Who is most at fault for the state of society? Politicians? Voters? Immigrants? NGO’s? The corporate media? Political donors?
In the 1950’s, Americans inherited a healthy culture. The rules of the culture matched the rules that produce a sustainable, productive, independent, virtuous society. In the 1950’s, 95% of Americans were still born to a husband and wife who would see that they were raised well.
If a foreign enemy had threatened to change the mores and morals of 1950’s America into 2019 America, 1950’s America would have fought it. Indeed, 1950’s America actually did fight the Cold War to prevent that, along with some economic issues. America won that war. But on social issues, the radical Left inside America succeeded in changing the morals and mores of 1950’s America into 2019 America. The Left won, and will keep moving this culture to the Left.
The founding fathers called the judicial branch the weakest branch because it has no inherent enforcement capability. Enforcement is up to the Executive Branch. The judicial branch has no power to force the executive branch to do or not do something. It has no lawmaking ability– that was left to the Legislative Branch. The judiciary is only for deciding on a punishment for a specific defendant, or awarding a judgement to a specific plaintiff.
The media has created a culture that puts the judicial branch on a pedestal because they like how, in the 50’s and 60’s, the judiciary was used to impose Yankee values on the South in regards to racial issues.
Activist judges discovered that Americans value the rule of law so much that Americans will enforce the rulings of judges even when the rulings are obviously unconstitutional. Presidents are afraid to ignore their unconstitutional rulings because the media would crucify them and perhaps get the president impeached and removed. Congressmen are afraid to impeach a judge, unless the judge committed a crime, for fear of getting crucified by the media and losing elections. So where is the “check and balance” on the judicial branch? The only people who can provide a “check and balance” on federal judges are average activists shaming them, or vigilantes.
Since pastors (outside of African American churches) no longer, or rarely, discuss ethics and morals as it applies to public policy, it is left to the media and the judiciary to influence American culture on what is right and wrong.
The media uses the decisions of judges as levers. Having built up the reputation of the courts, the media treats their rulings as if their rulings were moral statements. The law is not just for scaring people away from committing crime. The law also has a “teaching function.” In other words, to some degree, people can know what the government (and therefore “the nation”) considers to be unacceptable or acceptable by looking at what the law forbids, and at what laws have been struck down. People like to say “it’s perfectly legal.” Before the people thought it was acceptable, judges started ruling that divorce, elective abortion (without pain killers), and ignoring the right of Christians to act according to their conscience were acceptable. After the rulings, the polling showed increased momentum toward acceptance.
Leftist lawyers use the threat of lawsuits to force schools and corporations to conform to the desires of the Left. People are mostly socialized in schools and at work. Even if polls show that the public thinks something is wrong, if the schools and corporations have been scared into following the courts, then people spend most of their social time in environments where the courts have decided what is right and wrong. They start to think that “everybody agrees” just because the courts forced the schools and the corporations to pretend they agree.
Why only Federal judges?
The states voluntarily chose to ratify the US Constitution. States individually, voluntarily, chose to be a part of creating this central government, which we now call the federal government. But each state retained its sovereignty. Each state chose to delegate authority to the central government only for specific enumerated tasks. Those tasks are listed in the Constitution. When an activist judge, on behalf of the central government, chooses to rule that a state is forbidden from doing something, he is usually ignoring the limits on the authority that was delegated by the states to the central government by the Constitution.
America has many leftists, and they have to live somewhere. If a state judge in a very socially liberal state such as Hawaii, California, or Vermont makes a socially liberal decision, let’s not retaliate. Perhaps in his state, the state constitution might allow him to do so.
The more egregious issue is when a red-state judge ignores the culture of his state, and only cares about the opinions of his Leftist friends, or is so arrogant that he feels that he should be allowed to use his position to value his personal social opinions above the social opinions of millions of citizens.
But what is worst of all is when a federal judge does this. Because not only is he valuing his own opinion above millions of others’ opinions, but he is going beyond the limits of the authority that was given him by the Constitution. The states never consented to have the federal government decide social policy for each state. It’s government without consent of the people. That’s the definition of tyrannical. Because there is no consent, it is like an invasion of a foreign power.
The people of Texas have a much different mix of cultures than the people of Maine, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii. The USA cannot hold together if social policy is enforced uniformly across the entire empire.
Why not blame the media?
We’ve already admitted that the media play a huge role. Yet nobody forces people to read or watch Leftist media (outside of school hours). Nobody in the USA can escape the ruling of a federal judge, as long as his rulings are enforced. Most media are deceptive and evil, but media are not in a position to be tyrannical.
A federal judge knows that his decision will be enforced, if necessary, with the guns of US Marshals or other law enforcement officers. If the people fail to comply, they will be attacked. That means that the judge’s decision, if it is not authorized by consent of the people, is like a lethal attack. We can’t say the same thing about media, political donors, or political activists, even though they are pretty bad.
Why not blame the politicians?
It’s tempting to blame politicians, but if one politician disappears, he’s likely to be replaced by a similar person, because his voters remain the same. Politicians are a dime-a-dozen. It doesn’t take any kind of resume to be elected.
Why not blame the voters?
The Left has learned that judges can start changing society on an issue long before it is popular among voters. Besides, there’s not much we can do to the 69.5 million people who voted for Obama, because that’s a lot of people. If judges were afraid to use the courts to try to change public opinion, then public opinion wouldn’t change as fast.
Why not punish law enforcement officers?
Only adolescents with father issues hate police. The police didn’t make the decision on what the law should be. If you hate the decision, then punish the decision maker! Every community is better off with professional police, rather than mob rule.
Why not blame teachers and professors?
Families are not forced to send their kids to college at all, much less any specific college.
Public school teachers are a problem, but there might be a million of them, or at least hundreds of thousands. Also, it’s difficult to make a list of which ones are committing crimes against the people. Judges have a public record. Local and state school boards are involved in choosing curriculum and textbooks.
Why not blame immigrants?
Legal immigrants were allowed in by the legislators who made the laws.
Illegal immigrants were allowed to stay by the federal judges who hamstring enforcement, and by the legislators who don’t make E-Verify mandatory, by the president who is not enforcing laws against employing illegals and is not deporting many non-criminal illegals, and by the bureaucracy.
It’s almost impossible for you and I to make moving to America seem like a bad choice compared to staying in a murderous impoverished country like El Salvador. So it’s unlikely that anything you or I can do would convince future illegal immigrants to stop coming or go home. The only answer is to create incentives for federal judges to allow enforcement of existing laws.
Still not convinced that leftist activist federal judges are as bad as a foreign invasion?
List of Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions that Damaged American Society
After FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court buckled in 1937. What do you think Democrats will do if Trump judges get in their way? Democrat presidential candidates for 2020 have already expressed support for adding seats to SCOTUS.
1937 SCOTUS decides that the federal government can regulate practically any commerce
1937 SCOTUS forces states to allow compulsory labor unions
1937 SCOTUS rules that the Social Security Act of 1935 did not violate the 10th Amendment. Thus, they allowed for a tax on employers to occur. The Supreme Court also declared that Congress may spend money on “the general welfare”.
1938 United States v. Carolene Products /1955 Williamson v. Lee Optical basically overturned the 10th amendment, and granted the government nearly unlimited power to blatantly and unambiguously promote special interests at the expense of the public.
1942 Wickard v. Filburn / 2005 Gonzales v. RaichAllowed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce to be used to regulate purely local and essentially non-commercial activities, and thus empowered Congress to regulate essentially anything it wants.
1947 SCOTUS rules that US states may not promote religion.
1954 SCOTUS forces local governments to yield to federal power on school issues
1962 Baker v. Carr: SCOTUS rules that states may not use an electoral college within the state for state elections (even though an electoral college is used for federal elections). Declared that a “One Person, One Vote” standard is essential to democracy, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t follow it in elections for the Senate or the presidency; facilitated gerrymandering by requiring every state to redo its districts every census to comply with this. The purpose of voting is to avoid war by using ballots as a proxy for finding out who would win in a civil war. This only works if ballots represent the actual power dynamics in a society. This is why women didn’t have the vote. Rural areas have more power per capita because they can cut supply lines to cities, so they should have more power in a legislature. Otherwise there will always be a temptation for rural areas to prove that they are more important than their percentage of the population (by cutting supply lines).
1962: Engel v. Vitale: Federal government disallows public institutions such as schools to officiate or initiate prayer, even noncompulsory prayer.
1964 New York Times v. Sullivan: SCOTUS gives near-immunity to its friends in the liar media, declaring that public figures must prove “actual malice” to win a libel case, even in state courts.
1965 In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decided it is the federal government’s business to strike down a Connecticut law banning sales of birth control drugs or devices, leavening its decision with talk about the “sacred precincts of the bedroom.”
1968 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co./ 1976 Runyon v. McCrary Declared that Congress’s power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.
1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird, established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.
1973 Roe v. Wade forced states to allow abortion (even without pain killers for the infants).
1973 Frontiero v. Richardson: Gender bias not allowed, even in state law
1976 Buckley v. Valeo Granted broad deference to Congress on campaign finance restrictions that limit political speech, despite the 1st Amendment’s core protection being for political speech.
1977 in Carey v. Population Services International, the court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the sale of contraceptives to minors, the advertisements or displays of contraceptives, and the sale of contraceptives to adults except through a pharmacist.
1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers.
2003 Lawrence v. Texas State anti-sodomy law struck down
2012 League of Ind. Bus. v. Sebelius: Obamacare is declared Constitutional even though Constitution does not authorize fed gov to force citizens to buy healthcare. Allowed Congress to force people to buy health insurance from private companies on the basis of the regulation being a “tax,” by implication allowing Congress do virtually anything with the taxing power that no independent power, even the expansive Commerce Clause, would allow.
2015 Obergefell All states required to change the definition of marriage in their laws and state constitutions to include relations between people of the same sex.
2015 Molly Gee requires fed gov to catch and release illegal aliens who travel with minors. Families of illegal aliens must be released from detention within 20 days even though it takes more than 20 days to be deported.
2017-2019 Seventy of Trump’s actions struck down by courts
2018 Judges don’t pretend to follow the Constitution, require the president to give a satisfactory reason for exercising his own authority regarding DACA
Daniel Horowitz is the best source for understanding the threat of judicial overreach, and understanding how unlikely it is that social conservatives will ever get relief from the federal judiciary.