|
|
Voice |
|
|
|
America’s Royal Judiciary The colonists fought England for liberty and then weren’t sure what kind of government they wanted. Their first effort was a loose confederation bordering on anarchy as each state collected tariffs on goods crossing state lines. Some wanted a monarch with Gen. George Washington to wear a crown. He would have no part of that idea. They wrote a constitution with three distinct branches of government, each filling a special need and function. Congress would pass laws. The President would enforce them. The Supreme Court would sit in judgment over application of the law. The founding fathers would rise in rebellion if
they could see what has happened. The
Supreme Court has taken on the role of passing laws through its
contemporary interpretations, enforcing the laws through assuming police
powers and then sitting as judiciary over what it has done. Often it seems judges, especially on the higher
federal levels, should have a degree in sociology rather than the law.
Instead of reading what the law says, they determine moral and
social issues beyond the legal wording.
Laws against segregation of by race had to fall.
There was no legal logic to separate people by ethnic origin, to
say one group deserved superior treatment above another.
The law was supposed to be colorblind.
The Supreme Court ruling in the mid-Fifties demanded integration
of schools. A federal judge named James McMillian in
Charlotte during the 1970s decided mere integration wasn’t enough. He sought to eliminate class distinctions altogether and
began school busing. A
generation of children lost their chance for an education.
It was obvious that integration was good for children in a
geographic locality go to the nearest school.
This not only would bind the children, but would integrate
parents through PTAs, athletics and activities around a school as a
cultural center along with the churches. Children as early as first graders were put on
buses before daylight and carried miles from their home community to a
strange one. The oversight
neighbors gave their own children and that of others was taken away. The ties people had to their local school were cut.
They didn’t know the children being bussed in from a strange
locale. The school where
their children attended might be so distant that participation was
impossible. One of the
pillars of education and community life was destroyed by the social
whimsy of a judge who decided he knew better than lawmakers what should
be done. He usurped the
legislature’s authority. He
took the law into his own hands and made it what he wanted it to be. In other fields, judges decided there could be
no discrimination in the work place.
An employer was required to hire indiscriminately. It stood to reason that when two men applied for the same job
the one most qualified should be employed.
It made sense that two students seeking college admission should
see the one with the best grades awarded. The playing field was supposed to be level.
There should be no prejudice. Along came the social judges. A level playing field wasn’t enough. Lack of prejudice wasn’t enough. Since immigrants began coming to these shores
the newcomers had to fight to overcome the power built up by those
already here. Chinese,
Irishmen, Italians—they all had to work a little bit harder to get
ahead. They did. Judges want quotas and favoritism, which is
clearly prejudicial and unconstitutional.
But they have taken on the mantle of power.
They have become America’s royalty, the monarchy sitting on
their respective benches. When
the President of the United States comes into a room, most people stand
out of respect. But they
don’t have to. Try
remaining in your seat in a courtroom when the judge comes in. If a law meant one thing ten or 20 years ago and
hasn’t been changed by the legislature, it should mean the same thing
today. But the judges read
the newspaper, watch television and test the political barometer to see
what the law should mean now. Perhaps the fault lies with our lawmakers.
If they will write laws clear enough so the average man can
understand them, social judges especially would become superfluous.
They would have to go out and earn an honest living and quit
making a junkyard out of our social fabric and legal system.
|
