Judges and Feelings

Mario Diaz's latest article really swings for the fences. Right out of the gate he references the Nazis, and then movs on to how liberals use their feelings and subjective morality to defend their actions.

Many policymakers hide behind the “don’t judge me” masquerade to avoid the gargantuan task of defending the foolishness they try to pass off as sensible policy.

If I were actually debating Diaz this would be the point where I would ask him "Who exactly are you talking about here? What lawmaker actually says "Don't Judge me" or some varient thereof in defense of his legislation?"

Diaz then moves on to Judicial activism with a basically hamhanded attack on judges for interpreting the law and the constitution.

All judicial philosophies are not created equal. The Constitution is one. It is what unites us all — Republican or Democrat. And we must stick to that standard.

There are very real consequences to the idea that a judge can make decisions based on what is in his heart.

As we've talked about before, the conservative argument against judicial activism presupposes that there is one right answer to judicial questions, and that right answer is the conservative interpretation. So for any judge to disagree with conservative judicial doctrine, he must be ignoring the Constitution and the Law.

Rational thought might lead one to the conclusion that if the Law and the Constitution were so clear and easy to understand there would be little need for Appellite Courts or Supreme Courts.