Sanders on the Pope and Federalism

Steve Sanders has a couple of terrific posts up currently at Reason and Liberty. The first is about Pope John Paul II's most recent statements calling gay marriage "evil". You can hear sadness in his voice as he writes this, and I can understand why. Like Steve, I've always held the current Pope in fairly high esteem despite our obvious disagreements. I've admired his ecumenical nature, his respect for science and his breadth of knowledge on a wide range of matters. He is, in short, a scholarly man in a position where it is easy not to be one. And as Steve notes, he is a man who has clearly been influenced by Enlightenment humanism. All the more disappointing, then, to see his increasingly shrill statements about gay marriage, calling it part of an "ideology of evil".

The second post is on the decidedly non-conservative policies of the Bush administration, something I write about frequently as well. There was a day when being a conservative meant being for fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, smaller government and a healthy federalism that allowed more state control. Those days have faded into a vague and distant past. We can all point to numerous examples of President Bush flouting those principles - the new Medicare bill/boondoggle/tax giveaway, the almost universally reviled No Child Left Behind act, the $400+ billion deficits.

Steve has spotted yet another example. It seems the administration is going to appeal a 9th Circuit ruling that upheld the Oregon assisted suicide law to the Supreme Court. This is also yet another example - as though we needed one - of the fact I hammer on constantly, that the rhetoric from conservatives about "judicial activism" and "judicial tyrrany" and how the courts "subvert the will of the people" to assert federal control over the states is essentially meaningless. All it means is "courts doing things I don't like", because when they agree with the court ruling, they have no problem whatsoever with unelected judges overturning even laws directly passed by popular referendum.

The Oregon law was passed not once but twice by popular referendum in that state, so there is no doubt whatsoever that it represents the will of the people in that state. Just like the stem cell research referendum was passed in California last year, also now being challenged by conservative groups in court who want "unelected judges" to overturn "the will of the people". Now if we could just sneak a line about this into Alanis Morrisette's song Ironic.

Tags

More like this

More of that "activist judges" hypocrisy on gay marriage, this time from Jay at StopTheACLU: My first concern on the issue is limiting the courts from usurping the will of the people. This legislation will do that. But why is that your "first concern" only on this issue? I don't recall seeing any…
One of the most frightening trends of the last few years is the alarming increase in anti-judicial rhetoric from the right. The courts, of course, are a convenient whipping boy for politicians who have to manipulate the populace to get elected to office. The courts are often in the position of…
Very important Supreme Court ruling today, which upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law, passed twice by popular referendum. The ruling was 6-3 and fell along fairly predictable lines. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and…
Judge Birch's bold upbraiding of the President and the Congress over the unconstitutional "Terri's Law", which attempted to tell the courts what sort of decision rules they should apply in a case, has attracted some interesting responses. Stephen Henderson's article on the opinion in the Knight-…