The Liberal Judge doesn’t want to be a despot. Some conservatives make that assertion, and the Left disputes it. I agree with it . . . in a manner of speaking. The Liberal judge doesn’t see himself as a king, a ruler, or a great and benevolent protector of the people making decisions that will better care for we, their poor and needy subjects. He sees himself as God. You see, a king or ruler is governed by the necessity to keep his kingdom healthy and secure. To do that, he is wise to adhere to his lineage of sagacious antecedents, continuing the administration of the royal heritage. The former prince-now-king may ‘tweak’ his father’s edicts a bit, but usually, the line of rule is a straight one, more or less. So to with the despot, or any other earthbound sovereign leader. But when one gifts himself with the power to hand down The Law as from on high, regardless of the Constitutional prohibition to do so, that is usually a Divine privilege, not an anthropo-centric one.
Apparently Chief Justice Roberts forgot that. “Well, sure, the law doesn’t allow it, but sometimes we have to mold the law . . . for the better good, you understand.” That’s Liberal judicial philosophy. A conservative judge simply administers, examines and adjudicates our laws as written, whether he likes them or not. Whether he agrees with them or not. On the other hand, the Liberal judge holds a different view. In his self-aggrandized, solipsistic narcissism the Liberal judge does “what is right” for the people, for the system, for ‘the greater good’. And Chief Justice Roberts gave us an excellent demonstration of that last week. Judges are not supposed to intervene in the process and ‘pick up the ball’ when the attorney fumbles it, no matter how noble the cause. They are not to decide right from wrong. They are not to decide good law from bad law, or the moral from the immoral. They are not even to insinuate the surely anyone with eyes can see it’s the only right thing to do moral imperative. Ever! No, their job is far more basic, far more simple in nature. They are to do no more, no less, than to passively hear the arguments, then having done so, prefer the ones that comport with the law as written by the people’s chosen representatives. There was a case where a defense attorney asked the judge to show his client mercy when the man was found guilty. “Councilor,” replied the judge, “mercy is not within the powers of this court.” If the Chief Justice wants the privilege of promoting what is ‘best’ for the people, he should either trade his black robe for God’s white one, or become a Congressman. The President doesn’t have the right to decide what is right or wrong. Nor does the military, nor the police, nor teachers, nor singers, nor actors, nor writers, nor sanitary workers. And nor do Supreme Court Justices. There is only one body that enjoys that right, and free from our Adamic blemishes, it is a Heavenly One. Our Founders saw fit to incorporate His Divine law into our own fallen one, thereby making the job of all other offices of State comparatively easy. All that those gavel-wielding, black-robed belles-lettres have to do is follow the guidelines – guidelines that are actually written down for them – by the people and accurately administer our version of His justice. And just a small note of emphasis for John Roberts, that’s His justice. Not his justice. Someone should remind the Chief Justice robed in black that the Chief Justice robed in white is still on the bench. And He swings a flaming sword, not a gavel. “Professing to be wise, they became fools”