In the end, there’ll be weeping and gnashing of teeth … but it’s not the end

Craig Hall, Publisher
Craig Hall, Publisher

At least I hope not. I mean, if you ask some on the left, we’re once again past the point of no return. But that’s just a talking point in the left’s playbook when it comes to global warming, abortion and specific groups’ rights. Truth be told, if you asked some on the right after President Barack Obama’s election — it was the exact same outlook for the future of our country.

Amazing, isn’t it? The moment someone elected doesn’t think and act exactly as we demand, the end result is the same in terms of gloom and doom, whether you’re on the left or right. Perhaps we’d all be better off taking to heart this one basic principle of our founding: We’re all individuals, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. In other words, we’re all different. And because of that, we all have rights the same as others when it comes to what we do, think and believe.

And when you look at the weeping and gnashing that occurred on both sides in the above examples, what everyone seems to miss is the same elephant in the room: our federal government. After all, it’s the only entity (along with the little elephants of state and local governments) that has the power and force to take away our inalienable rights and make others do exactly what we feel and think. And it has done it with impunity since literally its founding. We’ve had presidents do this, senators do this, representatives do this and now we use the courts to do this.

That’s what the Justice Brett Kavanaugh explosion was all about. But not for the reason everyone on the left thinks. I think the fear they have stems from the fact Kavanaugh won’t legislate from the bench — as it should be — because that’s where liberals pass most of their legislative mandates and regulations. Why? Because they can’t pass them via the legislative process. Trust me, that’s why none of the concern over Kavanaugh was about the baseless, unprovable, character assassination-based lies about him being a rapist or having a hidden, lifelong history of sexual assault.

This was about using the court to make others think and do as liberals demand or to force laws and lifestyles upon others they don’t want or approve of simply because Kavanaugh might be a vote to say, “This isn’t up to the Supreme Court of the United States” And that, to the left, is unacceptable. But that’s what happens when you rely on the courts to get your way. And, yes, when it comes to many opinions the SCOTUS has rendered over the centuries regardless of political sides, many of them have been wrong constitutionally — but especially on the left.

If you think I’m wrong, kindly consider Jim Crow, Obamacare, the Fugitive Slave Act, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. New London and I could go on and on. The fact is, the SCOTUS was dead wrong or approved bad law in all of these cases. And in every case, one side was happy and one side was angry. Why? Because the “winning” side agreed with them.

That’s why we have subsidized weeping and gnashing in Washington today, because the courts make or solidify the laws in our country. Legislators know that much of what becomes law could end up in court (think how frustrated you get watching football refs making bad calls or no calls and putting it on replay to get it “right”) so they approve all kinds of laws or they’ll find a way to put it to a public vote (each makes re-election easier) knowing the onus won’t be on them. This makes a judge’s political leanings paramount. Hence the treatment of Kavanaugh when it came to the highest court of the land. His position as “swing vote” is all important to the left to move its agenda. First, it’s not a vote. Second, if a constitutional-based opinion puts the fear of God in you, then perhaps what you’re advocating for shouldn’t be a law. And third, if half the country opposes something, it definitely shouldn’t forced upon it by the “vote” of five people in black robes. It shouldn’t be law at all.

Every one of the cases above should have never seen the SCOTUS. But because certain political or special interest groups wanted something and had the money, that’s how things ended up.

So let’s take a step back and really look at our country’s infatuation of ruling via judicial fiat and how that relates to the taking of our rights. I heard for two years about how a President Trump was going to take away the rights of this group or that group. And to this day he’s done nothing of the sort. Trump believes in individual rights and the constitutional process — regardless of your opinion of him. On the other side, Obama took away our freedoms in health care choice via the courts. On a final note, both presidents used the exact same executive order to restrict the flow of immigration from certain countries, and the courts ruled in favor of Obama and against Trump.

Still think the courts are the best route to get your way? Maybe you’ll now think again when the court rules against you. As long as it’s constitutional, I don’t care.