A Real Solution to Judicial Activism

The courts are out of control, especially the United States Supreme Court. Many judges are acting like existential philosophers, and not upholders of the Constitution.

Last week, conservatives witness the destruction of their Constitutional rights by judges bent on engaging in judicial activism. The US Supreme Court was brazen in their latest rulings. From rescuing Obamacare to rewriting history with homosexual marriage, the Court has switched from umpiring to unashamedly writing legislation. But it is not only the US Supreme Court who attacked your rights last week. Two other cases will have an extreme impact on your religious liberties.

In New Jersey, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) won a case against a pro-marriage and family group, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH). The group believed people could overcome unwanted same-sex attraction through counseling. The SPLCS brought a consumer fraud case against the group and other’s like them. Sadly, the jury returned a verdict in favor of SPLC. This case opens up all groups in America to lawsuits if they teach that unwanted same-sex attraction can be overcome.

Today, Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandment display at the capital grounds must be removed because it violates the Oklahoma Constitution. Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that a nearly identical Texas monument was Constitutional. The state attorney general is likely to appeal the ruling.

So, what can we do? Do we just simply sit back and let these justices strip us of our religious and political freedoms?

Senator Ted Cruz has proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution meant to curb the growing judicial activism on the Supreme Court bench, and perhaps could be applied to all other courts. The amendment would allow Presidentially appointed justices to be reviewed by the United States public. Senator Cruz describes it as such: “Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.”

This could be a fitting answer for both sides, both liberal and conservative. What do you think? Is this a real solution? Let us know in the comments below.