Rightank

In a recent article in Slate, Fred Kaplan offers up weak and impoverished arguments against the Senate’s approval of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Here are Kaplan’s arguments and my comments:

Kaplan et al. are feverishly mad at Bolton’s nomination because he possesses a strong, no-nonsense character. Bolton is a nationalist and that bodes well for the United States. Hopefully, the Bolton vote in the Senate will not become another prize of the Democrats filibuster trophy collection.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed the America Society of International Law on April Fool’s Day (how coincidental). Not only does she take an off-hand, feminist swipe at the Jefferson’s use of language in the Declaration of Independence, her premise or as she states “her position” doesn’t make a lick of sense–unless you believe the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the land.

Ginsburg’s “position”:

If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so [sic] we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.

Ginsburg appears to argue that if other countries can learn from our system of judicial review (which was imposed by judicial fiat, not the Constitution) then we also can learn from other countries about human rights–not because they interpret our Constitution or statutory law–but because they interpret a radical gaggle of international treaties or charters that seek to protect “human rights.” Ginburg’s method of legal interpretation is frightening because there is no stopping point in looking to the decisions made by other countries and international tribunals. Ginburg could reasonably say (1) Our Constitution protects in its fundamental abstract “human rights” (a penumbral right like the “right to privacy” used to force abortion on America) and (2) International law is applicable to each and every Amendment and Article of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, there is absolutely no discretionary line at which country, tribunal, or “human rights” charter Ginburg (and her complict collegues on the Supreme Court) could look to in deciding the cases there are constitutionally empowered to decide. Let’s see Justice Ginsburg, shall we look to Iran first or perhaps the gulags of North Korea . . .?

Throughout her speech, Justice Ginsburg disguises the Supreme Court’s reliance on foreign law as mere consultation or an auspicious glance at trends of other nation-states. Granted, you can look at the international stuff all you want, but you can’t use it to substantively support any legal analysis of the Constitution or statutory law. The Constitution is what it is–a body of law by which our nation’s citizens (including the federal government) are to be governed. Anything outside the Constitution or laws passed by Congress (who receives the authority to legislate by the Constitution) is not legally binding upon the American polity.

More Ginsburg:

The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U. S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification. I am not a partisan of that view. U. S. jurists honor the Framers’ intent “to create a more perfect Union,” I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings.

For those of us who support the Federal Marriage Amendment or an originalist, constitutionally adherent interpretation of the Constitution, we have received our “global” warning. It is true that we are living in the 21st century, but there is nothing global about our Constitution. Our Constitution is for one nation–the United States of America. Neither Justice Ginsburg nor any other Supreme Court Justice should dispose themselves to any other jurisprudential viewpoint or modality of judicial interpretation. Period.

China once again has expressed interest in taking back Taiwan from its self-imposed exile from the People’s Republic of Communists. The Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian issued last month a statement denouncing China’s “anti-separation law.” In a nutshell, the anti-separation law states that Taiwan is part of China and that China will enforce this freshly-written legality by force if necessary.

Interestingly, France is on board with the Chi-Cons. Frenchy-French Prime Minister of Stupidity Jean-Pierre Raffarin puffed that an unprovoked Chinese military assault on Taiwan would be “completely compatible with the position of France.” The only real question is this . . . How many oil contracts are the French getting from Chinese?

It seems that judges just cannot get a break. First, they attempt to impose gay marriage upon our Nation (e.g., California and Massachusetts) and then flip-off Congress and the President in refusing to reconsider the facts in the Terri Schiavo (RIP) case. Now Republican Tom Delay is blasting judges for their “out-of-control” and “unaccountable” behavior.

Predictably, organizations who are activist-friendly are upset at such honest “rhetoric.” The President of the American Bar Association, Robert J. Grey Jr., is repulsed by the unfriendly talk:

While it is appropriate for commentators, policymakers and the broader public to debate the societal challenges and dilemmas brought to light by Terri Schiavo’s case, there is no need for personal attacks on the judges in this case. They are not killers as some have called them, nor are they activists bent on pushing an ideological agenda. They are simply dedicated public servants called on to serve as impartial arbiters in a very difficult case. Instead of maligning them for applying existing law to the case at hand, even though it may not reflect the current will of Congress, we should praise them for dispensing even-handed justice and upholding the independence of the judiciary even under the most difficult circumstances. These judges deserve our respect, not our scorn.

Hmmm. Judges aren’t activists? They have no ideological agendas? Six Supremes favor looking to foreign laws and practices to determine U.S. constitutional questions? Is that not an ideological agenda? Or would Grey call those discretionary preferences?

To liberals, an independent judiciary means a decision-rich haven for expanding rights not found in the Constitution. In reality, an independent judiciary means an judiciary with an activist disposition. Originally, the “independant judiciary” was designed as a third branch of government set apart from or divided from the Executive and Legislative branches. Now, the principle of judicial independance is indicative of a judge who bases his or her decision not necessarily on the law or laws which form the basis of a complaint but rather on their personal policy preferences. Judicial independance has been pushed from an institutional (judicial) perspective to a personal (judge) perspective.

It is this radical independence that judges are using permiscuously to undermine the federal and state constitutions and throw our society in a crucible of moral chaos. It’s time to take back the law-making power from the Judicial branch and return it to the Legislative branch . . . before it’s too late.