Self-Correcting Dictators?

Referring to the power inherent in being the final word on the meaning of the Constitution, Cal Thomas objects to the action of San Francisco U.S. District judge Phyllis Hamilton, who declared the partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional:

Numerous polls have shown that when the procedure is accurately explained, 70 percent or more of respondents oppose it, with some calling it manslaughter. But a single federal judge can change the will of a large majority of the people and their elected representatives. This is what dictators do.

Thomas notes that other districts are currently considering whether to do the same. If they do not, the Supreme Court will have to pick between the rulings, and it's hardly ensured that the justices will do the right thing and uphold the ban. Whether or not this is the specific issue that will force the final statement, the progress of the fight over abortion and the increasing scrutiny of the judiciary among the general public will eventually force the Court to declare the law clearly.

It's beginning to look like a number of these loose threads are finally reaching their end, and the time of vacillation and inconsistency with them. Vincent Phillip Muñoz argues that the creepy Michael Newdow may have forced just such a resolution with his "under God" in the Pledge case. If you share my general views, aversions to Muñoz's conclusion might take some thought to overcome, but I think, ultimately, I agree with his call for clarity:

This leaves the Court with only two intellectually honest options.

If it insists on maintaining its precedents, it should strike down "under God" as an impermissible "endorsement" that "psychologically coerces" religious practices. The decision would create a political firestorm, but the Court has the duty to articulate a clear and consistent interpretation of the Constitution regardless of popular will.

Alternatively, the Court could "fess up" and admit that it has previously misconstrued the meaning of the First Amendment's ban on religious establishments. The Founders meant to prohibit things like the employment and appointment of clergy by the state, limiting public office to members of the established religion, and the licensing and regulation of dissenting religious ministers. Given this background, the Court could admit that its endorsement and coercion tests have long been off the mark. It then could adopt a more historically accurate test that would allow the Pledge.

I don't foresee much more public tolerance for intellectual dishonesty in the handling of these issues that strike to the core of who we are as a nation. Moreover, it's nigh time to determine whether the people of the United States will accept rule from the bench. If there's to be a civil war of sorts over the power of the judiciary, let's get to it before its raging troops wreak more fundamental damage to our societal foundations.

The "if" is tentative. Our system still has mechanisms that can defuse the hostilities: judicial appointments. And as Cal Thomas says, victories on that preliminary front are now of utmost importance.