Bradlee Dean continue to demonstrate that he is spectacularly clueless about nearly every subject he speaks or writes about. In his latest column he takes on my favorite subject, constitutional law, and falls flat one his face, making one ridiculous statement after another.
Recently, Judge Andrew Napolitano gave a dim prognostication of what could happen to the rights of the American people if Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg would fall to sickness or old age in the next four years. He was afraid that Obama might replace her with a progressive (a communist) who would, in turn, do much damage to the Second Amendment and other rights that God has given to the American people.
The equation of progressive and communist is dumb enough. The fact that he can’t seem to count is even worse. Ginsburg is herself a liberal justice; if she is replaced by another liberal justice, almost nothing will change.
Judge Andrew Napolitano must be under the delusion, as most Americans are, that the Supreme Court is the final say in all matters even if they violate our Constitution and the laws of our republic, when, in fact, it isn’t the final say.
Judges were never intended to write, change or create law. They are merely referees charged with the protection of the citizenry by enforcing laws enacted by Congress under the authority of the Constitution.
The judges themselves are to be ruled by law, just like the people they serve. Judges do not have the right to break the law. They are not to legislate from the bench in the manner that the American people have been trained and accustomed to over the last 50 years.
This is nothing but a string of meaningless platitudes. There is no coherent definition of “legislating from the bench,” of course, and he’s also flat wrong when he says the Supreme Court is only supposed to enforce laws passed by Congress. This was made clear in Federalist Paper 78 by Alexander Hamilton, who said:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Is there anything more absurd than right wingers pretending to be in favor of a constitution they know almost nothing about?
Keep in mind, this is the same court that sits under Moses and the Ten Commandments, whom in each individual case swore to uphold the Constitution, “so help me God,” and that starts its proceedings with the following statement: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
And that same court sits under Muhammad too. And Hammurabi. And Napoleon, Justinian, Charlemagne and Hugo Grotius, among others. But those are inconvenient facts so they are simply ignored.
William Blackstone, a professor of common law whom our founders often referenced when framing the American Constitution, said, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
Well yes, but Blackstone was talking about British law, which we replaced with the Constitution. And unlike British law, which is based upon an official church, the Constitution explicitly forbids such establishments. Again, inconvenient facts that must be ignored by wingnuts.
Contrary to America’s Christian foundation, in 1962 the Supreme Court committed an oligarchy (few ruling over many) and removed prayer from public schools in the case Engel v. Vitale. This case was also the first court case in history to use zero precedents.
Wrong. In fact, that ruling goes all the way back to British laws passed in the 1500s and discusses the entire history of religious establishments and forced prayer. It cites the Founding Fathers directly, especially James Madison. But knowing that would require that Dean actually read the ruling, which I doubt he is capably of understanding even if he bothered to take the time.
Just another wingnut blathering like an idiot when it comes to the constitution and the courts.