In an earlier entry I pointed out that the homosexual "marriage" issue has, with few exceptions so far, been taken to judges rather than to the people. This is not to deny that public opinions are changing on that subject, under the pressure of absolutely relentless PR from the media and schools, and of course under the teaching of judge-made "law." The point is merely that in America we have had numerous examples of cases where the left has had to get the semi-oligarchy of judges to force their desires on a reluctant public and then has used those rulings as a beachhead or a ratchet (pick your favorite metaphor) from which to drag public opinion ahead to where they want it to be. This pattern, which has been repeated times without number in the past four or five decades, stands as disconfirmation to the opinion that "the people" are inherently untrustworthy and that, as a rule of thumb, a land will be governed better if governed by a small elite--an oligarchy or a monarchy--of the smarter, stronger, and in some undefined sense "better." In the U.S., it has generally been true that what Robert Bork calls the chattering classes, who undeniably have a higher average IQ than the national average, have had on average the worst moral ideas. We should least wish to commit the governance of the nation to our elites, knowing the elites. Yet, because of the idea that the law is what judges say it is, they have again and again been allowed, de facto, to govern the nation, even when their actions are manifestly lawless. Roe v. Wade is, of course, a notorious example.
Back in January another example came up, which I have not yet mentioned: A judge named Nan Nash in New Mexico arrogantly struck down the state's anti-assisted suicide law and imposed an assisted suicide regime on the state. Nash admitted that assisted suicide was against existing New Mexico law but, in essence, said that in that case the law was wrong and must cease to function, that doctors must be permitted to assist in suicide. If this isn't legislating from the bench, I don't know what is. Naturally, there is no sign of the governor's saying, "Judge Nash has made her ruling, let her enforce it," and making it clear that anyone who assists a suicide will be prosecuted. Would that such a thing would happen. The state is merely mulling its options for some kind of appeal. I assume an appeal would be to a higher-level state court.
Meanwhile, as everyone knows, Belgian legislators have legalized assisted suicide. The hope there is that the King of Belgium will refuse to sign the law. I will certainly blog it if King Philippe blocks this horrendous law, thus serving as part of a system of checks and balances against, in this case, a gravely disordered legislature. I must say that, despite a petition to the king, nobody really seems to expect him to stop child-killing in his country. I don't know what the timeframe is for his signature or veto. We shall see.