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
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Ken Connor :: Townhall.com Columnist
Danger! Judicial Activists at Work!
by Ken Connor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


There they go again!

Like termites gnawing away at the foundation of a building, judicial activists are eating away at the foundations of representative government in America. The damage they cause threatens our ability to govern ourselves through our elected representatives and reallocates the delicate balance of powers which our forefathers were careful to distribute among separate branches of government.

The most recent example of judges usurping legislative authority comes from Alaska where that state's Supreme Court, by a narrow 3-2 vote, struck down the 10 year old Parental Consent Act. The Act required girls 16 years and younger to get a parent's permission before receiving an abortion. Typically, such children can't go on a school field trip, join a sports team or attend an "R" rated movie without parental consent. Ah, but this case involved an attempt by the legislature to encroach on what the political left regards as its most sacred of rites, the right to abortion! And even though Alaska's House and Senate passed the Act by substantial majorities, it only took three paltry judges to torpedo the law. The judicial sages held that the Act encroached on a minor's "fundamental right to privacy" protected under the state's constitution. Parental rights, which the legislature sought to protect, were jettisoned by the Court. The Court held that a minor's decision to abort, unlike all other medical decisions, cannot be hindered by a parental "veto power."

Never mind that Alaska's constitution doesn't mention the right to an abortion anywhere in its text. And never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court (comprised of a majority of judicial activists who genuflect at the altar of abortion) has approved parental consent statutes in other states. Of course, it is the parents of the minor child—not the judges of Alaska's Supreme Court—that will have to deal with the emotional and physical trauma of the child's decision to kill the baby resident within her womb. And—God forbid—if the procedure goes awry, it is the parents, not the judges, who will have to pay the medical bills for the costs of correcting the error. Nonetheless, the right to abort—even by a child who has barely reached estrus—trumps all. And it is not to be encroached without undergoing strict scrutiny by the high priests of radical feminism.

These potentates of privacy have incredible powers of divination. They are capable of discovering "emanations from penumbras" that are invisible to legislators and executives. They discern meanings in words that are incomprehensible to other readers. Indeed, they have the capacity to infuse words with new meanings that would boggle the mind of any linguist.

It's amazing what one can accomplish with a law degree, a black robe and limited accountability. And, therein, lies the problem.

Increasingly, we the people are being ruled, not by our readily accountable elected officials, but by unelected jurists with limited accountability. As a result, our constitutional republic is rapidly being transformed into a judicial oligarchy in which the judicial branch of government is increasingly becoming more equal than the others. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Harry Krishna...
Interesting response and I enjoyed reading it. You posing your understanding of the difference between libertarians and what you call socialists as being in disagreement with my understanding of the difference between conservatives and liberals, at first, confused me. My second thought was that what you were disagreeing with was my assertion that this column and the responses to it demonstrate the difference between conservatives and liberals while you believed that they demonstrated the difference between libertarians and socialists but even that seems weak as most responders clearly come from either a conservative or a liberal perspective, not-withstanding some libertarian comments.

I am left believing that what you were saying was that it is the difference between libertarians and socialists that should be the focus of this discussion, in which case you may have a point. I have suggested to some of my liberal friends that what they call ‘the extreme right wing’ can be viewed as a centrist position between libertarianism and liberalism although I expect your view that conservatives and liberals are both socialist because both acknowledge a stronger role for the Federal Government than suits you would reject that notion.

I do disagree with your view that conservatives are socialists and suggest that you fall prey to the same stereotype of conservatives, as do the prideful self-proclaimed non-judgmental anti-stereotype liberals. We are not all sexually repressed hypocrites who seek to impose their morals on others. To the extent that some of us may tend toward that, they seek to do so through the weight of disapproving public opinion and not through the constructs of the Constitution. Liberals make no such distinction because they understand the ‘spirit’ of the Constitution to be liberalism; therefore liberal public opinion is, by definition, Constitutional.

Anyway, thanks for responding with ideas rather than emotion. That is always welcome.

parental consent forfeited
Many have raised the apparent contradiction between all other medical procedures and abortion where parent consent may not be necessary.

The difference is that parent de facto has given the child the opportunity if parent has not put a chastity belt on the girl.

There is a sea change when that happens with sex. It is private like going to bathroom. It is unlikely most parents ask their child daily: Do you have sex int.; or oral sex today.

Sex by its very nature if private. Once that happens, things change; and hence, abortion is a choice for girl as was entering into a sexual relationship with de facto approval of parents.

Put a chastity belt on child if you are annoyed about being left out of abortion decision.

What is your take on the constitutionality of forced chastity belts till 18.

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.