Having studied political science and political philosophy in undergrad and studied law in law school, it is not a surprise to me that our courts are populated with a lot of under-educated lawyers. Only in a relative handful of law schools is the U.S. Constitution taught — mostly what the students are exposed to is Constitutional case law — which is the opinions of (often very confused) justices, and not of the Founding Fathers.
We recently witnessed another great example of this problem — here’s part of a report from OneNewsNow:
In a federal court ruling echoing decisions reached elsewhere in the U.S., Virginia on Thursday became the first state in the South to overturn a voter-approved prohibition of same-sex marriage.
U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia still will not be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Both sides believe the case won’t be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it.
America is in crisis on many fronts. The poor quality of judges is near the top of that list. This Virginia marriage ruling reveals many of the problems.
- Too many lawyer/judges are ignorant of science and the nature of homosexuality (it’s a behavior with nothing in common with skin color).
- They don’t understand the Constitution — and they certainly turn a blind eye to what religious liberty entails (hint: it includes the right to make moral judgments about human sexual behavior).
- They are clueless why government is involved in marriage in the first place — despite the fact that volumes have been written explaining it (and you don’t even need a subscription to LexisNexis to find it).
- And they could care less about the rights and the welfare of children.
Low information lawyers also work in the offices of Attorneys General — again from OneNewsNow:
The office of newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In her ruling, Wright Allen agreed.
Many in our lawyer/judge class is in lockstep with the radical political left in the work to extend equal protection to a group of people based upon how they prefer to have sex.
You can find low information lawyers in the office of the Virginia Solicitor General’s office:
During verbal arguments in the gay marriage case, Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said that ban is legally indistinguishable from the one on interracial marriage. He said the arguments used to defend the ban now are the same ones used back then, including that marriage between two people of the same sex has never been historically allowed. Wright Allen concurred with that assessment in her ruling.
Indistinguishable? Only a low-information lawyer could say that.
The worst part of this is that political conservatives have allowed such a high level of ignorance in this country. When judges rule with such amazing intellectual foolishness there should be a public outcry to remove them from the bench.
Instead, most Americans seem unaware that too many judges are granted too much power and are the among the worst educated of their fellow citizens. If our side was adequately engaged in the information war that wouldn’t be the case.
There is, as there almost always is, a humorous side to this ruling. This is from a Liberty Counsel news release:
Judge Allen stated that the Constitution declares that “all men are created equal,” but that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution!
Also from the Liberty Counsel news release:
Incredibly, Judge Allen rejected the only evidence presented in an amicus brief written by professors that marriage between a man and a woman is best for children. […]
Judge Allen rejected Liberty Counsel’s request to file an amicus brief, rejected the evidence presented in the professors’ amicus brief, and instead cited amicus briefs filed in another case that has nothing to do with the Virginia marriage laws and which were not filed in this case.
Big shock. A liberal judge wants to stay a low information lawyer.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.