The Discerning Texan

Our broken activist judiciary has become more akin a Keystone Cops epidemic; no longer content to rule on nuances about existing laws, the Courts are now creating laws and "rights" out of thin air.

In a page taken right out of recent Chinese and Iranian crackdowns on Internet and media content, a Nevada judge has ruled that NBC MUST allow the hot model's husband and space traveller, Dennis Kucinich, to be a part of this week's Democrat debate, after NBC had decided only to invite the ex-President's Wife in Chairman Mao's pantsuit, Elvis Hussein Farrakhan, and the Ambulance-Chasing Silky Pony:

What's law got to do with it?

A Las Vegas judge has ordered MSNBC to allow Dennis Kucinich to join the Democratic debate in Nevada Tuesday night, and threatened an injunction stopping the debate if he isn't included. Where he found this "right to be part of a televised debate" is anyone's guess. It's probably buried somewhere in the penumbras of the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments -- kind of an inverse corollary to that elusive "right of privacy."

But the beauty of our legal system is that the judge never has to explain where he got the law. He only, apparently, has to explain that (a) he thinks it is unfair that he was uninvited after being invited, and (b) it is in the public's best interest to hear Kucinich.

The best interest of the public apparently does not include hearing relevant candidates go head to head. Instead, the public has to be endlessly exposed to the impotent meanderings of sundry candidates whose best shot at seeing the inside of the White House involves a long line near the gate.

A somewhat befuddled NBC noted that they did not believe the judge had any jurisdiction in the matter. Jurisdiction nothing. How about any color of law?

And, as usual, the mainstream media reports on the story utterly miss the question of whether the judge had any authority here. It's as if -- and I think this may very well really be the case -- as if it was simply years ago conceded that judges are empowered to do anything they feel is in the public interest.

I have very little sympathy for the neo-Marxists at NBC like Olberman and Matthews, nor for any of the other above mentioned candidates, for that matter; but the shareholders of NBC own the network, not some Barney Fife Judge.

NBC--and those shareholders-- is who stands to lose ratings and money--by wasting airtime on Shirley McClaine's "soulmate" (although they might could change that dynamic by letting Kucinich's supermodel wife stand up there with him...)

The biggest losers here appear to be NBC--and presumably Democrats trying to make up their minds about candidates who actually have a chance to win. But the Democrat Party loses also, because the resulting debate will once again expose to any one of the dozen or so people who actually might be watching this debate to just how ridiculous its candidates have become.

Nevertheless, this ruling is simply atrocious, and a disgrace to an already shameful Judiciary. So we all lose.

This Judge's ruling ought to be a clarion call, even to Americans who have been sleeping through the last 60 years or so of judicial outrages. What's next? Suing because the questions for Barack were too "easy" while Hillary's were too "difficult"? Suing because some agressive questioner paints Elvis Obama into an intellectual corner, thus violating his "Civil Rights"?

The precedent is chilling. Once judges are permitted to start ruling on the "political correctness" of the content (or who has the "right" to participate) of private networks' programming, it is not a very large step from there to their attempting to censor every thing you see, read, or hear.

The tragedy is that this case is unlikely to be appealed by the network, because there is very little time before the debate in question takes place. Obviously it would never fly in the Supreme Court. (note: the fact that the left-of-Lenin candidate Kucinich who sued for this "right", although he has a greater chance of being struck by lighting on a clear day than becoming President of the United States.) The result is a dumbed down version of an already dumbed down debated of candidates with sound bytes and platitudes, but no real answers to any serious question.)

Still, this case is a perfect illustration of the perils of an unbridled "activist" judiciary--and of how close we are to the precipice. This is exactly the kind of thing I have been trying to highlight here for months. Take the persecution of Mark Steyn in Canada, and even today's story about the blogger shut down by the Finnish government for criticizing radical Islam.

The nightmare scenario is upon us. Almost every prediction ever made by George Orwell is coming to pass: thought police, PC, indoctrination in schools, "all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others", in genral the State's crushing of human individuality and freedom. But it isn't China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran. It's the good old USA.

When are we going to wake up as a people and elect politicians into positions of authority who will appoint judges to do one thing and one thing only: to interpret the laws we already have, and especially the Constitution we already have. And who will stop the bleeding of our dying judiciary, and by domino effect the bleeding of our very system of government itself. If we want new laws then let the PEOPLE act to make the laws. Isn't that the idea? We make the laws, not a bunch of judicial Hitlers on the bench?

If we allow shoot-from-the-hip Judges like this clown to continue to get into the business of legislating, a Stalinist-style tyranny is only a matter of time.

FDR's legacy:
* The FCC, giving the thought police authority to control whatever you see or hear.
* Activist judges who began the slow descent to the tyranny of 9 Supreme Court judges.
* The ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
* Entitlements in general.

The Socialists have never been good for this country. And they never will.

UPDATE: Revised for clarity and content.