Judge Bernard Friedman
Mother Knows Best
And no that is not a Simpson’s cartoon
It seems the crack-brained judiciary of this country is falling all over itself in a rush to re-engineer our lives. One moronic judge after another frantically competes for the privilege of destroying the principles of self-government and constitutional restraint.
The latest instance comes from Michigan, wherein judge Bernard Friedman “struck down” part of the Michigan Constitution on the supposed basis that it contravened the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
“IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.“
Along the way he engaged in the usual brainless expostulations typical of this class of jurist, comparing Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case involving members of the opposite sex, with a case involving two persons of the same sex. But of course when modern jurists start with their sweet mystery of life songs of love and emotional fulfillment, nothing like a restrained reading of the Federal Constitution much less a syllogism or logical coherence is likely to stand in the way of their herding us into a brave new world of judicially imposed social obligations and interpersonal affirmation.
It appears on the surface that nothing short of breaking social relations with persons of this kind will do if one is to somehow avoid being dragged down into their entropic hell-hole where social, and resultantly, personal energies, are squandered in affirming and expressing a government mandated solidarity with the morally dysfunctional as they celebrate their dysfunction. Which of course is – that is to say, the self-protective breaking of relations and distancing of one’s self - precisely what the kind wishes to prevent you from doing in the first place. So, that tactic of withdrawing into the private is not likely to succeed without a fight either.
We’ve reached a peculiar point in this country; one where absurdities such as Anthony Kennedy’s pronouncements in Lawrence v. Texas substitute not only for careful reasoning, but for any semblance of rationality at all. And the legal establishment, and indeed most of the people, seem resigned to it.
Stare decisis is overthrown; tradition and custom assigned to the trash heap; “compelling state interests” are defined at judicial will; Constitutional limits on the coercive power of the Federal Government are trampled, and the very right of the people to legislate for themselves is ruled out of order in deference to so-called sociological jurisprudence. Place aside for one moment Kennedy’s infamous self-citation from Casey, in Lawrence, and consider what has really become the crux of the matter from the point of view of the modern legislating jurist:
“Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests”
Recall that Kennedy is talking of buggery here; an absurd act committed by two worthless and probably morally deranged simps. Note carefully too, that what is being written into law is a demand of social respect for certain behaviors which Kumbaya trilling judges like Kennedy and Friedman deem shall henceforth be legal, and therefore mutatis mutandis socially acceptable. In this vein, Friedman quotes and writes:
“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p. 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”
“The court’s fervent hope” he says …
This perfervid jibber jabber is not a respectable account of law. It is contemptible emotionalism masquerading as meaning. It is an effluvial snuffling and mewing of a kind that poisons the life of anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot or arm’s reach. But when nothing is considered to have an intrinsic meaning, there is nothing left for the legislating holder of that view than a descent into the realm of subjective emotional satisfactions and feelings of “inclusion”.
We are clearly not only in a post teleological era philosophically, we are as a result in a post Constitutional era politically; an era where the “judicial revolution” or or better, that legislative usurpation which began in the 1930s, has fully taken hold.
They will mold you as they will, because they believe that there is no reason for them to refrain from doing so. It’s their religion, and they are willing to kill and die for it.
Given that, I am not sure anything other than an extreme reaction by the people and their elected representatives on their behalf, will preserve our traditional rights of self-government. Assuming anyone is still interested …