Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Judicial Despotism: Ludicrous?

Ryan Sager on TCS opines:

The idea that there is judicial tyranny in America is ludicrous.

The judiciary's supporters think otherwise. John Hinderaker reports the recent Yale Law School conference "The Constitution in 2020" concluding that their socialist nostrums would not be agreed by democratically elected bodies and so:

"We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts - where else do we turn?"

Hinderaker concludes:

... (If) government-funded child care, "adequate" recreation, and $80,000 in cash seems outlandish, remember that these concepts are no more eccentric than the idea of a right to abortion was, prior to Roe v. Wade.

From a Brit perspective, the US sanction of partial birth abortion seems out of place in the guardian of Western civilization. I suspect that the difference is that in the UK, pols rather than judges determined abortion law.

UK voters support abortion as an unpleasant necessity, but don't agree with killing babies. This does happen, doctors being as corruptible as anyone else, but it's illegal. The debate now is about moving the latest acceptable date for abortion back to 20 weeks - medical advances mean premature babies can survive from that point.

By contrast, judge-imposed law in the US bypassed the democratic process and so has led to 30 years of passionate and sometimes violent warfare between pro-life and pro-choice groups.

So, Mr Sager, is it ludicrous to call judge-imposed socialism and baby killing tyranny?