Thanks Ruth

This week Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg had a bout of candor.  For some it was shocking, but for us it was refreshing.  It exposed what we have written about: liberal justices see themselves as dispensers of social justice, not dispassionate justices of the law and guardians of the Constitution.  In an interview with the New York Times, she spoke of her aversion to Donald Trump and a variety of decisions the court made that should be overruled.  Particularly revealing was her thinking on the Second Amendment.  Previously she expressed that a right to bear arms is tied to serving in a militia, but now she plainly expresses the Second Amendment is as just “outdated” as “its function has become obsolete”.  This is an astounding thought from a justice of the Supreme Court.

First, Justice Ginsberg knows full well that the right to bear arms and a militia are separate considerations of the Constitution.  Second, and more importantly, she is eminently aware that the Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers from the people to the government, and that those powers may only be amended by the people pursuant to the process defined in the Constitution.  Yet, here she is, declaring that she would take a right - specified in the Bill of Rights - from the people without their consent.  This is the philosophy known as the “Living Constitution” that liberals purport as their justification to usurp the consent of the people.

Liberals would argue that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was an activist just as Ginsburg.  However, Scalia’s “activism” was being bound by the Constitution and not revising it based upon his view of morality or decency.  As we write in our book, Vigilance The Price of Liberty, Scalia was particularly concerned that the Living Constitution was “illegitimate”, as the job of the Court is not to make law, but to resolve laws that conflict with the Constitution. Scalia argued that resolution of the Constitution should be as lawyers, not sociologists.  The crux of his concern, and ours, is who decides what is best for us.  Ourselves or five justices?

Ginsberg demonstrated she does not have the judicial temperament nor fidelity to the Constitution to be a justice of the Court.  If we remain silent, then our liberty is threatened.  However, if we are vigilant and speak against public officials who would break their oath to defend the Constitution then they will think twice before putting their notions of what is best for us before ours.