Unaccountable activist judge
Mr. Martin H. Brinkley advocates in the March 18 edition of The Pilot that our judges be selected by a Judicial Nominating Commission -- see Judicial Justice. This is one of the favorite dreams of the Left who love to legislate from the bench when they cannot win at the ballot box or in the legislature.
Progressives, like Mr. Brinkley, would love to see our judges appointed for life and made completely "independent" of the "whims of the people" or from the "corrupting influences" of the other government branches whose "abuses they must curb". The progressives make it all sound so logical and proper, you see. They say the only way to have "fair" judges who dispense "judicial justice" (as in "social justice", "environmental justice", "economic justice", "racial justice" -- just about any old kind of justice imaginable except for Equal Justice Under the Law) is to make them "independent" of both the electorate and the other branches.
But you see, what this really makes them is unaccountable and unresponsive and arrogant. How often do we see activist judges overruling election referenda, overturning the will of the people on constitutional matters? How often do we see activist judges overturning laws passed by our elected representatives or even making new law in convoluted rulings on cases? How often do we see activist judges "re-interpreting" the law or portions of our U.S. or state constitutions to rule as they see fit?
Notice how this rarely happens where judges are elected and are accountable to the people for their actions. In our form of government, it is supposed to be government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Take the people out of the equation and have judges selected by non-elected "commissions" and accountable to no one -- then you will have a breakdown of our government. And that is what the Progressives want. They want unaccountable judges. Everywhere judges stand for election, these progressive elites continue to press at every opportunity for institution of judicial appointments. They make every possible argument for this terrible concept.
And I have to give some credit to these people, they are very good at what they do. They can twist facts, they can distort the language, they can make unprovable assertions, they can make emotional arguments with the very best of the propagandists. They can make lemon juice sound sweet and bondage sound "fair". But for all their different types and definitions of "justice", they really want only to advance their progressive ideology. It is not about "fairness". It is not about "independence". It is not about "professionalism".
It is about power, control, and elitism. And I hope the good people of North Carolina will soundly reject this ploy. We do not need more judicial and governmental insulation and isolation from the people. We need more accountability of government and the judicial system to the people -- we need smaller government closer to the people. The way Mr. Brinkley would point us leads to tyranny, not to justice.
Bill Cochrane
Progressives, like Mr. Brinkley, would love to see our judges appointed for life and made completely "independent" of the "whims of the people" or from the "corrupting influences" of the other government branches whose "abuses they must curb". The progressives make it all sound so logical and proper, you see. They say the only way to have "fair" judges who dispense "judicial justice" (as in "social justice", "environmental justice", "economic justice", "racial justice" -- just about any old kind of justice imaginable except for Equal Justice Under the Law) is to make them "independent" of both the electorate and the other branches.
But you see, what this really makes them is unaccountable and unresponsive and arrogant. How often do we see activist judges overruling election referenda, overturning the will of the people on constitutional matters? How often do we see activist judges overturning laws passed by our elected representatives or even making new law in convoluted rulings on cases? How often do we see activist judges "re-interpreting" the law or portions of our U.S. or state constitutions to rule as they see fit?
Notice how this rarely happens where judges are elected and are accountable to the people for their actions. In our form of government, it is supposed to be government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Take the people out of the equation and have judges selected by non-elected "commissions" and accountable to no one -- then you will have a breakdown of our government. And that is what the Progressives want. They want unaccountable judges. Everywhere judges stand for election, these progressive elites continue to press at every opportunity for institution of judicial appointments. They make every possible argument for this terrible concept.
And I have to give some credit to these people, they are very good at what they do. They can twist facts, they can distort the language, they can make unprovable assertions, they can make emotional arguments with the very best of the propagandists. They can make lemon juice sound sweet and bondage sound "fair". But for all their different types and definitions of "justice", they really want only to advance their progressive ideology. It is not about "fairness". It is not about "independence". It is not about "professionalism".
It is about power, control, and elitism. And I hope the good people of North Carolina will soundly reject this ploy. We do not need more judicial and governmental insulation and isolation from the people. We need more accountability of government and the judicial system to the people -- we need smaller government closer to the people. The way Mr. Brinkley would point us leads to tyranny, not to justice.
Bill Cochrane
RSS Feed