Category: Politics

John, Eric, Alex, Bryan, maybe even Steve — since I presume you’re all Virginia voters, and since there is no registration of party preference in the Commonwealth, a story on WTOP radio tells me you’re all eligible and welcome to vote for your favorite Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency on February 10. Have you decided for whom you plan to vote?

Bill Logan, a sensible fellow, basically says that judges are supposed to make up laws when they see fit. I’ll quote him at length and then refute him — twice!
1. Eric wrote when a judge ceases to rule on points of law and begins to be a law-giver, he has overstepped his authority. I suspect that this is a fairly-widely held sentiment; my problem with it is that it is just so wrong. Judges have always made law. The common law is nothing more than judge-made law. How exactly would you differentiate “ruling on points of law” and “being a law-giver”? Is there any substantive difference other than that the former are actions you approve of and the latter are actions you don’t?
I think you’re confusing a “law,” as in statute, with “law,” as in jurisprudence. Surely you aren’t saying that a law enacted by a legislature is equivalent to a legal precedent? Or that legislatures cannot pass laws that contradict and supersede legal precedents?
Is your tongue in your cheek here? I hope it is, because I would think that the distinction between interpretation and legislation is so clear that it scarcely requires explanation. Christ commanded us to “love our neighbor.” If we interpret that to mean we must shelter our neighbor when his house burns down, are we writing a new commandment? No, it’s an interpretation that naturally flows from the rule.
2. As for the talk of tyranny, give me a break. If this is tyranny, what does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il? Are tyrants just people you disagree with, or is there any real meaning to the term?
Pace Voltaire, let’s start with defining our term. Merriam-Webster defines “tyrant” as

1a. an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b. a usurper of sovereignty.

Both senses apply to the judges of Massachusetts. There was no requirement of the state or federal constitution to mandate gay marriage, none whatsoever. The decision was made with vague references to “equal protection” when the clear intent was to mandate a social “reform” the justices felt the state deserved. Thus “unrestrained by law or constitution.”
The people, as you know, are the sovereign under American law: the government is authorized to do certain things on our behalf, but nothing else. The people of Massachusetts did not petition their representatives to redefine marriage, nor did they authorize the formation of courts so the judges might dictate their mores. If they had been consulted, even in their debased condition the Massachusetts citizenry would have soundly rejected gay marriage.
“What does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il?” Really bad tyrants, that’s what. Both of those monsters deserve the noose. Our judicial masters are petty tyrants, and deserve to be punished according to their abuses: they ought to be forcibly thrown from their chambers, departing to second-rate law faculties so they can write their wound-licking, self-pitying memoirs and whine about their mistreatment to bored law students.

The argument from silence is the weakest form of argument, philosophers agree. Not for the Washington Post! Because President Bush’s military records are incomplete, he must have been shirking his military duties. Their commitment to accuracy is manifest in this passage:
“In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted.” Enlisted servicemen enlist. Bush, as a first lieutenant, was an officer, and thus he was commissioned, not enlisted. That’s a huge difference, but to the Post, potayto, potahto.
An even better quotation: “In recent days, a one-year gap in President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service during the height of the Vietnam War has been raised by Democrats.” And it is our duty, as an establishment media organ, to amplify this charge. With all their resources, the best they can do is find a man with the wonderful name of Turnipseed who doesn’t think he saw Bush around the drill center, but then again he (Turnipseed) doesn’t recall being there much at that time.
Also, the “height of the Vietnam War,” in terms of American involvement, was 1968-69. By 1973, our combat troops were almost completely withdrawn. Did the factcheckers fall asleep?
All you left-wing muckraking journalists out there, here’s how to make a name for yourself: just figure out what Bush was doing during the time in question, and show that he could not have possibly spent one weekend a month fulfilling his duties. Then you’ll have proven your case. (Of course, if the unit commander excused him, then you don’t have a case at all.)
If you want to be intellectually honest, you might consider the possibility that his paperwork was messed up. But that’s only if you want to be intellectually honest.

(Thankx Jeff)

One of Mr. Frum’s readers sent him a very interesting email about the “problem” of the intelligence failure. Some hightlights:

…the intelligence community must naturally err on the side of pessimism and alarmism. The cardinal rule in military intelligence is to estimate the worst your enemy could possibly do, not what he probably is willing to do, or could economically do, or is likely to do. Worst-case analysis is the rule of the day. How could it be otherwise?
“I mean, here people are simultaneously saying 9/11 should have been anticipated, which would have required making seriously worst-case analyses about the threat posed by various low-level riff-raff, while at the same time making worst-case (instead of probable-case) analyses of the threat of Saddam Hussein was ‘irresponsible.’ Well, which is it? Which rule should the spooks follow?