Here we have the very crux of the problem in our government and society today. We have imbued our judicial system with the responsibility and authority to decide all matters, assuming that the judge has competency to decide such things.
Today’s Boston Globe contains one example. The US Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether global warming exists and whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required to help stop it. I agree that global warming is an important public policy issue, but why are we asking 9 robed lawyers decide the truth of a scientific matter under debate? What makes their opinions more authoritative than any other layman’s?
This problem has been going on for a long time. In 1973 we let the courts decide when life begins. In the early 1990s, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey we let them decide what reality itself is. In Massachusetts, our courts have decided that marriage isn’t what it is. For years state and federal judges have been making rulings on the quality of public education and ordering local and state governments to raise taxes. Rather than having a public debate of elected representatives—in which some might argue that more money is not the solution to failing schools—solitary judges decided for themselves that we must throw good money after bad, with no input from the taxpayers. This is democracy? Anyone else recall the Boston Tea Party? “No taxation without representation!”
The courts have gotten out of control and like any body with power, it will slowly but surely continue to increase the bounds of its power unless we put a stop to it. Articles I and III of the US Constitution give the Congress the power to ordain and establish certain rules concerning the authority of the courts. It should use those powers to rein in an out-of-control judiciary that threatens to become an oligarchy.
Technorati Tags:Constitution, judges, judicial activism, Supreme Court
