Could Worldnutdaily Writers Be Any Dumber?

David Bass, in another of those famous Worldnutdaily "exclusives" - which means an article so mind-numbingly moronic that only WND would even consider publishing it - has written an absolutely hilarious column about the decision by the Canadian Supreme Court that the legislature could legalize gay marriage. What makes his article so amusing is that it's incredibly obvious that he hasn't actually bothered to read it. The evidence begins in the very first sentence:


Many words in the English language can be used to describe the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on Thursday condoning homosexual marriage. Asinine immediately comes to mind, followed closely by perfunctory. Or, for those down-to-earth folks who still think eating dinner with their kids each night doesn't make the family a clan of religious extremists, just plain ignorant.

Why is the ruling "asinine" or "ignorant"? He doesn't actually say. In fact, he doesn't bother to mention a single provision in the Canadian constitution, nor does he even attempt to make an argument for why the ruling might be constitutionally incorrect based upon them. Apparently the mere assertion is enough. Evidence and logical argument flowing from it? That's for them high-fallutin' perfessers and their book learnin'. But here's what really makes his criticisms idiotic: he claims that a ruling that said that the legislature has the authority to pass a law is an example of judicial activism:


Whatever the case, it's obvious that the Canadian court, and others sharing its philosophy, is operating on two core principles...

Core principle No. 1: Government, especially the judiciary, has the final say in all matters, including marriage...

A "living tree" constitution, as so ridiculously defined by the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, is really nothing more than an excuse for breaking down the traditions of Western culture and democracy. By giving justices and judges, rather than the people themselves, final say over social change, the judiciary is setting itself up as a tyrannical beast.

I laughed out loud while reading this passage. Let's follow the logic of this "judicial tyranny" argument. In the US, if courts overrule legislatures and conservatives agree with the legislatures, that results in "judicial tyranny" as judges assert their authority over "the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives". And in Canada, if the courts say that the legislature can pass a law and conservatives disagree with the legislature, then those courts are also exhibiting "judicial tyranny", apparently because they refuse to assert their authority over the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives. Heads they win, tails you lose. And what makes this most amusing of all is that I bet that very few of the WND readers are smart enough to notice the obvious contradiction, or would care if they did as long as the finished product agrees with their position.

One wonders what the Canadian Supreme Court would have had to rule in order not to be engaging in "judicial tyranny" in Bass' views. If they had said to the legislature, "No, you cannot pass a law allowing gay marriage even though there is not a single provision in our Constitution preventing it", would that not be judges imposing their own non-textual views on "the will of the people"? Logically, it would be. But that wouldn't agree with the outcome they want. So what the hell, just change definitions in mid-sentence, no one will notice. When judges overrule legislatures, those damn activist judges are out of control. And when they don't overrule legislatures, those damn activist judges are out of control.

And then there's this precious little gem of absurdity uttered by Jerry Falwell in his latest incoherent screed:


Our founders were men who explicitly embraced Judeo-Christian principles in the founding of this nation. Even those who were Deists openly recognized the need for the citizenry to fall to their collective knees and beseech God's favor. They understood the need to recognize God in our Constitution...

Uh, Jerry. If the founders - you know, the men who wrote the Constitution - "understood the need to recognize God in our Constitution", why didn't they recognize God in our Constitution? They certainly could have if they'd chosen to, couldn't they? In fact, not only could they have done so when they drafted the Constitution (but didn't, of course), they had opportunities at almost every state ratifying convention to do so and, yet again, chose not to do so. One of the principle criticisms of the new Constitution during the ratification process was that it explicitly did not do what you claim they "understood" it was necessary to do - it did not acknowledge God at all. In fact, said your forebears as they railed against this new Godless Constitution, not only does it not acknowledge God, it even goes so far as to allow people other than God-fearing Christians to hold public office! Even - gasp! - Jews. And atheists. And, perhaps worst of all in their view, Catholics! This would surely bring down the wrath of God upon our nation, they ranted from the pulpits and in the newspapers, and numerous attempts were made to add an acknowledgement of God, Jesus or Christianity to the Constitution. All were voted down. So this was hardly a mere oversight on the part of the founders, it was quite intentional.

At some point, what can you do but laugh at such rampant stupidity?

More like this

At some point, what can you do but laugh at such rampant stupidity?

Try to suppress the urge. There is decidedly nothing funny about this.

By Uncle Kvetch (not verified) on 12 Dec 2004 #permalink

Lest that last comment sounded too glib: it would indeed be hilarious if this kind of "thought" was relegated to people mumbling to themselves on park benches. When it reflects the majority of the electorate, it's not funny, it's terrifying.

By Uncle Kvetch (not verified) on 12 Dec 2004 #permalink

What I'm curious about is what he thinks "perfunctory" means.

By Bill Burns (not verified) on 12 Dec 2004 #permalink

Why is the ruling "asinine" or "ignorant"? He doesn't actually say. In fact, he doesn't bother to mention a single provision in the Canadian constitution, nor does he even attempt to make an argument for why the ruling might be constitutionally incorrect based upon them.

Odd. I had been led to believe that American conservatives/right-wingers/whatever-you-want-to-call-them got upset when the US courts didn't follow what they believed to be chapter and verse of what they believe to be the text of the American constitution. That a columnist at WingNutDaily (sorry WorldNutDaily) fails to cite even a single sentence from the Canadian constitution while criticizing a Canadian court ruling regarding that constitution, should be telling.

raj-
I think it's very telling. It tells us what I've said a hundred times before, that the entire notion of "judicial activism", as used by conservatives, means nothing more than "judges disagreeing with us". If a judge overrules a legislative act, that's "judicial activism" that "thwarts the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives". If a judge doesn't overrule a legislative act, that's also judicial activism as long as the act is something conservatives don't like. Regardless of what the judge does, if they disagree with conservatives, that's judicial activism or judicial tyranny. It's sheer stupidity. But hey, catchphrases that can be repeated are the key to advertising and that's all they're really up to.

Jerry Falwell would do well to access a searchable copy of the US Constitution and find references to god or religion. If he bothers to do so, he will find that the only true reference to religion is to specifically prohibit the government from entangling itself in religion. Or perhaps he is talking about some other Constitution?

What truly strikes me as stupid if not even a bit odd is the way in which the writer holds a Canadian ruling up to the context of the US struggle with same sex marriage--as if the Canadian Charter is nothing more than a copy of the US Constitution. It's not. So comparisons between what judges in Canada are doing and what judges in the US are doing seems to me to be not only stupid but rather egregiously dishonest as well.