I frequently refer to judges as our “Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers on the Courts” because of the consistent record of the modern judiciary to invent new laws based on their own policy preferences. They often run roughshod over the proper role of courts in a constitutional republic, and particularly over traditional moral values that have been enshrined in law and culture since time immemorial.
They have arrogated to themselves the ultimate authority to decide the laws of our nation, and are unaccountable to anyone for the decisions that they make. All one needs to do is look at the arrogant and imperious decisions in abortion cases (particularly Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and the redefinition of marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) for all the evidence you need to see what I’m referring to.
Usually, judges are careful not to let on about what they’re up to. Very few will actually admit to making momentous decisions based on their own preferences, or to disregarding the plain text and meaning of the Constitution when it stands in the way. This is part of an implicit social contract in our legal and political establishment — everyone knows what is going on, but few will pull back the curtain.
But every so often, the mask slips. Take the case of Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judge Posner is one of the most respected jurists of our generation, a brilliant scholar of law and economics and a public intellectual who has written on a wide range of issues.
He is also an astonishingly arrogant Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Ruler on the Courts. In two recent public statements (on in the Yale Journal and the other in a speech at Loyola Law School), Judge Posner made some breathtaking statements about his view of the Constitution, the role of judges, and how he makes judicial decisions. Consider:
I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today. Because the people in the 18th century could not foresee any of the problems of the 21st century.
Federal constitutional law is the most amorphous body of American law because most of the Constitution is very old, cryptic, or vague. The notion that the twenty-first century can be ruled by documents authored in the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries is nonsense.
This, from a judge whose position was created in that very same Constitution in order to decide cases and controversies that arise pursuant to that very same Constitution, and who swore to faithfully discharge his duties under the very same Constitution.
Not that this seems to matter much to Judge Posner. When asked about his oath of office, this is what he had to say:
The oath is not really to the original constitution, or to the constitution as amended. It is to some body of law created by the Supreme Court. You can forget about the oath. That is not of significance.
When solemn oaths are deemed insignificant, one can only wonder what kind of justice is meted out in his courtroom. Actually, we don’t have to guess, because Judge Posner has made it clear:
My approach with judging cases is not to worry initially about doctrine, precedent, and all that stuff, but instead, try to figure out, what is a sensible solution to this problem, and then having found what I think is a sensible solution, without worrying about doctrinal details, I ask “is this blocked by some kind of authoritative precedent of the Supreme Court”? If it is not blocked, I say fine, let’s go with the common sense, sensical solution.
In other words, law with the law left out, nothing more than ad hoc seat-of-the-pants rulings based on his idiosyncratic view of what is common sense on any particular day. Of course, this should really come as no surprise from a man who has expressed his great admiration for the Friedrich Nietzsche, the moral nihilist and apologist for the powerful dominating the weak.
This kind of cynicism, unfortunately, is the mindset of far too many lawyers and judges in the United States. When I was at Harvard Law School, the professors openly told us that there was no objective moral content to the law, but that it was just a vehicle for powerful people enacting their political preferences.
A nation ruled by such people is no longer a functioning democracy or republic. It is a despotic judicial oligarchy.