Letters of the Law
Re: "Bama Judge Wars,'" Suggblog, by John Sugg (April 27-May 3)
I am deeply disappointed in Suggblog's decision to write, and the Weekly Planet's decision to publish, an article that is nothing more than hate-mongering and name-calling. As is always the case with this type of "reporting," the true issue is obliterated. Let's put aside for a moment the extreme Christophobia that Suggblog demonstrates by equating Christians, especially well-educated and well-spoken Christians, with Satan, Nazis and Muslim terrorists. Let's talk about the real issue – the loss of our republican form of government. If any reader or writer of this esteemed publication has not recently (or has never) read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers, then you need to do so in order to understand the current debate over the constitutional role of the judiciary in this country.
These documents demonstrate that our founding fathers believed that our republican form of government – the right to elect or refuse to re-elect our representative lawmakers – was our greatest defense against tyranny. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, fought against the doctrine that considered judges as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions. He considered this to be "very dangerous doctrine … one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." He warned that the Constitution did not erect any such single tribunal. Instead, the judiciary was erected to be the least powerful of all the branches, simply applying the laws as created by the elected legislature to the particular case before it. Herein lies the current constitutional crisis – the unconstitutional overreaching of the judiciary in striking down legitimate laws as unconstitutional and in creating new overriding constitutional rights where none exist.
It is understandable why certain factions attack those who are part of the public outcry against "judiciary tyranny." These factions have benefited from the judiciary's unconstitutional grab of power. They approve the judiciary's legislative endeavors. They believe – because the judiciary says so – that there really are God-given inalienable rights to pornography, abortion and sodomy. They revel in how the judicial branch has saved them from "the tyranny of the majority" – our republican form of government. They enjoy imposing the will of the minority upon the majority. They believe that it is the job of nine justices to socially engineer America into the secular society of their utopian dreams.
You have the right to your opposition to those who call for the restoration of constitutional limits on each branch of government. But be honest with others and yourself as to what you are opposing. You are opposing the written Constitution and the ideals that founded this nation. Be honest why you hate those who seek to protect it. You do not want to risk your U.S. Supreme Court-sanctioned sexual promiscuity. You don't trust the legislative process to grant you the same "rights" to your sexual obsessions. You hate the majority of Americans and their elected officials. You support a judiciary "independent" of the written Constitution. You support the judiciary's use of foreign authority, such as treaties to which the U.S. is not a party, to find new constitutional rights or to strike down state or federal laws. You support an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic.
Stop hiding behind name-calling and hateful rhetoric. Christians are not Nazis and Nazis were not Christians. And if you want to discuss segregation – look to the Democratic Party which imposed it.
Rebecca O'Dell Townsend, Esquire
Tampa
Re: "The Man in the Middle," by Allyson Gonzalez (May 4-10)
I consider Brent Walker the best kind of Christian. I am proud he is a member of the bar, an attorney, a lawyer. He's one of the many, many attorneys slandered by the jokes about our profession. Thank you for such a wonderful article.
Aubrey Ducker
Winter Park
CORRECTION
Last week's cover story, "The Man in the Middle," should have stated that Brent Walker was a partner in the law firm Carlton, Fields when he left to study for the ministry. The story incorrectly stated that he was "slated for partnership."
This article appears in May 12-18, 2005.