No regard for democracy...

Today, the California Supreme Court went rogue, throwing out a law that had been enacted by the people of California in a referendum back in 2000 - and by a pretty fair margin.

As I discussed this issue earlier, this is pushing America to a fundamental question that we will have to answer in 2008: How is this country supposed to work, is it run by "we the people," or will it instead be run by a judiciary that has metastasized into a polite and gentle dictatorship?

That is not the only case. The polar bear listing is another, and contrary to complaints from Hugh Hewitt, Secretary Kempthorne really had no choice on this matter, and arguably has taken the only course of action that will minimize the effect. If he had refused to list the polar bear, the NRDC and other groups would have found a judge all too willing to overturn the decision of an Administration that was chosen twice by the American people to make such decisions - something that has happened repeatedly.

It's not a small question for me. I want to know if my vote will count, or if it will be tossed out because some judge thinks he or she knows better?

The people or the courts?

Remember when the cry was "count every vote" back in those days so long ago? Well, it turns out that there are times when those who would say that don't practice what they preached.

For an example - take California, where the left now seeks to overturn a 2000 referendum about gay marriage. In other words, they are asking judges to overturn the result of democracy they don't like.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church freaks, but I fucking hate people who want to tell me that my vote should not count if they don't like which way an election went. It really comes down to how this country is supposed to work.

Do we the people get a say in this matter, through elected representatives who have public deliberations on controversial issues, or are we merely selecting those who choose the people to be judges, acting in a capacity that amounts to a polite and gentle dictatorship?

This issue was bound to happen with judges who decided to make the laws from the bench. It could have been any number of issues that would have triggered this confrontation. Gay marriage just happened to be it.

Thwarting Democracy...

Democrats sure do not act Democratic at times. The only reason gay marriage is the law in Massachusetts is because a court imposed it on that state.

Now, in order to thwart an intelligence program that they lack the votes to stop, they decide to let the trial lawyers handle it, as the Wall Street Journal explains:

We asked one phone company executive what he'd do, after Friday's expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: "I'm not doing it. If I don't have compulsion, I can't get out of court [and those lawsuits]. . . . I'm not going to do something voluntarily." Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal.

Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit. For that matter, without a statute in place, even a renewed order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is likely to be challenged as illegitimate. A telecom CEO who cooperates without a court order is all but guaranteed to get not merely a wiretap lawsuit, but also a shareholder suit for putting the company at legal risk.

George W. Bush wins two presidential elections. He is the commander-in-chief, and as such, is responsible for this country's security. His approach was explicitly chosen in 2004, during the war.

Instead, trial lawyers and activist judges will subvert the will of the people.

The best case against judicial activism I've seen...

Laura Vanderkam discusses the referendum on South Dakota's ban on abortion with only an exception to save the life of the mother.

The last paragraph puts it better than anything I have ever seen:

It raises the question: What if all our abortion battles had been fought this way — democratically, with messy compromises — over the past 33 years? We might have reached an answer by now. Maybe. But if South Dakota's any indicator, we'd be a lot less strident. Abortion may be a battleground, but as Unruh says, "We don't have to turn it into a civil war."

Judicial activism - like Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage cases - harms the country, especially when millions of people are suddenly told that their voices will not be heard. Not only does it rob the people of their right to be heard on an issue, it robs them of the chance to reach a compromise that everyone can live with - and the chance to form a consensus on these issues.

Today, I voted for Virginia's constitutional amendment to at least be heard on the issue. I wish there was some other way. I wish I did not have to worry about having my votes nullified after a debate in secret by a small group of judges.