Here's my take on the Ninth Circuit's ruling postponing the California recall election. The night before, I had heard Robert Bork in C-Span, talking about his new book, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges which details how judicial review has become judicial tyranny throughout the "civilized" world.

This breathtaking power grab is a perfect example for his thesis. Thinking about it yesterday afternoon, I thought why not just use paper ballots like we all used to. (Not for nothing do I read Instapundit) As I heard the arguments used in the opinion, I thought, "What evidence do they have that the new system to be online in March will be any better than the current one?" It would seem elementary that if you identify a problem, you have to at least have the assurance that something else will be better before you order everyone to switch to it. But the power of persuasion of the ACLU must just be irresistable. What are judges for if not to correct the injustices wrought by government by the people.

While searching for Lord Acton's quote, I found the following, from C. S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

and this one by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the nearest thing in our time to an Old Testament prophet:

You can have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power.

The courts are coming close to robbing us of our rights, and I hope there's enough of a revolutionary spirit left in the United States that we will stand up against it. If if takes a Constitutional Amendment, so be it. I like the system we have in Utah. Every Judge has to be listed on the ballot periodically for the voters to decide whether he/she should be retained. I've only heard of two cases where judges were removed this way, because most people vote yes, unless they've heard something that disturbs them about that judge. Judges should not be politicians, but they have chosen to become so by ruling on matters which are beyond their discretion. It is time, therefore, that they have to be subject to the will of the people, and that it be made so by the only document they cannot get around, the Constitution, although in Canada, even that was not enough.