A cheap monkeywrench is thrill enough.
At some point or another I got put on the American Family Association mailing list, which makes for a sour splotch in my inbox every week or so. But here at the arse-end of the year, the Rev. Wildmon is making another touchingly naïve attempt to harness the power of the web. He wants us all to advise the President as to what sort of judges he ought to appoint to the federal courts. If one were to click here, one could send an email which says roughly,
I feel a Federal judge should seek the original intent of the Constitution, and make his or her rulings based on the original intent. Please nominate individuals who have this concept toward the Constitution.
Whereas, if one were to click here, one could send an email which says something rather like,
I feel a Federal judge should have a “progressive mind” and make laws he or she feels are needed regardless of the Constitutional intent. I think the Constitution is a “living” document and must be interpreted by Federal judges willing to make needed laws that Congress refuses to make.
And if one were to click here, one would see the total number of each email sent to date. —At the moment, it stands at 16,380 fans of “original intent,” as opposed to 288 progressive minds.
Let’s do something about that, shall we?
Commenting is closed for this article.
Mmmm. Methinks Wildmon is setting a trap for progressives. The wording here implies that the judicial branch should take on the duties of the legislative branch, which is a big no-no in our system of checks and balances. Really, progressives want recognition of the Constitution's deliberately open-ended wording, that there is much more "spirit" than "letter," so to speak. No one want judges making laws, but judges do have the duty to strike down laws that are unconstitutional and to criticize institutions that threaten the Bill of Rights. "Original intent" is never quite as restrictive as the phrase's proponents (or critics) contend.