Judge Nina Gerson of the Eastern District of New York just ruled that Congress had no right to cut off funding to ACORN, the recently disgraced left-wing activist group. She called the congressional action a “bill of attainder,” that is, a legislative action which singles out people or groups for punishment without trial. In fact, Congress cut ACORN’s funding when proof of its criminality became overwhelming. Gerson’s rationale, apparently, is that any time Congress sees fit to defund any program or group, some sort of trial must take place. That is nonsensical, and her action little short of criminal itself. It totally disregards the Constitution’s separation of powers between the three branches of government, particularly the sole right of Congress, not the judiciary, to raise taxes and appropriate funds.
She is obviously a corrupt leftist judge to whom our Constitution means nothing, and should be removed from the bench. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to get rid of a federal judge once appointed. We are stuck with her corruption and dishonesty until she either decides to quit or dies.
In Minnesota, we have the right to elect our state judges, and thereby remove from office any of them whose behavior becomes outrageous. However, a constitutional amendment is being proposed which would rescind that right from the voters. The rationale for it is that sooner or later “big corporate money” will be injected into judicial elections in order to seat judges who are beholden to special interests.
People who harp on special interests and big money tend to ignore the fact that, these days, government itself is a special interest, which wields the biggest money of all. That is why such intense interest accrues to the selection of Supreme Court justices. Left-wing judges refer to the Constitution as a “living document,” which, in plain language, asserts their intention to make it up as they go along.
Conservative judges believe, or at least provide lip service to the effect, that the founding document has objective meaning inherent in its language, or which can be found in the original intentions of the framers. Liberals will disagree with me on the import of the constitution as a “living document”, but there is no doubt that liberal judges rule mostly one way on partisan issues, conservatives the other.
Those who wrote the Constitution never intended that the judiciary should hold so much sway over the legislative branch, or the people’s right to pass legislation to govern themselves. They would be aghast at the current state of affairs, in which judges wield a totally unconstitutional and illegitimate veto power over legislation that does not suit their personal beliefs and preferences.
Giving away what power the voters still have over the judiciary here in Minnesota would be moving in the wrong direction.