Many commentators have predicted that if a conservative is eventually nominated to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there could be chaos in the streets, including violence.
One reason for this prediction is obvious, the other one not so much.
The obvious reason is that leftists are now willing to do anything, repeat, ANYTHING, to get their way. The fight over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh made this quite clear.
The left will lie, cheat, steal and make false accusations. They will trap senators in an elevator while verbally assaulting them. And if they don’t like what you say or think, they will throw things at you, rip off your hat and shout you down.
They just want to win, period, and they don’t care how they do it. They now embrace street violence and they get more violent with each passing year. As long as their thugs are not arrested and prosecuted this trend will continue.
They do this because it works. It frightens those responsible for enforcing law and order into surrendering to the mob. It even motivates so-called political leaders to tell the police to stand down and give leftist street mobs “room to destroy.”
All this is obvious, and that is why many people are now predicting civil chaos if President Trump nominates a conservative to replace Justice Ginsburg.
But there is another reason why the left is so determined to prevent originalist judges from assuming the bench. It has to do with the nature of “judging” itself.
Simply put, the job of judging is not what it used to be. The judges themselves changed the job description. Whereas the job used to focus on individual disputes, such as “You owe me money,” — it no longer does. Today an activist judiciary rules over our society and controls every issue and policy question, bar none.
Judges force schools to admit grown men into bathrooms used by 6-year-old girls. They tell taxpayers to pay for sex-change operations for criminals and they tell city governments that zoning laws on single-family housing are racist and illegal.
They tell the president what he can and can’t do, regardless of what statutes or the Constitution say. And they tell landowners a factory can’t be built on slightly moist land with a few puddles because the land is really a “navigable waterway.”
In short, the judges are all-powerful, on every issue — and no one stops them.
Leftists understand this, and that is why they are willing to engage in almost any tactic to get “their judges.” Do leftists run rampant in the street supporting an individual congressman or opposing a given senator?
Of course not, because those individuals are almost impotent compared to the all-powerful judiciary.
Although a few judges bemoan the left’s tactics and condemn the possibility of street violence if Justice Ginsburg needs to be replaced, they need to look in the mirror. It is you, my fellow citizens in black robes, who are partially responsible for this mess.
Your activists took advantage of the weakness of the other branches of government. They abandoned self-restraint, and this laid the groundwork for civil chaos whenever a Supreme Court slot becomes vacant.
In short, activist judges have grabbed way too much power and now we are all paying the price.
But there is still hope. The way back is no so difficult. If only our judges would start saying: “We don’t have the power to decide that question,” some calm could be restored.
In other words, judges should share power, instead of hogging all of it.
So my advice to the judiciary is simple: Display some modesty. Don’t try to control our society from the bench. Not only is it morally and legally wrong, but in the long run it’s not good for the judiciary itself.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.