Friday, May 20, 2005 | 8:55 a.m.
My recent letter contending that liberals need activist judges to enact their ideas drew a response from John Esperian, who wrote that I am "long on emotion and short on logic." He then went on to completely miss, or more likely ignore, the basis of my argument.
Esperian claims outright that America needs an objective judiciary. But does he seriously think that the majority of Americans would vote for such liberal ideals as unrestricted abortion or gay marriage? The only way to reach such goals is through an activist judiciary.
But that is not the job of the judiciary. Judges are to interpret established law, not write into law that which is not there. Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court declaring that abortion was covered under the right-to-privacy provision found in the Constitution. Apparently, however, that same privacy right does not extend to prostitution and recreational drug use. The only difference? Judicial activism.
He denies that liberals want to remove God from all vestiges of American life, then contradicts himself by saying that God is a personal, not public, issue. So the liberal viewpoint is that you can be religious, but only if you keep it to yourself. For instance, if you believe "Thou shalt not commit murder," you are disqualified from expressing a public opinion about Terri Shiavo.
Esperian also makes the odd statement that you cannot legislate morality. Practically every law ever written is based on a concept of morality, whether the source of that concept is God or man.
KEN LUCAS
archive
