the Importance of Judges

By coincidence, as the nation's representatives in the U.S. Senate confirm for us the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two judgements come down from lower courts that demonstrate how much power judges have and how much damage to our society that they can do with imprudent rulings:

1. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the current statement of the pledge, which includes the phrase "under God", is unconstitutional.

This action of a few, the judges, on behalf of a minority, a group seeking to remove all expressions of belief from the public square, is clearly not the will of the majority of Americans - who would support the pledge as is. This thwarting of the majority is to the court's peril in the esteem with which the public holds the judiciary.

2. A federal judge in Michigan has declared unconstitutional a Michigan law which bans partial-birth abortion.
Here are some truths about this awful and unwise decision:

- Every time the people's representatives take this up as a legislative issue, they vote to ban this barbaric procedure.

- Every time a judge rules on the law passed by the legislatures, they rule it unconstitutional.

One judge thwarting the expressed will of the people's representatives. This is untenable, and is the reason that abortion is still such a polarizing hot button issue. The people, via their representatives, are not allowed to settle the matter in a democratic fashion.

In this case, one liberal judge appointed by Bill Clinton thwarted the will of Michigan's legislature. Untenable.

In the case of partial-birth abortion, this tendency of the judiciary to stop the democratic process is particularly eggregious because partial-birth abortion is itself eggregious and barbaric. The judge in question apparently offered the opinion that the law presented an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion. I personally have no problem balancing the barbarity of the act against that undue burden and in coming down in favor of the law, which expressed the will of the people of Michigan. But, I'm not wearing a black robe so my opinion doesn't count.

Supporters of this procedure, and of the judges who regularly rescue them from the expressed will of the majority, often argue that these bans of partial-birth abortions are faulty because they do not contain exceptions for the life or health of the mother. These arguments are themselves faulty because this procedure has nothing to do with the life or health of the mother. But then again, most supporters of the "right to choose" this barbaric procedure are entirely ignorant of the realities of this procedure. They simply support this right reflexively thinking, erroneously that they are being noble. They are not. Supporting barbarity is barbaric, not noble.

I have yet to have a discussion with a supporter of the "right to choose" a partial-birth procedure who could even begin to adequately describe the actual procedure. This is not trivial. It is central to the argument. Most people do not want to know the actual details of the procedure due to squeamishness. In fact, the purveyors of this barbarity count on your squeamishness to continue to practice without scrutiny.

***Squeamishness alert: description of partial-birth abortion follows. However, if you're too squeamish to know the truth about the procedure, you forfeit the right to have an opinion on it ***

For starters, no one that I have had this discussion in person with knew that the procedure takes 3 days. 3 days. If your life was in jeopardy, would you "choose" a procedure that takes 3 days over a C-section. Of course not. So, let's dispense with the "life of the mother" nonsense, because that is not the reason for choosing this procedure.

No pro-choicer that I've had this discussion with knew the mechanics of the procedure. The dilation of the cervix over 3 days using laminaria. The blind positioning with forceps of the baby in a breech position. The delivery of the child up to and except it's head. Puncturing the baby's skull with sharpened scissors. Sucking the brains out with a vacuum. Finally, completing a delivery of a dead baby.

It's not about the health of the mother. If the mother's health was in jeopardy, would you intentionally position the baby in breech which has a higher complication rate? Would you stop the delivery at the neck?

The procedure is not about the life of the mother. The procedure is not about the health of the mother. The procedure is about delivering a dead, intact, baby. Dead, because that is the result the mother has elected with her "right to choose". Intact, to reduce the liability of the abortionist - who risks leaving body parts inside if he uses other traditional methods at the late date.

That's the reality of partial-birth abortion.

It's barbaric. And I have no trouble at all labelling supporters of this "right" as barbarians.

Including this judge. A barbarian in a black robe.

It's time to start impeachment procedures for some of these out of control judges. That's the only check available against those who would regularly thwart the will of the majority.