Liberals Admit: Fascism Far Left

Filed in PoliticsTags: Judiciary

As Michelle Malkin points out, the 'sphere has been up in arms in reaction to this week's usurpation of the Fifth Amendment by SCOTUS in Kelo v. City of New London.

Amazingly, the Left and Right sides of the 'sphere seem to have found one of those rare issues on which to agree. However, as is to be expected from the Blame Bush crowd, the Libs - such as Bree Walker writing at the already blaming Bush for this decision:

Probably no one is really surprised at how The Supreme Court pushed its' "eminent domain" authority to the limit with this latest ruling which gives cities unprecedented power to bulldoze even "non blighted" areas for local revenue. In fact, we should all be used to our growing Fascism by now. Corporate rule of government will continue under this administration because there's no one out there in mainstream media allowed to call it what it is; Fascism, plain and simple.

[Skipping over a bunch of filler crap...]

It's probably just a matter of time before we bloggers get our gag orders first from the D.C gang and then ultimately, from China, once the Administration finds a way to sell us all out. Another sad day in America. But hey, at least those Chinese know how to run a government, even if it's the opposite of Fascism. Who knows? Maybe American Communism is the court of last resort for our droned out, dumbed down, tuned out, Hippie Capitalist population. I know I'm damned tired of watching the alternative loom larger everyday.

Before I go any farther, let me just point out President Bush's consistent stance on the Judiciary (as excerpted by ConfirmThem):

[A]s Chief Justice Hughes has said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress — a superlegislature, as one of the justices has called it — reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there and which were never intended to be there.

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution — not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want — as all Americans want — an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written — that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power — amendment by judicial say-so.

President Bush has consistently stated that he wants - and has nominated nominated - strict constructionists on the bench.

[EDIT: Mea culpa. I should have followed the link. The quote above is actually from an FDR fireside chat. Here's a quote from President Bush, during one of the 2004 presidential debates:

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

(That's the first quote I came across in a quick search; point being, Bush's views are the same as what was excerpted from FDR above.]

Once more, for the record, this abomination came down to a 5-4 decision - FOR: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Beyer; AGAINST: O'Conner, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas. In other words, those ideologically aligned with the current Administration OPPOSED the ruling, while those ideologically aligned with Bree Walker formed the majority opinion.

I'll agree, infringing on personal property rights in such a manner is fascist. (Actually, eminent domain for private-sector use is more correctly socialist, given the redistribution of property. The underlying judiciary fiat, on the other hand, is clearly fascist.) However, to blame the fascism through Judicial fiat on Conservatives in general, and President Bush in particular, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.

Bush keeps sending up judiciary nominees to protect our republic from such judicial activism, and the Liberals' sole litmus test is the nominee's stance on Roe v. Wade - a SCOTUS decision that , ironically, clearly was a result of gross judicial activism, and something the Senate Judiciary Committee is being forced to discuss, given the expected Supreme Court vacancies upcoming. The bottom line is, this action by SCOTUS is clearly in line with the Liberal view of the Judiciary. I was taught in high school History (excuse me, Social Studies) that Communism was the extreme of the Liberal POV, and Fascism was the extreme of the Conservative POV. Of course, I argued against that alignment even then. The extreme of the Conservative POV would more rightly be Anarchy, since the "spectrum" in question is one of balance of power and responsibility between the individual and government/society. If the left extreme is no personal freedoms, and complete control by society/government, then the right extreme is unchecked personal freedoms, and no control/existence of government/society.

But I digress... my point is this: Bree Walker just admitted - perhaps unknowningly - that Fascism is, in fact, an outcome of the LIBERAL ideology.

Need any more reason to implore President Bush to keep nominating strict constructionists (especially to the Supreme Court), and also to implore your Senators to support Bush's nominations?