Category: judiciary

Categories
judiciary Ninth Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

Rights Retained by All But Kagan

When grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan didn’t have to go out on a limb to dismiss the rights affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. Most liberals and conservatives share the view that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not defend “natural rights.”

Yet, our Founders regarded natural rights as an important restraint on government. 

Not so with progressives today and yesterday. As scholar Jim Powell noted in The Daily Caller, progressives don’t like natural rights, or the function they serve. Powell quotes Teddy Roosevelt: “I don’t think any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands.”

TR was wrong. Progress depends not on unlimited power for leaders and bureaus, but on limiting those powers so voluntary co-​operation can work its wonders.

Progressives from TR to Kagan oppose natural rights because they run dead against progressivism. 

Even the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights limits government too much for progressives, so they twist words to get rid of their practicality.

The idea of natural, basic rights find their most concise defense in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The question to ask Supreme Court candidates — indeed, any person who must swear to “uphold the Constitution” — is how “the people” can retain their unenumerated rights.

The question is almost never asked.

To our detriment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary Second Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

Advance for Rights

Next to the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment might well be the most momentous Amendment to the Constitution. Here’s the most interesting chunk of it:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Before this amendment, adopted after the Civil War (mainly to keep white southerners from tyrannizing ex-​slaves), the Bill of Rights had applied to individuals only against the federal government. After it, states were required to follow the Bill of Rights, too.

This week, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, five of nine members of the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own guns against prohibitive regulation by states. In Heller, two years ago, the Supreme Court had applied the Second Amendment to individuals only against federal government regulation.

McDonald is a major advance for gun ownership rights. But the most interesting thing about the case is Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate concurrence. Four of the Justices decided that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause applied. Thomas argued, instead, that it is the “privileges and immunities” clause that matters. 

Why care? Well, “privileges and immunities” is just a fancy way of saying “rights.”

That’s why we have courts. To protect our rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary responsibility

Pump Down the Volume

Can somebody sue you for making something wonderful that might hurt somebody else who uses your product carelessly?

Of course. This is America, land of the Bill of Rights, mom, apple pie, Chevrolet … and outrageous litigation.

Some suits are sound, sure. But, on top of those you’ve got your money-​grubbing frivolous actions, pushed by freeloaders and fronted by freebooters, er, lawyers. But at least these folks don’t always win. That’s where I’ve got some good news to pass along: A federal court has slapped down ludicrous litigation against Apple Computer.

Apple makes the popular iPod media player. Litigants Joseph Birdsong and Bruce Waggoner alleged that Apple is culpable for “possible hearing loss” resulting from iPod use, thanks to allegedly improper earbud design.

Birdsong and Waggoner don’t assert that their own eardrums had burst, or even that the ears of others had suffered. In fact, the ruling against them notes: “At most, the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss.…”

Obviously, when your own careless conduct causes you harm, you alone are responsible. Turn  your stereo volume to the max and press your ear against stereo speakers. It isn’t the stereo maker’s fault when your eardrums pop. 

By the way, iPods also have volume control.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency judiciary

The Judges, the Lawyers, and the People

In legal circles, when folks think of Missouri, they think of the “Missouri Plan.” Seventy years ago, Missouri instituted a new method of selecting judges, especially the judges that sit on the state’s supreme court. The plan was copied by many other states. 

It is beloved by the insiders.

A few years ago, I wrote at Townhall​.com: “[T]he Missouri Bar has something of a lock on the whole process.… It’s supposed to be non-​partisan. Bottom line is that lawyers are in control.”

A judicial commission controlled by the state bar association picks the judges that the governor must then pick from — with the bulk of the commission’s work done behind closed doors.

Missourians are shocked when informed how the process works. So are folks in other states that have adopted the Missouri Plan. It isn’t transparent and it puts key decision-​making on judges in the hands of an unelected special interest.

But things may be looking up. A group called Better Courts for Missouri submitted paperwork to start a new petition. The group aims to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010, to open up the system, make it more transparent.

Legislative attempts to change the system have failed. Generally, politically powerful lawyers are for a plan that lets lawyers have the biggest say.

Well, now they are up against competition. The people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary

I Don’t Rule the World

Last week I had some fun with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s comment to the effect that she was able to make better judicial decisions than a white male because of her experiences as a Latina. 

I don’t take offense “as a white male.” I object as a rational human being.

But while Judge Sotomayor continues to catch flak, I must say, bashing white males has become rather commonplace. 

Being rational, not so much.

For instance, Kathleen Parker, a usually reasonable columnist, had this to say in defending Sotomayor’s statement:

“Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won’t be able to say it ever again.”

So the reason it is open season on white males is because we run the world?

You see, I’m a white male and I’ve never ruled the world. Not even for one minute. 

I don’t even want to rule the world. I don’t even want to dictatorially rule my own house — that’s done by a a nice oligarchy of my wife and me, with a barking veto from the dog. 

I’d like my freedom, though, and to have a democratic say in my government.

Oh, and to be judged on my demonstrated character … not blamed for what some other guy with similar skin hues did two thousand years ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary

Help Is Not on the Way

Think twice before you save people about to lose their lives, at least if you live in California.

The state supreme court there just ruled that good Samaritans can be held liable if they cause or aggravate an injury while rendering emergency help if that help is not medical.

A 1980 California law protects persons who render emergency aid from just such liability. But in a recent decision, the high court divined that this protection only pertains to “medical” care.

Therefore, Lisa Torti is liable for damages for pulling her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, out of a car wreck in 2004. Van Horn became a paraplegic as a result of the accident. Ms. Torti did not cause the crash, but she was reluctant to stand by to witness her friend die should the car explode.

In his dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter observes that the perverse result of the ruling is that a person “who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim.”

So, hide your identity when you rescue people in California. That way, when you save somebody’s life and he yells, “Who was that masked man? Because I want to sue!” — he’ll be out of luck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.