The time for sub­mit­ting to ju­di­cial tyranny has passed

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Pat Buchanan

If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make him­self a hero to Mid­dle Amer­ica, the op­por­tu­nity is at hand. All he need do is in­form the New Jer­sey Supreme Court he will nei­ther sub­mit nor sign the law it has or­dered en­acted — to put ho­mo­sex­ual unions on a par with mar­riage.

At root, what that 4-3 de­ci­sion, or­der­ing the leg­is­la­ture to en­act a new law sanc­tion­ing civil unions or gay mar­riage, is about is: Who gov­erns New Jer­sey? It is about who de­cides what law shall be — elected leg­is­la­tors or judges ap­pointed for life.

In our War of In­de­pen­dence, in which New Jer­sey was over­run re­peat­edly by Bri­tish troops, at is­sue was whether Ge­orge III and a Par­lia­ment sit­ting in Lon­don, in which Amer­i­cans had no voice, would gov­ern us, or whether we would rule our­selves. From April 1775 to York­town in 1781, Amer­i­cans fought and died to end that rule of kings — only to have their meek and timid heirs sub­mit to a rule of judges.

Let us go back to the era of Earl War­ren that be­gan in 1954, and con­sider what, in the span of a half-cen­tury, U.S. judges and Supreme Court jus­tices, abet­ted by state jurists, have done to Amer­ica.

God, Bi­ble study, prayer and the Ten Com­mand­ments have been or­dered out of all pub­lic schools and the pub­lic square of a na­tion that once proudly boasted of it­self as God’s coun­try. Pornog­ra­phy has been de­clared pro­tected by the First Amend­ment. Cities have been ripped apart, as judges have or­dered stu­dents, based on color alone, bussed across crime-rid­den cities to achieve an ar­ti­fi­cial racial bal­ance. Abor­tion, ho­mo­sex­ual sodomy and naked danc­ing in pub­lic bars have been de­clared to be new con­stitu- tional rights.

Of all th­ese out­rages and id­io­cies, one thing may be said: No leg­is­la­ture, no ex­ec­u­tive at the state or fed­eral level would have sur­vived im­pos­ing such mea­sures upon us. They would have been hurled from of­fice at the next elec­tion. When ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage was put on the bal­lot in 13 states in 2004, it was routed in ev­ery one by land­slides as great as six to one. Amer­ica re­jects it.

Upon what ground, then, does the New Jer­sey Supreme Court stand to or­der an elected leg­is­la­ture to en­act a law the peo­ple do not want? An­swer: The court said that to deny ho­mo­sex­u­als the same rights as mar­ried cou­ples is to treat them un­equally, and this vi­o­lates the Con­sti­tu­tion of New Jer­sey: “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.”

The oper­a­tive words here are “no longer be tol­er­ated.” What the court is say­ing is that, though there is no right to same-sex mar­riage in New Jer­sey, and the state has never voted the rights and ben­e­fits to ho­mo­sex­u­als it has for mar­ried cou­ples, we, the judges in our wis­dom, de­clare this to be in­tol­er­a­ble.

There­fore, you, the leg­is­la­tors of New Jer­sey, and you, Gov. Corzine, are or­dered to change the laws of New Jer­sey to con­form to our idea of equal­ity. A tiny mi­nor­ity of judges in Amer­ica now dic­tates to the Great Silent Ma­jor­ity.

This is ex­actly what hap­pened in Mas­sachusetts in 2003. And had Gov. Rom­ney told the Mas­sachusetts Supreme Court that its 4-3 de­ci­sion had no con­sti­tu­tional ba­sis, and that he and the leg­is­la­ture had no in­ten­tion of obey­ing its or­der, Mitt Rom­ney would be the front-run­ner for the Repub­li­can nom­i­na­tion in 2008.

When Shay’s Re­bel­lion of farm­ers broke out in Mas­sachusetts in 1786, Thomas Jef­fer­son wrote to James Madi­son, “I hold it that a lit­tle re­bel­lion now and then is a good thing, and as nec­es­sary in the po­lit­i­cal world as storms in the phys­i­cal.” It is time for a lit­tle re­bel­lion in New Jer­sey, and Amer­ica. For what is tak­ing place, what has taken place, is a blood­less coup by judges who have ar­ro­gated to them­selves the pow­ers of leg­is­la­tures to make laws and re­make so­ci­ety in their own im­age — with­out re­course to ref­er­enda or free elec­tions.

When judges in New Jer­sey can or­der leg­is­la­tors to write new laws that con­form to their ide­ol­ogy, laws the peo­ple have not only not de­manded, but vis­cer­ally and vi­o­lently op­pose, we have ceased to be a free coun­try or a demo­cratic repub­lic.

“Who rules?” That is what is at is­sue in New Jer­sey.

For 50 years, this na­tion per­mit­ted the War­ren Court, and its suc­ces­sors and im­i­ta­tors in the state courts, to cre­ate a body of judge-made law that has altered the char­ac­ter of our coun­try, very much for the worse.

Again and again, the peo­ple have voted for can­di­dates for pres­i­dent, Congress and gov­er­nor who promised to ring down the cur­tain on this half-cen­tury of ju­di­cial tyranny. But still the judges per­sist in is­su­ing or­ders that have no ba­sis ei­ther in prece­dent or in the writ­ten con­sti­tu­tions they have sworn to de­fend.

Such judges need to be de­fied and they need to be im­peached. Not obeyed.

Pat Buchanan is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.