This has led to some strong criticism, as the "Moderate" Voice responds:"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
If you've seen me respond to some of his comments on Booker Rising, you know I don't think much of Gandleman to begin with, nor of most of the bloggers that call themselves "moderates" (I'd rather call them fenceriders or lukewarmers). I have a hard time taking people seriously who's solution to everything is the middle of the road, or whatever sounds like a good idea at the time.This kind of verbal stops political debate — cold. So Robertson now says our judges are in some ways worse than terrorists. Why? Because they don't rule the way HE wants. And Republicans (rightfully) complained about some of the verbal excesses of Michael Moore?
But what's wrong with Robertson's comments? Absolutely nothing. While the terrorist reference is admittedly over-the-top, the fact remains that Robertson isn't saying anything that hasn't been said since the founding of this country:
Thomas Jefferson:
James Madison:The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.
George Mason:I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.
Abraham Lincoln:"When we consider the nature of these (Federal) courts, we must conclude that their effect and operation will be utterly to destroy the State governments; for they will be the judges how far their laws will operate .... The principle itself goes to the destruction of the legislation of the States, whether or not it was intended .... I think it will destroy the State governments .... Ther are many gentlemen in the United States who think it right that we should have one great, national, consolidated government, and that it was better to bring it about slowly and imperceptibly rather than all at once .... To those who think that one national consolidated government is best for America, this extensive judicial authority will be agreeable."
Alexander Hamilton:"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
So Robertson's comments aren't new, at least to people with a modicum of American history. Sure, Robertson is looking out for his own viewpoint of constitutional interpretation in relation to Christianity. But that doesn't mean you ignore the central premise of his argument, which is that we live under a judiciary run amok, that has given themselves powers that weren't handed to them by the Constitutional Convention or any constitutional amendment. And this was predicted by several of the framers as well as early public figures and former presidents.For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and judicial powers.
If that's something that the fenceriders can't handle, then that's fine by me. America will be a better place without ticks clinging on to men and women of principle.
