Tuesday, July 29, 2008

I'm Voting for Maverick, and So Should You

This blog has officially come out to support Maverick for President. I've never really entertained any other options in the matter, but I believe that it's time to start speaking out about it. Realistically, Maverick is our only hope of preserving some type of restraint on judicial activism.

However you feel about the war, or about the economy, or about his haircut, President Bush has done this country an enormous service by appointing two top-notch judicial conservatives to the Supreme Court. Despite his wanderings, Maverick presents a solid hope of appointing at least one more judicial conservative during his tenure. And have no doubt about it, Barack Obama will appoint the most extreme of judicial activists to the court. And he may not appoint just one, but two such judges to the court if he is elected.

So, you may ask what is judicial activism and why is it so important? Great question.

Judicial activism is using the power of the judiciary to frame and promote legal philosophy rather than interpreting existing legal precedent. You will remember from Civics that we have three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive executes laws, the legislative creates laws, and the judicial interprets laws.

Judicial activism takes place when judges take liberties to interpret existing laws in a manner not intended by the legislators who passed the law. This took place in the Roe vs. Wade decision where the Supreme Court created a privacy clause in the constitution that was just not there. Judiciaries in Massachusetts and California have promoted the gay "marriage" agenda through judicial activism. In all of these cases, arguably the most important legal developments of the last fifty years, a judiciary was the primary actor in developing the law in question. State and/or federal legislatures had little or nothing to do with the formation of these laws.

Judicial activism creates two problems. The first is that the formation of laws is arguably the most important function of government and it has been entrusted to democratically elected offices. The usurpation of law-making powers by an elite judiciary takes this decision making out of the hands of the American people. In their written judicial opinion mandating gay marriage in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court dictated that opposing viewpoints to their own were outmoded and bigoted. Also spracht das Gericht.

The second problem is the agenda that these judges are advancing. It is universally in the mold of the most radical far-left agenda. And you know what? That's exactly the agenda that Barack Obama has been promoting in his career as a legislator.

And that's the other reason you should vote for Maverick. Barack Obama is the most extreme far-left candidate that has been given a major-party nomination in the modern era. His agenda is a laundry list of far-left action items: unlimited abortion liscence, gay unions equivalent to heterosexual marriage, huggy-kissy foriegn policy, agressive gun control, and immigration amnesty. And the list goes on.

I've always liked Maverick. Even back when I identified more with the Democratic party, I considered working for his campaign. But today, his election is all but essential. The magnitude of difference between McCain and Obama is staggering. It really is the extreme left versus a kind of kooky Arizona conservatism. This kookiness is hard to get a handle on sometimes, but Obama's agenda is as clear as day.

Nuts and bolts, Roe vs. Wade is really one president away from being overturned. Gay marriage, it's also one president away from becoming federal law. That's why I'm voting for Maverick, and it's why you should, too.

2 comments:

Bob said...

A small correction. Griswold v. CT was the case which introduced the innovation of a right to privacy which was used later in Roe v. Wade. It's just another connection between the use of contraceptives and abortion.

This Liberal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.