Do We Want Imperialistic Judges?
Over on my personal blog, I opined about what happens when we give away our liberties. The catalyst was a post on folo.us about Obama's decision to vote for the FISA bill with immunity for telecom companies included.
I'm not as interested in Obama's position as I am in the idea of giving immunity to companies who violated our civil liberties simply because the president said it was OK.
With that reasoning, each member of the Watergate break-in crew should have gone free by way of Congressional immunity.
That aside, what bothers me more is the idea of an imperialistic approach to our republic. It seems that too many are willing to strip the people of our liberties and place them in the hands of a few powerful people.
The more I thought about the increasing number of imperial encroachments on our liberties, I began to think about Justice Jim Smith's proposal to appoint judges.
This is a prime example of stripping the people of their liberties and handing those rights over to a powerful government official.
Why would anyone so eagerly give up the right to vote like Jim Smith proposes? Are there problems in the way we elect our judiciary? Most certainly. But the answer is not to throw away a right as valuable and sacred as one's vote.
Instead, we should look at how these elections are financed. We should discuss ways to reform our system, not destroy it.
And most certainly, we should not continue to cede our liberties to our government leaders. Power should reside with us, the voters, not the politicians.
Kitch believes this. Jim Smith does not.