What happens when a whole people harden their hearts?
Plagues.
Back in my home state of California, the entrenchment of liberal governance, and the passive see-no-evil acceptance of it by broad majorities of the populace, is now directly threatening the safety of the people through a series of rulings that mandate the release of prisoners. 46,000 of ‘em. At least. Heather MacDonald shows you why .
That is, she shows you why my own relatives and friends are going to be increasingly exposed to the predation and bullying of The Thieves, to use Solzhenitsyn’s term of art.
Meantime, they are going to be burdened by higher taxes, and likely some form of budgetary collapse:
California now spends $17,924 per prisoner on medical treatment—six times what Texas spends, four times what the federal government spends in its prisons, and three times New York’s rate. Health care makes up one-third of California’s prison budget.
What’s that, California liberal? You want to have another discussion about gun-control, one more time?
You don’t see what’s really lethal to you and your loved ones. They come out of typical law schools, and not out of gun factories.
************************************
A judge applies the law. Of which the fundamental law, the Constitution, is the most important.
A judge-ruler rules, using the forms of judicial decision as a cloak for power.
Some judge-rulers are fully aware of their cloaking; others partially delude themselves.
Both the self-delusion and the cloaking take place by various lines of reasoning or “tests” that have grown up within the tradition of living constitutionalism, a tradition that virtually all Democrat leaders defend.
**********************************
This of course has not a little to do with abortion.
For one reason not a few liberals cling so tightly to living constitutionalism, that acid that slowly corrodes most parts of our Constitution and makes a complete mockery of Federalist 78’s assumption that the judiciary is the “least dangerous branch,” is that they fear the overturn of the Roe v. Wade decision without it. Given their intellectual inflexibility, they will not let themselves consider the possibility of a modern feminism or a modern consolidation of the Sexual Revolution that does not heavily rely upon abortion, despite what their official claims about what widely-available contraception should do to abortion rates. I suspect they are wrong about that, but perhaps it is intellectual honesty, not inflexibility, to say, “if no continued killing of millions upon millions, then no continuation of the practice of sexuality we’ve all become accustomed to.” Not that an overturn of Roe would threaten the availability of abortion much. At the price of a bus-ticket and maybe a hotel room, a woman in the heart of Red-State territory could still get one.
Of course, one can well imagine a rich career for living constitutionalism in America even if it hadn’t veered into the preposterous notion that there is (a nearly absolute) right to abortion present somewhere in that Constitution. So I’m not sure why I’m talking about abortion in this post . . . I guess the idea of “plagues” is taking me there.
********************************
Read the MacDonald essay. Both the methods of the judge-rulers and the initial results of their rulings are appalling. Will the people of California simply take this? Simply submit to the rulings of these law-school smarties?
After all, they can criticize the decisions as bad or even “insane” policy all they want, but these are judicial rulings. Coming from federal judges, and affirmed by the liberal-block of the U.S. Supreme Court:
Then–attorney general Jerry Brown denounced the court ruling: “This order, the latest judicial intrusion by the federal judiciary into California’s prison system, is a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed.” California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 2011, a five-to-four majority, led by Anthony Kennedy, affirmed the panel’s population cap in a decision titled Brown v. Plata.
Read on in the MacDonald piece, and you will see why now-Governor Jerry Brown simply will not be permitted to govern in the way he, and likely most Californians want, unless more Alitos and Scalias get appointed to the bench .
By what margin did Californians, Jerry Brown among them, vote for Obama? In stinkin’ 2012 ?
So they well might submit.
********************************
It is a safe rule of thumb these days that whenever and where-ever you vote Democratic, or refrain from voting Republican, you are doing your little part to further entrench living constitutionalism and the power of judge-rulers.
What this means in California is that a massive, but unnecessary, crime-wave is on the horizon, approaching fast to shore.
LOOK upon thy works:
. . . “People aren’t as scared now,” says a violent homeboy in the Orange County jail. “Hanging out with a gang member used to get you, like, one year. Now, it’s three months, so screw it.”
. . . Thanks to inmates like Mendez, the Orange County jail system has seen a 35 percent increase in inmate-on-inmate assaults and a 200 percent increase in drug incidents. “The AB 109 offender is more criminally sophisticated,” says Assistant Sheriff Lee Trujillo. “He has a longer record and is bringing prison politics into the jails.” Asked if there are prison gangs in the jail, Mendez smiles beatifically and, like every jail inmate to whom I pose that question, says that he prefers not to answer.
And un-harden thy heart.
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
