The Fallacy Of Court Neutrality

Paul Krause today has an article explaining why it is that our Supreme Court constantly rules leftward, never rightward on cases.  The article, entitled The Fallacy Of Court Neutrality can be found at the American Thinker. In a nut shell, the problem begins with a judicial theory of stare decisis which deems that in deciding case law, deference should be given to previous decisions.

The problem with stare decisis and the mainstream conservative juridical philosophy is that it accepts, prima facie, the uniform, universalist, and progressive anti-Constitution that has been coercively imposed over the United States in the twentieth century. It is unsurprising that it is always Republican Court nominees who become liberals. The logic of stare decisis demands it. A clearly unconstitutional ruling, so long as it was imposed over the country by the Supreme Court, becomes the new constitutional precedence to affirm and build from. Any challenge to this anti-constitutional constitutionalism — how's that for a contradiction? — is met with opposition as being radically destructive.

Here's the thing about stare decisis; it should be followed if the previous decision is decided correctly. If it has not been, then the Court, in its analysis, should go back to the Constitution to determine what the framers intended. Since the Constitution has a built in means of amending it, though it is admittedly a difficult process, any ruling that changes the original meaning of the Constitution is, or should be rendered illegitimate.

Of course, this is why the Democrat members of the Senate are so anxious to determine if a proposed candidate supports the theory of stare decisis, because it in turn supports their attempt to transform the country into a Socialist state.

As always, please go read the whole article.  A number of rulings have come down recently, and our so called Republican justices have been disappointing, to say the least.  Only Justice Thomas remains true to originalism.