Judicial Activists Are Killing Democracy

In the old days the enemies of the free and democratic West could resort to violent revolution to overthrow capitalism, democracy and other goods deemed to be in need of destruction. Social change by the barrel of the gun was a preferred way of radical social upheaval and revolution.

But Marxists and other revolutionaries also learned that a nation could be just as effectively overthrown when undermined from within. Taking over the institutions of power and influence can just as readily bring about the new social order desired by the radicals.

A number of commentators have remarked on this over the years. As but one example, Roger Kimball discussed this theme in his important book, The Long March (Encounter Books, 2000). I here offer what I wrote about this book back in 2004:

“In many ways the cultural revolution of the 60s has been as influential and momentous as other great social upheavals, such as the Industrial, French or Russian revolutions. All have left a lasting impact, and we still feel their effects today.

“The counter-culture revolution of the 60s really began with the Beats of the late 50s and continued into the mid 70s. By then the revolution was all but complete. A minority of social agitators on the fringes of society had managed to subvert and infiltrate the important institutions of power and influence (the media, academia, politics) in a very short period of time, resulting in a complete reversal of fortune. Thus today those concerned about faith and family values have found themselves displaced and marginalised. The counter-culturalists have become mainstream, while those who had previously occupied the middle ground are now the new fringe-dwellers.

“This volume traces the story of how this tremendous upheaval happened and why. It examines in some detail the ‘long march through the institutions’ which the radicals took. The phrase, attributed to the Italian Marxist Gramsci, speaks of the need to overthrow societies from within, instead of relying on bloody revolutions from without. The strategy, laments Kimball, had been all too effective.

“Indeed, no one could have foreseen how quickly and easily the institutions did crumble before the radical activists. The moral, cultural and social blitzkrieg has been as thorough as it has been all-consuming. And the success of this revolution, Kimball reminds, ‘can be measured not in toppled governments but in shattered values’.

“Values of every kind have been thrown to the wind in this far-reaching revolution. Religious values, cultural values, moral values and social values have all been deeply affected, making this one of the most thorough and successful revolutions to date.”

One of the main ways in which this bloodless revolution has been taking place is by means of judicial activism. Time and time again we are seeing the will of the majority being thwarted by leftist, activist judges who seek to remake society in their own image.

These activists consider the masses to be unenlightened and stupid, in need of the coercive utopianism being pushed by the courts. Thus one act of social revolution after another is being perpetrated by these activist judges, who are usually unelected, unrepresentative, and unaccountable to ordinary citizens.

If there is any key area which is especially being promoted by the judicial activists, it is the homosexual agenda. Since the majority of citizens consistently oppose the militant homosexual agenda, activist judges are bypassing and undermining democratic processes by their social engineering rulings.

This has been happening steadily now for some decades. And the most recent example of this war on democracy was yesterday’s decision by a US federal judge to overturn the state of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. This ban came in place in 2008 when California Constitutional amendment Proposition 8 was passed by 52 per cent of the vote.

Yet the majority vote of the people of California has just been dumped by another activist judge who is intent on remaking the moral and social fabric of America. This is also part of the declared war on the institutions of marriage and family which the radicals are bent on destroying as they redefine them out of existence.

Of course all the usual suspects applauded the decision. As one news account states, “Australian actress Portia De Rossi and her American TV talk show wife Ellen Degeneres – who married before Californians voted for Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage and sparked furious public debate – were among the first to join the celebration. An ecstatic De Rossi tweeted about ‘an incredibly exciting and historical day’ and a big step in equal rights.”

But not everyone was pleased with this further erosion of democracy in America. Karen England, the Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) said, “Today’s ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California’s direct democracy by imposing their point of view. Family values are under constant assault now more than ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California’s Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage.”

Randy Thomasson of the pro-family group SaveCalifornia said, “Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California.”

Indeed, it is very interesting to note that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and declared Proposition 8 to have no “rational basis” is himself an active homosexual. Why are we not surprised?

This battle will now continue to drag on in the courts. It is simply one more example of how a runaway judiciary is holding the American people to ransom. Sadly, this war against democracy is not limited to the US. All over the Western world these judicial activists are pulling down democratic freedoms as they unleash their activist agendas on hapless populations.

The war against freedom and family has just ratcheted up another notch. It is time for all concerned citizens to mount a counter-offensive.

www.smh.com.au/world/us-judge-overturns-gay-marriage-ban-20100805-11fx8.html?autostart=1
www.christiannewswire.com/news/6983114621.html
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080405.html

[1075 words]

33 Replies to “Judicial Activists Are Killing Democracy”

  1. Actually Bill I think the Prop 8 decision in California is worse than that. It is the judiciary “coming out of the closet” and declaring themselves the tyrannical rulers of California. The rule of law died this day in California at the hands of these black robed overseers.

    The judges are supposed to be sworn defenders of the constitution and they’ve seen fit to discard a part of the constitution that they consider a problem.

    What has been demonstrated to the people of California is that even if you play by the rules and do everything properly your judicial “betters” will do as they please and force their wishes on you at the point of a gun.

    This incidentally would be true even if the situation was reversed and Prop 8 had been to enshrine same sex marriage into the Californian constitution and the judges had discarded that.

    But as usual, in their insane drive to silence anybody who dares to disagree with them, the lunatics in the homosexual lobby have said that they will destroy even the things in place that will protect them from tyranny and oppression if only in doing so they can silence even the mildest voices of opposition. What more evidence do you need of the insanity of homosexual activists and the existence of a Natural Law that they are in rebellion against?

    Jason Rennie

  2. Bill,

    You and the writer of the Washington Times Jeff Kuhner who is also has a radio show would certainly get along. He was talking of this very topic this morning (or his evening.) I try and listen to his show early in the mornings when I can on http://www.talk570.com/. He is a Catholic and is a great believer in traditional marriage. He said this was going against the will of the majority of the people. He thinks that one of the people, a person called George Soros is behind this and other things in America. Sounds like someone I should do some research on. All I know is that George is very rich and is on the extreme Left.

    Carl Strehlow

  3. @Carl, George Soros is a dangerous man, as is Henry Kissinger and many other Fabians amongst the ruling elite in the US. He’s a billionaire currency market investor who wields business power and now has political clout. His big coup was in Sep 1992 when he made over US$1 billion profit by short selling sterling – the British still call it Black Wednesday and it cost the UK Treasury about 3.3billion pound. Most recently he’s help fund the US Democrat’s rise to power, and was involved in Copenhagen and has been campaigning for centralised socialist government for many years.
    Garth Penglase

  4. Well, this has at least forced the issue and now these renegade judges have openly showed their hand, and their true colours, being their disdain for the law they’re supposed to uphold. This could be the beginning of a big backlash against the elitist judges, we can only hope and pray. I’m hoping that in this upcoming election Australians will keep the same thing in mind and choose the party that is going to reverse the appointment of militant gay & anti-God judges.
    Garth Penglase

  5. Thanks guys

    Yes Soros is bad news indeed, and has been bankrolling social engineering activities for years now, from drug legalisation to the militant homosexual agenda.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  6. One wonders why the Californians had a referendum or even a constitution. It eventually came down to the rulings of a judicial elite. It’s ironic don’t you think that a country which was so firm in denying feudalism and the role of kings over the will of the people has gone back to a de-facto feudalism, whereas in this case, the new “lords” are the activists and judges.
    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton QLD

  7. You refer, Bill, to the greater, worse, effects of the 1960s- “liberations” than any violent revolution. I think future history will see the self-destruction of the West as a delayed product of the evils of WWII. A few decades after that war, the “victors” just rolled over and conceded self-destruction that ultimately will be seen as being as bad as the evils of Nazi-ism that they were threatened by in the 1930s/40s.
    John Thomas, UK

  8. For God’s sake will they not think of the children? I prayed for Prop 8 and wept for joy when it was passed. Now I look with horror as the moral majority in America is ridden roughshod over. The homosexuals should learn some decency or be forced to live on an island somewhere, preferably miles from civilisation.

    Barbara Murray-Leach

  9. We are engaged in increasingly open spiritual warfare and should not be surprised by any of this. We need to study ,understand and live by Eph. ch.6 v.10 – 17. We all have a part to play. May God’s grace keep us faithful to the end and may His blessing and protection be on us all.
    Thanks Bill for keeping us informed.
    Anna Cook

  10. Strong evidence that the gutless Republicans must “bork” Kagan.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said that his job as a judge was:

    “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not. … Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts.” [cited by Thomas Sowell in ‘Empathy’ Versus Law]

    He frequently ruled against his own strong preferences simply because he saw himself as a referee rather than a legislator.

    But where a judge legislates his own political preferences from the bench, e.g. the topic of this thread, then he is really a politician rather than the referee that he should be. So if it’s a matter of appointing a super-politician with lifetime tenure, to impose Dem policies that they are too gutless to impose themselves, then confirmations have already become political.

    So I would argue that Kagan must be “borked”. Obamov can’t complain, since he tried to block Alito and Roberts, since Obamov wants a super-legislator in his own camp rather than the referees that Alito and Roberts have proven to be. And Bork was another judge who saw himself as a referee, hence the disgusting eponymous Borking by the unlamented Kennedy, who sank to the lowest point in his life (apart from Chappaquidddick).

    Jonathan Sarfati, USA

  11. The American Family Association is calling all people to write their congress people to begin impeachment proceedings of this judge.

    Rebecca Field

  12. See Ed Feser on the phony nature of Judge Walker’s appeal to state neutrality;

    ‘1. Judge Walker’s decision, he tells us, is based on the principle that the state ought not to “enforce ‘profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles’” or to “mandate [its] own moral code.” But that is, of course, precisely what Walker himself has done. His position rests on the question-begging assumption that “same-sex marriages” are no less true marriages than heterosexual ones are, and that the only remaining question is whether to allow them legally. But of course, whether “same-sex marriages” really can even in principle be “marriages” in the first place is part of what is at issue in the dispute. The traditional, natural law view is that marriage is heterosexual of metaphysical necessity. Rather than staying neutral between competing moral views, then, Walker has simply declared that the state should stop imposing one moral view – the one he doesn’t like – and should instead impose another, rival moral view – the one he does like.

    What we’re seeing here is just one more application of the fraudulent principle of “liberal neutrality,” by which the conceit that liberal policy is neutral between the moral and metaphysical views competing within a pluralistic society provides a smokescreen for the imposition of a substantive liberal moral worldview, on all citizens, by force. (Of course, liberals typically qualify their position by saying that their conception of justice only claims to be neutral between “reasonable” competing moral and metaphysical views, but “reasonable” always ends up meaning something like “willing to submit to a liberal conception of justice.”)’

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/some-thoughts-on-prop-8-decision.html

    Damien Spillane

  13. There is one expression commonly heard in life “The learned Judge” which suggests that because some section of the brain of a judge helps him or her to sail through exams to obtain a number of university degrees, then ipso facto all other sections of the brain are in perfect working order. However being recognised as an “intellectual” doesn’t mean that the person so described is also the possessor of great wisdom. I have met and know intellectuals who are blessed with great wisdom, but I have never forgotten my favourite saying that “many intellectuals lack the common sense of the blue collar worker and the farmer”. Incidentally, George Soros an Hungarian communist, is a billionaire who is one of Barack Obama’s financiers and is a force in Obama’s life, responsible for various backflips the President makes after a phone call or two from Soros. Obama’s main financiers in America are trial lawyers. Talking of San Francisco, which is ofter described as the “gay” capital of America, I was somewhat surprised on an occasion, when my wife was alive, we were having a light lunch in a small restaurant, when a friendly American at the next table heard us talking and asked where we were from. After I told him his next remark both surprised and amused us. He said “By the way, I’m not gay”.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  14. Jason Rennie speaks of the “insane drive” of the militant homosexual lobby. How true this is. Remember the guy with all the demons who was in the tombs at Gadara – he used to “gash himself with stones”. The 400+ “prophets” of Baal did the same. (with knives). Whoever will serve the devil, will become like him, and he “cuts off his nose to spite his face” – this is his nature. Remember when Martin Bryant killed and wounded all those people at Port Arthur years ago – he holed-up in a house as the police narrowed in on him. The house then caught alight – started by Bryant. He has since approached 2 other male prisoners at different times for “sex”. Serve the King of Kings and become like Him, or serve the devil and become like him. Choose this day who you will serve.
    Ian Brearley

  15. I have read blogs with even homosexuals explaining how even though they think the decision is right, it should never have been achieved in this way.

    To really bring the point home we only need ask how the population should respond if the situation was reversed or different. Imagine if a vote on not going to war is overturned by judge or a vote on an ETS is overturned by a judge. We would have riots in the street, yet once again the peaceful, respectful and people who play by the rules are told that their decision of how a country should be run counts for nothing.

    For even more insanity contrast this with judges allowing sharia law to be used in some cases where it is “culturally relevant”.

    The next bill to be passed in California needs to be one that allows only the people to re-write the peoples decision.

    Jay Rusty

  16. These activist judges will discover there is a greater Judge and a higher Court. He too is not voted into power and there is no power that can remove, con or corrupt Him.
    Glenn Christopherson

  17. Bill, how similar is the Australian system? We [did have] Justice Kirby but do the judiciary here have the same kind of clout?
    Alison Keen

  18. Don’t forget that Judges are not the only ones threatening liberties. Consider the case of the litigation lawyers trying to take David Jones for 37 million just for a sexual harassment case (rape victims don’t get anywhere near this amount).

    If this case succeeds it will open flood gates of frivolous and excessive litigation that will harm businesses and shareholders (just as it has done in medicine in the US through the likes of trial lawyers like Jonathon Edwards);

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/djs-lawsuit-alarms-the-big-end-of-town/story-e6frg6zo-1225902296127

    Damien Spillane

  19. Sadly the thinking of judges is now changed, and nothing is absolute. The American constitution is now consider a “living” document that is evolving, along with the bible.
    What they don’t realize is evolution can only lead to one place. The house of the prince of darkness who started this lie back in Eden when he provoked man to question, has God really said.
    When Judge Robert Bork (Mentioned by Jonathan) was recommended as candidate for the US supreme court, by Ronald Regan, the liberal establish was threatened like never before by this godly man and went after him with a vengeance second to none led by the leftist American civil liberties group.
    Unfortunately in Australia our judiciary has taken the same path with appointments now more based on political correctness than ability and will lead us to the same place.
    Hell on earth.
    Rob Withall

  20. Hi Bill.
    On his show on 4th August, Michael Savage had this to say on the issue:

    FROM BLACK SHIRTS TO BLACK ROBES
    TODAY, A LEFT-WING JUDGE IN A BLACK ROBE RULED THAT YOU HAVE NO VOTE. JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER WHO WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE BUSH SR, HAS STRUCK DOWN CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 8, WHICH SAID THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. IN A 138-PAGE DECISION, HE ASSAULTED AND INSULTED THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE. THIS LITTLE CAESAR CLAIMED THAT PROPOSITION 8 PLACES THE FORCE OF LAW BEHIND STIGMAS AGAINST GAYS AND LESBIANS. THIS LITTLE CAESAR CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER. THIS LITTLE CAESAR CLAIMED DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY. ALL OF THIS IS WRONG. BUT WHAT’S MORE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS THAT JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER HAS STOLEN THE VOTES OF 7 MILLION PEOPLE.

    NOW LITTLE CAESAR JUDGE WALKER, THIS HAPPENS TO BE GAY. THIS IS A FACT THAT THE MEDIA REFUSES TO REPORT TO YOU. AND HE HAPPENS TO BE A RADICAL LEFTIST. IN 1999, HE REJECTED ARGUMENTS FROM THE PARENTS OF A BOY WHO CLAIMED THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY PRO-GAY COMMENTS THEIR SON’S TEACHER HAD MADE IN THE CLASSROOM. IN 2005, HE SIDED WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WHO PLACED FLIERS PROMOTING “NATURAL FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY VALUES.” THIS IN NOT AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE. THIS IS AN DICTATOR IN BLACK ROBES.

    IN THE 1920S AND 30S, MUSSOLINI, THE FASCIST DICTATOR OF ITALY, SENT THUGS IN BLACK SHIRTS OUT INTO THE STREETS TO BEAT UP ANYONE WHO MIGHT OPPOSE HIS TYRANNICAL REGIME. MUSSOLINI USED BRUTALITY AND STOLE VOTES IN ORDER TO GET INTO POWER. BUT NOT EVEN HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO STEAL 7 MILLION VOTES TO ACHIEVE HIS ENDS.

    PROPOSITION 8 WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA IN 2008. EVEN THOUGH THE STATE VOTED FOR OBAMA, ON OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIANS SAID THAT MARRIAGE WAS JUST BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. 7 MILLION CALIFORNIA VOTERS SAID THAT. AND NOW, ONE BITTER, LITTLE CAESAR HAS VOTED TO THROW ALL THOSE VOTES OUT THE WINDOW. SO THE QUESTION IS THIS – IS JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER 7 MILLION TIMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ARE? ONE JUDGE HAS NULLIFIED THE VOTES OF MILLIONS: IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL? MICHAEL SAVAGE SAYS NO.

    http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=14951

    Carl Strehlow

  21. The title of this article is somewhat irrelevant objection, however, since the founders of the USA specifically avoided making it a democracy since that would lead to tyranny of the majority. It is officially a Republic with lots of anti-democratic measure like the Electoral College, presidential veto, and (originally) state-appointed senators, two per state regardless of population.

    The real problem was failure to recuse himself because of his bias, and inventing a constitutional “right” that was nowhere in the words of the Constitution.

    The term “activist” is also a red herring. A judge should be activist, in the sense of ruling against the Legislative branch, if a law clearly goes against the original meaning of the Constitution. That’s why SCOTUS was right to overturn parts of the McCain–Feingold (aka Incumbent Protection) Act: what part of “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” didn’t McCain and Feingold understand? Similarly the recent overturning of the gun ban: again, what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” don’t DC and Chicago understand? (If they don’t like guns, then repeal that amendment).

    “Activism” is a problem only where judges invent a right that’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution. For example, when the Constitution was written, marriage equalled one man and one woman. And it clearly didn’t have a right to abortion, since all states had bans at the time and for almost 200 years after. The “establishment” clause meant to forbid an “established” State Church, so there would be no “Church of the USA” in the way that the Anglicans are the “Church of England”. At the time, schools used the Bible in class, and the New England Primer was overtly Biblical. So it clearly didn’t mean expunging Christianity from society. So the problem is where a judge uses “unconsitutional” to mean “something I think should have been prohibited in the Constitution and would have been if I had written it”.

    Jonathan Sarfati, USA

  22. Bill the subject of same sex marriage is again a hot topic in the media because of an impassioned question posed to Julia Gillard on Q&A last night. ABC’s Derek Guille was discussing it tonight and I took a deep breath and called in to add the Christian’s perspective. Apparently he was a Christian up to 30 years ago. When I suggested the society was suffering because God’s ways were being rejected he challenged it by suggesting that these ills in society were epidemic amongst Christians as well, ie divorce suicide depression etc. I could not respond because he was right. The Church is under so much pressure that she looks just like the world from those outside looking in. We have allot of work and repenting to do if we are ever to be the salt and light of God to the world.
    About this judge in California being a homosexual Bill one could suggest he had a conflict of interest here and that he should have dismissed himself from the case. There again whoever presided over the case would be in the same position of bias being for or against. Just goes to show it would be much simpler letting God’s word have the last word as Father knows best.
    Keith Lewis

  23. Thanks Keith

    Yes and no is how to best reply to his claims. Yes, we are often as bad as the world. That is to our great shame, and we need to repent and get our act together. But no, this should not paralyse us into silence. This is the silly idea that unless one is perfect, one can never make a moral judgment. It is possible I may have run a red light at one time or another. Does that mean I cannot state that it is wrong to run red lights, or even to have them? Just because believers can break God’s laws does not mean we should therefore just shut up and accept everything, and refuse to support God’s righteous standards.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  24. Let’s hope for some Christian judges to overturn any new laws aimed at limiting the rights of Christians.
    David Williams

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: