Every Month for the past year we have had a new GOP frontrunner. It really seems they just don't like the candidates, or they just like radical talk. Among the multiple social and economic issues they have talked about is the mostly under the radar topic of "Judicial Activism" -- It's been a GOP meme for a while, but this election cycle it seems to have taken a back seat to more extreme views the candidates have touted such as vaccinations, abortions, immigration, the gays, taxes for 'job creators'. It seems as though the idea of Judicial Power isn't as sexy for our sensational media and the GOP supporters who love it. The NYT has written a very interesting piece on the candidates views towards the judiciary, and by extension -- the third branch of government. Rick Santorum would like - on his first day in office - to get rid of the Ninth circuit court of appeals, as it is too 'rogue' for his taste. That court is regularly accused of being too liberal. What many people don't realize is the it represents the western part of the country, including Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, most of Californian and Washington and Oregon to name a few. Rick Santorum is advocating leaving many people in the nation without federally granted judicial access. Why? He doesn't like how the court tends to decide.

Gingrich, Bachmann and Ron Paul have all called to limit what the court can hear. People like Michelle Bachmann would ban any court from listening to or deciding upon cases involving marriage equality. From the article: Ron Paul's opposition is based on his constant drum for states rights trumpeting federal rights, while Bachmann is based on social conservatism. Gingrich seems to be against it because it sounds good to say he's against federal supremacy.

Rick Perry wants the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme court, to have term limits.

One thing they all seem to be ignoring is that all of these proposals would need constitutional alterations, otherwise known as amending the constitution. In other words, they would like to see the Constitution of the United States of America changed to fit their political views, not the other way around. These positions seem far more radical to me than many of the other stances these candidates have made.

Let me impress this point: The are running for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America, not for Dictator-in-Chief. The next person elected for office will be the person that will nominate Supreme court justices, but these candidates would like to go even farther in restricting the rights granted in the constitution. They are actively and radically advocating changing the way a branch of our government functions.

When you wonder if President Obama is worthy of your vote, remember this. Remember that one group of people speak and talk on the campaign trail as though if elected they would act as supreme leader of the land, they would do their very best to ply the constitution to fit their political views. It's far more complicated than the simple meme they spout about being against judicial activism. They want the courts to be judicially active to a particular political stance. IT has happened before and caused a LOT of problems. Remember Terry Shiavo? You will recall that Palm Sunday compromise consisted of "President Bush and Congressional Republicans anticipated Greer's adverse ruling well before it was delivered and worked on a daily basis to find an alternative means of overturning the legal process by utilizing the authority of the United States Congress." The Terry Shiavo drama was a perfect case in point of partisan politicians using the court systems to bend to their political will.

If the likes of these candidates got their way, one of the three co-equal branches of government-- The Judicial --, could be weakened to the point that it's almost extension of another branch -- the Executive Branch. This is what a majority of the current GOP candidates are actually advocating when they speak of activist judges and taking away the power that judges have.

This election is about far more than who gets to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. For the GOP it's about radically changing the way our government operates. It's far beyond the idea of shrinking government -- they are advocating increasing powers for one branch while greatly reducing power from another. They expect to have a Republican majority in congress to help them carry these notions out. They want to shrink the power of a federal branch of government.

In my opinion, that is unhealthy for our democratic republic we call the United States of America. I believe it would be a step away from the Democracy our founding fathers intended. It would be a step closer to powers we once scorned in leaders around the world. There is a reason why there are three separate branches of government that are supposed to act independently from one another -- while at the same time, work for the betterment of the nation as a whole. We have enough problems with the congressional branch not carrying out what the Constitution requires them to do, we don't need another branch taking it a step further away from its intent.

and
Raine