Kincaid's a freakin' moron. I'd go back and check, but it's so obvious that I don't think I'll bother. The sky is blue, there's more sun in the summer, and Cliff Kincaid's a freaking moron.

Some things don't need to be verified.

Take this article, titled Democracy, Washington Post-style:

The Washington Post says that democracy means that the people should be ignored and state legislatures should obey the dictates of the courts. Its October 26 lead editorial in support of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision redefining traditional marriage actually carried the sub headline: "A court's order on same-sex partnerships leaves plenty of room for democratic decisions." In other words, "democratic decisions" have to be made in the context of what is allowed by the court. This editorial makes a mockery of true democratic decision-making and is an embarrassment to the journalism profession.

By this logic, we could all vote to kill all the jews. If everyone wants the damned jews wiped out, who are the courts to stand in the way of the will of the people? Let's all vote to make Cliff Kincaid wear a wedding dress and a football helmet -- he'd look like the idiot he obviously is and there'd be absolutely nothing he could do about it. The Will of the People and all that...

Courts exist for a reason. This isn't some crazy stuff that came from nowhere -- it's a cornerstone of government spelled out in the Constitution. It's the brakes on whatever crazy idea opportunists use to get votes. When Kincaid says, "In other words, 'democratic decisions' have to be made in the context of what is allowed by the court," what he really means is that law is meaningless. The Federal Constitution and those of the states aren't valid. If everyone votes to legalize gang rape, then By God we have the right to gang rape. Law is mob rule.

Courts exist to give us something other than lynch mobs. They are the cooler heads who prevail. It's the enemies of democracy who oppose the courts, not the defenders. It's law that keeps you free.


Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; 's a freakin'


Anonymous said...

The courts no longer serve the people. Most victimless crimes "offenses" are upheld by the court, resulting in millions (over 2 million and rising) incarcerations. Not everyone is guilty of a bona-fide crime.

In the rare cases (exceedinly rare) where jury nullification is permitted, the "due process of law" is actually served.

The courts however, have no business interfering in the rights of the people, dictating who can marry whom. This is not the purview of the court.

Courst exist to uphold law, and the standard of law should not be overlooked. You totally jumped off the deep end assuming quite erroneously that the courts prevent lynch mobs and gang rapes.

It is not the business of the court to "create law" as you suppose, not at all. It is the business of the court to uphold "the law". There is huge, decided difference.

Unfortunately today, as I've already pointed out, the courts are used to create law, something that it appears you support.

Fooey on you. The only moron standing in the room is you. I have no clue who Kincaid is.

Anonymous said...

That's the point: the New Jersey courts didn't spell out who could marry whom. That's what the law attempted to do. The New Jesery courts explicitly reminded the people of New Jersey that equal but separate is still inherently unequal, and that you can't deny the right to marriage to some while allowing it for others. The court didn't make law, they struck down a bad law that tried to institutionalize discriminatory behavior.

“Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution." That was the majority opinion of the court.

If you think a court that defines equality as something that must be applied to everyone is an example of a court attempting to create law, then you are in dire need of education in the legal history of our nation.