Friday, May 25, 2012

The Subjective Rule of Law

In my quest to see what is unseen by most (because nobody reads past the first few paragraphs of a news article), I’ve found this gem in this article:

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement needed a warrant to put GPS trackers on suspect vehicles, but since this case predated that ruling, it was still up in the air as to what Judge Thapar was going to decide.

With that line, we see that the rule of law is subjective to the whims of the court system.  Putting aside the issue at hand, whether is right or not for a law enforcement officer to place a tracking device on a car without a warrant, the fact that the decision was up in the air because it occurred before the ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court means that right and wrong can change at anytime on the whims of a five elderly, borderline brain-damaged individuals.

I applaud Judge Thapar’s decision in this case because he clearly believes that such actions were wrong before the Supreme Court said they were.  Any action that law enforcement takes with regard to search and seizure is bound by the Fourth Amendment, and any good constitutionalist would agree (Mark Levin looking at you to shame you).  But the mere fact that this decision was “up in the air” shows that most judges base their decisions on precedent that has been set up or overturned, provided the action happened before the precedent was set or unset.

It is no wonder that the court system in the United States hands down some of the dumbest and most liberty-crushing decisions in the history of our nation: they believe themselves to be gods.  What else would call something that defines morality, as these judges clearly do, rather than judge case based on morality itself.

Look, I don’t care if you have a different religious belief than me (or none at all).  You have to agree that morality is one of the few constants in our lives.  You have to know that morality always has basic characteristics in all cultures and religions where most moral decisions are usually derived from the same base principle.  In most cases, moral decisions are based on some derivation of what modern libertarians call the non-aggression principle.  Yes, there may be big differences, but I have yet to find a moral system where theft and murder are considered moral and good.

But for the courts to think this way, where things that are wrong may not have been wrong unless the Supreme Court says it was wrong and even then it is only wrong from the moment the decision was handed down onwards.

Americans need to walk up and state that this kind of attitude is unacceptable and goes against the spirit of the Constitution, the rule of law, and basic human decency.

Of course, with many relying on the Supreme Court to make the right decision on Obamacare (whatever that is), I highly doubt that the circular morality system under which we live will end any time soon.