Edwin Meese recently referred to federal judge Felton Henderson's blockage of Proposition 209 to end affirmative action in California as "judicial activism". Thomas Jefferson et. al. would probably have referred to this as "treason", because this judge used judicial power to block the demands made by citizens through the legitimate democratic process. This case proved that affirmative action isn't and probably never was a popular "solution" to "problems" faced by citizens who lived in the nation with the once highest standard of living. Affirmative action was smuggled in by a failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, which still refuses to do its job even after the successful plebiscite.
Is this the worst form of treason? Is this the only case of judicial activism this nation has confronted? Has the judiciary's unprecedented power been achieved through the hard work of we the people, or did the unwieldy bureaucracies created by such rulings manipulate their way around the restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution?
The clear intent of the legislators who added the "equal protection" clause to the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 was only to free slaves and to give male slaves the vote. Even when the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote, the "equal protection" clause did not apply to them, just as it did not for the 103 years between 1868 and 1971. But after more than a century of case law which adhered to the original spirit and intent of the "equal protection" clause, Justice Burger on November 22, 1971 wrote "A mandatory provision ... that gives preference to men over women ... is based solely on a discrimination prohibited by and therefore violative of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment." Reed vs. Reed.
With this single sentence, several millennia of Christian progress was slammed up against the wall, feminists were given a green light to spread their evil ideology, hundreds of years of Personal Savings was chewed up by a voracious federal appetite, every social and economic indicator took a knee-jerk reaction in the wrong direction, and the US plunged from a solid first place in GDP per Capita to a weak 17th place in less than 3 decades. This was done against the will of God and of the people, without legislative action, without moral or economic or social justification, without a single thought about the conflict with the First Amendment, and within a complete moral vacuum. It created gender conflicts and sexual confusion from which the nation may never recover. It led to an exponential increase in the number of laws and undermined the spiritual, moral, and religious values in a nation which once thrived with only the Constitution.
There was no justification, and there still is not, for this mighty act of treason. Is this the worst form of treason?
PRAYER IN SCHOOL
The people did not vote to throw God out of public education. The state legislatures, teachers, sociologists, Congress, Presidents--did not act to throw God out. The judicial system acted unilaterally to ban prayer from schools, which was immediately followed, just as expected, by rampant drug use, immorality, divorce, a quintupling of the illegitimacy rate, and a 98 point plunge in SAT scores which has never recovered. The total damages of such pathology are incalculable, particularly when a full one third of the populace believes that a President who lies can "do a good job".
The people did not vote to legalize abortions, and if they did or could have had a voice in this decision, they would have outlawed them. But even with 67% of the populace opposing abortions, the Supreme Court again imposed its evil will on moral Christians and slaughtered 32 million human babies, to accomplish what? It didn't reduce "unwanted babies", as evidence by the quintupling of the illegitimacy rate. It didn't encourage family stability, as evidenced by the doubling of the divorce rate.
FAMILY LAW ACT
Most if not all people never knew what the "Family Law Act" was until after it adversely impacted them. The year it was implemented the number of divorces, which was already astronomically high, jumped by 35%. Such an effect suggests that this law could easily and should honestly have been referred to as the "Family Destruction Act".
ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Absolute judicial immunity is something which the Supreme Court attempted to apply to itself and the judiciary in the 1860s, and Congress enacted the Act of 1871 to DENY all citizens immunity of all kinds. The judiciary reapplied judicial immunity to itself in the 1970s and so far Congress has not acted. We the people did not march on Washington to demand that the judiciary receive judicial immunity, which is the least that should be required before ignoring such important Constitutional principles.