The Angry Scotsman: E-mail and Sheep

Posted by Brian McLain on 04.06.2006

Sheep follow a leader, but goats can run a Republic.

Good day to one and all, the Angry Scotsman is back again for more news and commentary after a short week off. Within we have reader mail, which I was so very excited to receive. I love getting mail, who doesn't love getting mail. Letter bombs and death threats not withstanding, I very much enjoy getting and answering mail. So if anybody else out there need answers to life's many questions…or you just hate my guts and want to tell me so, drop me a line and I will always answer with glad enthusiasm. I have to apologize for the lack of one of my promises from the last article. I have decided to pull my article concerning the Iraq war at this time. Why? Quite frankly I'm tired of talking about it to just about anyone and everyone. However I still have my promised rant on sheep and, of course, the super search words of the week. So without further Delay…because the crooked bastard decided not to run for re-election (HA, I made a funny)…let's get started.

Angry Scotsman's Mailsack

Now I have to apologize to this gentleman, my email barfed up something awful when I went to insert the correspondence into the system from Word. I'm not certain what exactly happened to cause it to post halfway then repost in entirety immediately afterwards, so this is a cleaned up version of sorts. Also I apologize for some minced words…when I get on a role I have a tendency to do this.

My very first response to an article comes from Edward Moraghan, concerning the piece I did 2 weeks ago about the attacks on the Judiciary.

Edward writes:
While I see you point, you seem to miss the point of conservatives about the role of the Judiciary. When the courts legislate from the bench, people have a problem with that. When justice let child molesters go free when found guilty, people have a problem with that.

Ex1: Roe vs Wade. Even liberals concede that this is bad law. The
court used the imaginary right to privacy to tell when a woman can have an abortion. Never mind that that's what legislatures are for. The court usurped the rights of 50 state governments and stated that abortion is legal. Ironically, if Roe vs Wade was overturned (it eventually will be) not much would change. You would still be able to
get abortion on demand in a blue state and wouldn't be able to get one in a red state. People who wanted an abortion could go to a state that allowed it. Don't tell me that the poor would suffer, they already do under Roe vs Wade.

Ex2: Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election. The Florida Supreme Court basically changed the entire states electoral process after an election to help Al Gore. The Supreme Court had to twice overrule the Florida Supreme Court for violating the 14th amendment.

Ex3: NJ Supreme Court. Probably the worst in the nation. The NJ Supreme Court actually has usurped the power of the purse here. It has told the legislature that education now included mandatory preschool for poor districts even though that nowhere appears in that states constitution. It also required the state to spend 6 billion (and rising) to build new schools.

Ex4: Mass Supreme Court. I'm still looking for the right to gay marriage in that states constitution. The constitution hasn't changed but suddenly there's the right to gay marriage. The legislature didn't pass the right. It just magically appeared because of 4 people said so.

Care to comment?


I'd love to comment, Edward. Always happy to:

First, your opening paragraph: Under certain circumstances anyone found guilty of a crime can go free for a number of instances...usually when due process isn't followed. While I don't advocate a child molester found guilty in a court of law when all due process had been followed, due process must be followed to ensure that all citizens' rights are protected and you can't have your life, liberty, or property taken away just on a whim. Lazy prosecutors and uneducated police forces in these due process instances are the ones to blame, not the judges. As for the judges that let said child molesters go with a slap on the wrist, it is the duty of the legislature change the language of the law to make stricter minimum penalties (it was recently done here in my state), or the populace to vote out the cad.

Example 1: You're right. It is bad law. Though I do believe that there is a fundamental right to privacy embedded in the Constitution, I still am uncertain of the logic of abortion being thrown in there. A little bit of 14th amendment, a bit of 5th amendment, and a couple of loosely thrown in cases just doesn't seem to make good legal sense. However when you look at the fact that one's government cannot force a citizen to lawfully limit the number of children one might have, then you'd expect the same to go the other way around. Mix that in with the blue law shenanigans that some states were pulling and that makes for a rather interesting situation for the courts. The real issue is the amount of precedence that has been set for this law...33 times the courts have affirmed this. If there was a good strong case made that states should have the full right to see over the health and welfare of its citizens it might be detoured but not overturned, such as not removing federal jurisdiction to abortion cases as it sees the federal court has no jurisdiction. Otherwise it is the court simply applying stare decisis. I do see Roe falling short of actual legislating from the bench, as the compelling nature of this legal question, the 14th amendment, and the Constitutional right to be secure in one's person I can see Roe being a true blue decision based on prior precedence. I don't believe the whole "poor would suffer" and "welfare baby" arguments really, as I see these arguments disturbingly close to a eugenics logic. A woman has the right to seek and obtain an abortion, but not the right TO an abortion, and that, my friend, is where a lot of the grief comes from.

Example 2: This one left me boggled, as I figured the most prudent decision would be to hold another election, but that might be just me. Granted it would have been costly and too long a process so that's probably why they didn't opt for that form of relief. Bush grumbled about the Florida Supreme Court decision, Gore is still grumbling about the SCOTUS decision. Regardless, the process went the way it should have, having the state Supreme Court violated the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional decision. I see no problem here as the judiciary panned itself out.

Example 3: This was not legislation, believe it or not, but relief for school districts challenging an Executive bureau on the grounds that a state government approved program was not receiving appropriate funds. The legislation had already been passed, and the Executive side wasn't owning up to the deal. Rather the commissioner of the NJ Dept of Education was requiring districts to reallocate the money in other ways BUT the program that was passed the legislature. It was actually the Executive branch that was attempting to usurp the power of the purse, not the judiciary. The judiciary was doing its job in this instance. The school districts sought relief, and therefore, obtained relief as they were found in the right of the law.

Example 4: No, it did not magically. It was deciphered, as any law, in a case by case basis in which those 4 people made their case effectively enough to convince the courts that there is an equal rights violation in the states granting defining marriage as only a man and woman union. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults...and just as you cannot deny access to such an agreement between one of two different religions, races, etc. you cannot deny access between 2 people that are willing to use a service provided by the state which involves the binding agreement between two, mentally sound individuals. Unless one can make a case that homosexuals are not "mentally sound" and therefore unqualified to enter into that sort of contract, I see no case here. This was interpreting the Mass. Constitution and not even close to legislating from the bench. I quote the Mass Constitution:

"Article CVI (ratified 1976)...
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."

All in all, there are some questionable approaches that the bench takes. However to attempt to instill an outright feeling of mutiny in the people against another branch of the government is still damaging to the Republic. If the Legislature doesn't like the ruling, change the language, they have that power. If the Executive doesn't like the decision, then appeal to the Legislature to change the language or law. In many cases all it takes a strike or two here and an amendment there to make a law constitutionally sound, however if a group is unwilling to make compromises they are not going to get what they want at all. Further they are simply not cut out for this type of government of equally shared and balanced powers. Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, or the Neo Jacobins in the Executive office today don't get
everything they want, thus protecting the Republic. The balance of shared powers guarantees that no branch gets what it wants, regardless of intention…which is exactly the way the framers wanted it.>

Sincerely,

The Angry Scotsman

Wow…that was long winded, wasn't it?

Sheep make Angry Scotsman ANGRY!

So I was at my desk the other day, and I belong to a program at work that notifies you of certain "grassroots" efforts that affect the industry. I was notified of one of these, which concerned certain tax cuts but I wanted more information. Now I saw links to letters to my representatives (pre-written for my convenience), but not one that actually directed me to the bill I was supposed to be supporting. I wrote the administrator of the "grassroots" program and he notified me of things such as "People don't always have time to read the bills" and "We are asking for immediate action on the legislation". I write back, asking again for a link to the bill and I receive another e-mail telling me how awfully complex the bill is to understand, however I am encouraged to read it anyway. Along with this is a link to a general legislative website in which I needed to actually Google 5 or 6 combinations of words just to find the damn bill. I write back, telling him thanks, but I don't support legislation just because one entity tells me it is good or bad. This is not political action but political following and it is bad politics and a detriment to the Republic to simply follow the leader. I haven't received an action alert since…all because I have a freakin' brain. Now this is just an example of my belief that sheep can follow a leader, but goats can run a Republic. Why do people simply follow what they are told is good? Democrats and Republicans follow whoever is in office, and dance around with the knowledge provided to them by their parties, but how many times have they actually took a good long look at the legislation that they are supporting? Or the guy they are supporting running for office? George Bush got elected strictly party line in 2004 and Kerry lost because he couldn't get enough Democrats to the polls…but regardless of the vomit these two were spewing all over the place, people voted for them because they either were or were not a Republican. I was chastised for not voting for Kerry with the garbage logic of "A vote against Kerry is a vote for Bush". I fired back with "A vote for whoever I see fit for the position of President is a vote for me. Period."

Take a good long look at who you want running the country. People are individuals and they should be treated as such in a Republic. To simply follow somebody by voting straight party line is sheepish and pointless. Butt some heads and run the damn Republic! You're the 1st branch of government, folks, and it's time to act together, rather then stand together.

The Super Search Words of the Week!

NUCLEAR INDIA

That's all for me this week, everyone. Please feel free to take a look at the vast amount of talent, humor, and knowledge of the rest of the political zone and I will see you all again next week!