Peering Into the Mind of An Activist Federal Judge, Part Two

With Judge Alito coming to Senate Judiciary Committee vote 24 January 2006, we must continue to stress that ordinary Americans must judging our judges in order to begin righting the grievously wrong American judiciary.

In Sixth Column, "Peering into the Mind of an Activist Judge, Part One," 08 January 2006, we cited an article by Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer,
9th Circuit Judge Sets Standard for Liberal Activism. In our Part One, we began looking into the thinking of a liberal activist judge of the federal 9th circuit court, Judge Reinhardt, using his own words. Referring to the contents of the linked article, we also stated, "The article demonstrates magnificently the problems on both sides; and, if anyone thinks these concerns and arguments are trivial, then that person should be advised that these are the people abrogating our rights and destroying our Constitution--Left and Right!"

Being a judge on the Right does not mean that you get a free pass. Take this statement about the highly Left Judge Reinhardt by his rightist colleague (from the article linked):

Reinhardt's conservative Ninth Circuit colleague, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, holds a more literal view of the nation's premier legal document. "If the text of the Constitution does not preclude the government's action, the judge must uphold it," O'Scannlain wrote in an essay about government property seizures, published on the website open-spaces.com. "He must do so even if the government's action is patently unfair or plainly inappropriate, for determining that something is 'unfair' or "inappropriate' without an independent standard for fairness or appropriateness requires an exercise of sheer will. And the power to direct government action pursuant to one's own will is the power that a judge lacks."

The scary part is this: ""If the text of the Constitution does not preclude the government's action, the judge must uphold it..." This illustrates the danger inherent in literalistic interpretation of the Constitution. It shows that Judge O'Scannlain knows no more about the nature of rights than his Leftist colleague, Judge Reinhardt, and he also does not understand the reason for the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government based on guaranteeing individual rights (that's a redundancy since there are no other kind). Because the Constitution does not specifically say that governments can seize property (a la the Kelo decision), it does not authorize giving the green light to socialist-fascist-communist style seizures by the government. The Constitution, particularly in the 9th Amendment, provides the umbrella protecting the individual from all sorts of governmental actions at all levels of government.

The U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo Decision of 2005 allowed governments to seize any individual's property to give to one or more other private individuals, DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION. Reading the majority decision, one is struck by how much Leftist Supreme Court Justices hate the concept of individual rights, because they bridle the power of the state. To the Left, the State is all, and the individual is the servant of, if not the property of, the state. Hitler and Stalin would have approved of the Kelo Decision.

That the literalist colleague of Judge Reinhardt, Judge O'Scannlain, fails to grasp the real issue is worse than tragic. It is dangerous. So the Right cannot be given any pass until they prove themselves.

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

-- Samuel Adams(1722-1803), was
known as the "Father of the American Revolution."

Getting back to the far Left Judge Reinhardt, the cited article adds more to understanding how this judge thinks. For example:

Chapman University constitutional law professor John Eastman told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly about the graduation speech Reinhardt gave there in 2001. "Well, he basically accused anybody who didn't agree with his positions of being not fit to be a member of the bar or a lawyer or violating their oath of office," Eastman recalled. "And on a range of issues, from racial quotas to religion in schools, on the whole list, if you didn't agree with him, then you weren't a proper lawyer, and you ought to just get out of the business."

That is classic Leftist arrogance.

But the final piece beats all.

As for the consequences of the behavior of a judge, coming from his philosophy:

Reinhardt shows no signs of slowing down in either his willingness to promote his liberal viewpoint or his alleged encroachment on legislative powers. When reporters ask him about being, arguably, the most overturned federal appeals judge in history, Reinhardt routinely smiles as he notes that the Supreme Court reviews only a handful of the decisions he hands down each year. "They can't catch them all," he says.

This is the essence of activism: Pushing the envelope to overwhelm the system in order to get work an agenda.

Incrementally, the Left have been chipping away at the foundations of America, most particularly at the concept of individual rights, or, as our Founders called them, the Rights of Man.

Judicial activism in the name of anything other than promoting, preserving, and protecting individual rights is what we must put a stop to. To do it requires that each citizen grasp the very foundations of his life under freedom, and to do it soon, before he loses the rest of his freedom to control his own government. Each citizen must come to understand the nature of rights and demand that they be upheld. This will put a stop to rights-eroding judicial decisions of the future and roll back many of the very bad decisions still on the books and still undercutting America.