Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, June 27, 2008
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
Evolving Standards of Indecency
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Liberals fashion themselves as protectors of fundamental rights, even as against the "tyranny of the majority." But they only selectively apply that principle, readily dispensing with it when it interferes with their policy preferences.

The Constitution establishes a framework to maximize liberties not by making them absolute, but by pitting competing branches and levels of government against each other and enshrining certain rights and prerogatives that can't be abolished outside of the prescribed constitutional procedures.

If we continue to surrender the more permanent structural framework of the Constitution to the shifting sands of ever-changing national opinions, we'll see our liberty evaporate drip by drip, until we end up like all other great nations preceding us.

But the national consensus analysis, as bad as it is, is symptomatic of the deeper-rooted standard the court insists on invoking with increasing frequency: "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

The very enunciation of such "standards" betrays the majority's abandonment of the Framers' Judeo-Christian-inspired belief in moral absolutes. It mocks the biblical description of man as a fallen creature. It arrogantly presumes -- despite a wealth of objective evidence to the contrary, including the multiplicity of godless atrocities in the 20th century alone -- that we human beings are forever improving on God's moral standards. Of course, that's not difficult to accept if you reject the existence of God.

Are we evolving as a morally mature society when we permit the killing of babies in -- and halfway outside -- the womb? When we permit such obscenely sloppy formulations as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? When we glorify so much else that is abominable in the sight of God?

If we are evolving to the point that, on supposed moral grounds, we won't let sovereign state legislatures sanction execution for a sadistic creature who raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter -- giving her "a laceration to the left wall of her vagina" and "causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure," tearing "her entire perineum from the posterior fourchette to the anus" and requiring emergency surgery -- I weep for all of our children and our society.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Jack
This forum is getting old now and I am not sure anyone is looking at it anymore but do want to respond to your last two posts to me.

I am not sure which discussion you are referring to as adjacent to ours so I am not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to our having introduced some level of civility into our discussion then I am with you.

I take your point regarding general statements such as ‘Liberals/Conservatives are/think/believe,…, but I had hoped with my previous explanation that we could get beyond that and into the substance of what I contend’ many/most Liberals/Conservatives seem to me to ,…,” i.e. their view of the Constitution. You said you did not view it the way I portrayed but did not elaborate beyond that.

I don’t agree that ‘judicial activism’ is just a term used when someone does not agree with the outcome of a SCOTUS ruling but perhaps you meant ‘most’ people and not me in particular. It seems to me that with that and your previous point on generalities that you are obfuscating the real issues and hiding behind semantical arguments to avoid addressing them.

Since you reject the term itself let me rephrase my question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should adjudicate the cases that come before it solely according to its understanding of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional or do you think it should do so first on the basis of what it believes is right and wrong and then address the question of constitutionality in order to arrive at a decision consistent with the former?

Neurotic liberals
Only a liberal would try to promulgate the notion that having an emotional response to an issue disqualifies him/her as rational to judge. They believe, on the surface, that only one who is dispassionate, with no apparent interest in the issue, is qualified to judge.

That is the paradox of liberal emotionalism. Extreme distrust and compartmentalization of emotions, while enslaved to them in every area of their lives.

When some idea is put forth, such as that the death penalty should not be given for child molesters, you in fact should consider what exactly that idea will mean for you. That is the only rational way to consider it. You cannot grasp the meaning and implications of an idea unless you think about what it will mean for the individual - and that means thinking about what it will mean for the most important individual in your life. This is not unobjective thinking - it is the epitome of it.

Socialists are only able to perpetrate their crimes against humanity because people think in disinterested terms, such as, "It's good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." If people had thought about what it would be like to pay $4/gallon for gas, constantly face layoffs and economic hardship, lose their property rights, and watch medical science go down the toilet as their body got older and unhealthy, socialism would not have near the influence it has today.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.