Supreme Court takes small steps toward liberty

Posted

I’ve always enjoyed reading social media posts of my friends and family. It helps me keep up, keep grounded, and touch on things like the political mindset of those in my circle.

Last week was a doozy, and if you have liberal inclinations, likely you were seeing the end of the world, fires, volcanoes, cats and dogs living together, total mayhem.

Personally, I’m thinking that the rulings of the Supreme Court were just a little bitty teensy step toward sensible government, and liberty, which is a good thing to remember on this July 4 holiday.

My personal favorite ruling of the batch was the one where the court decided unions could not force non-members to pay dues, particularly when the unions took the money to fund political work.

Seriously. Unions would do that. But the Supremes, of course along party lines, said that the First Amendment offers protection for those who don’t agree with the union line, particularly if that differs from the views of the non-union member.

That’s how liberty works. Compelled action is the antithesis of liberty (kinda like taxes, but that’s a different story), and a private sector organization, even though it purports to represent public sector employees, taking what it wants with the blessing of government is just pure evil.

Unions, while a blessing during the industrial age, have become anachronistic, as the federal government has instituted numerous safety, workplace and wage laws to make a union’s work unnecessary. Forcing someone to pay for a union to attempt to maintain relevancy is tantamount to extortion, in my view.

On the other side of the liberty coin, upholding a presidential travel ban was only the right thing to do — not because of the limitations the ban placed on specific religions (which was NOT the case), but because the president has the right to make those determinations. It’s the law.

The courts exist as a check on the power of Congress and the president, doing its work by determining the constitutionality of law. For the judges who issued injunctions because of the perception of bias — well, tough. The law clearly allows the president to do what he did, and the Supremes backed that play.

Legislating from the bench violates every tenet of our society, and decisions based on perception and feelings instead of case law and the Constitution undermine the judicial process.

I say bravo, guys, and see you in October.

As a footnote, the impending resignation of Justice Anthony Kennedy, giving President Trump another seat to fill on the Supreme Court, has many of the liberal media, elected officials and even friends of mine believing that Armageddon is behind Door No. 1.

The thought that the court will do away with reproductive and marriage rights already ruled on by previous courts has the left screaming and hiding under blankets.

Politics always has been a pendulum, I think. It swings left for a while, then it swings back right for a bit, then left, then right, and on and on ad nauseum. So at some point, things will change, and so will the screaming; in the meantime, it pays to remember that we the people actually have the final say in all of this, and if you’re unhappy, fix it.

Because that’s liberty, too.

Tony Farkas is publisher of the Madisonville Meteor.

Comments