Average Joe Think Tank

Elena Kagan has just been sworn in as President Obama’s second addition to the Supreme Court. If this choice is anything like his first choice, and her official record – thin as it is – makes it hard to tell, we can fully expect a Justice more than willing to peek out from under the blindfold. You see, Obama likes his Justices to be like the kid who peaks out from under the blindfold before taking a swing at the piñata. The better the peek the better the chance of getting the piñata to disgorge the candy.

The problem for us is that:

• small businesses are the piñata
• investors are the piñata
• successful students are the piñata
• big businesses are the piñata
• hard working employees are the piñata
• Average Joe’s are the piñata

Liberal folks in the judiciary see the world as an endless opportunity to fix perceived wrongs, injustices, inequality of outcomes, and to redistribute wealth (i.e. your hard work). See our Judiciary page for an in-depth look.

Double Standard

A simple test to determine if someone is fit to be a judge at any level of the judiciary would be to evaluate their responses, and more importantly, their court decisions to see whether they agree with the following statements:

• Minorities have more rights than whites.
• Women have more rights than men.
• There is no such thing as discrimination against the majority.
• Failures of minorities are never due to underachievement.
• Minorities can not be successful without legislative and judicial intervention.
• Asians do not count as a minority because they are successful.

Answering yes to these questions or a review of decisions indicating belief in these statements should disqualify a judge or a potential judge from the bench.  As we showed in the Logic section of this site adding the phrase, “Is it true that” to the beginning of each of these statements yields a false statement. It is wrong to think along these lines just as thinking along opposite lines. Judges who think like this have a double standard and see it as their duty to act in favor of these preferences. Such judges are administering “Social Justice” instead of plain old-fashioned justice. Rather than dispensing justice they are helping their liberal / progressive allies build constituencies.

An action is “just” only when the same action is applied to all groups. Prejudicial actions FOR a group is just as wrong as prejudicial actions AGAINST a group. It was wrong to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus and it would be just as wrong to force whites to sit at the back of the bus. It is wrong to favor blacks in college admissions just as it would be wrong to favor whites in college admissions. This is the crux of Martin Luther King’s message. Equal treatment for everyone – not preferential treatment for some.

Final Thought

Judges who decide cases based on false statements and hold a double standard demonstrate an intellectual nature unfit to administering real justice in a court of law.

4 Responses to “Blind Justice?”