Judge Moore falls victim to a culture of beta males
Skinny man without a shirt on.

Judge Moore falls victim to a culture of beta males

Posted October 05, 2016 05:30 PM by Daniel Horowitz Skinny man without a shirt on.
Tinny Photo | Shutterstock
    • Font Size
    • A
    • A
    • A


Earth to conservative movement (what is left of it): there is a raging fire of judicial tyranny threatening to envelop the last vestiges of our Republic. Last week, an unelected tribunal in Alabama removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office — who, by the way, was duly elected by the people of the state — for the remainder of his term. His crime? Following Alabama law and not redefining marriage, the building block of all civilization. Does anyone want to talk about it? Or have conservatives now accepted all forms of judicial tyranny as a given with no desire to even put up a fight or defend one of our own?

Most of the conservative media and talk radio has been ensnared into covering every salacious detail of this presidential election, which does not feature conservatism on the ballot. Those who spend every waking hour of their political career defending every comment or act of Donald Trump contend that it is vital to win this election at all costs because we will lose our country forever if he does not win. Yet, the country is already being immutably transformed before our very eyes. When the few people who actually fight the transformation need reinforcements, most in the conservative media are too busy focusing on the acceptable-weight standard of a Miss Universe contestant.

It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand that our Founders could never have envisioned federal judges ordering states to redefine marriage and gender. However, they put a system of checks and balances in place which, in their estimation, would stave off usurpations of a much smaller magnitude they did foresee. Where they went wrong, however, was their inability to account for a culture of beta males in the states who would be obsequious to illegal, immoral, and tyrannical acts in the federal government, and worse, punish those who fight back against illegal power grabs.

But where are the patriots? Instead of defending every liberal utterance of national Republican leaders, why are they not standing with someone they can actually support with their conscience? And don’t tell me that the outcome of this case hinges on the presidential election. Marriage, religious liberty, and so many other foundational issues have already been ceded to the far-left of the judiciary, irrespective of who wins this election. The fact that Trump has said, so many times, that he will allow the foxes in the courts to decide the fate of the religious liberty hen-house demonstrates that we have already lost. 

Anyone who has followed this column over the past year or has read “Stolen Sovereignty” understands that the crisis within the federal judiciary is much worse than even the languishing conservative movement makes it out to be. Yet, there appears to be no floor to the depths of post-constitutional Gomorrah to which it can stoop that would elicit a righteous and united response from even conservative states. Whether it’s criminalizing religion; redefining marriage and gender; nullifying property rights; requiring states to issue birth certificates and offer voter registration to non-citizens; or preventing states from combating voter fraud, states have been completely servile to the perverted whims of the unelected federal judges.

Where is the much-vaunted conservative media in making this an issue? It speaks volumes that we place all of our hopes, aspirations, energy, political capital, reputation, and self-respect into the severely flawed Republican leaders at the top instead of directly engaging on the issues that actually matter and for the people we can actually cleanly support. As a movement, we have acquiesced to illegal acts of usurpation from our politicians, particularly the unelected judiciary. Likewise, we have placed all our bets on winning national elections with flawed men. 

As William Penn once wrote, “[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.” We don’t have good men at the top, but we have good men like Roy Moore who refuse to allow ill “laws” to stand, not that Anthony Kennedy even created a law with his absurd marriage ruling. So why won’t our movement rally behind a man that is actually standing in practice for everything we say we believe in theory? Or have we also subscribed to this nonsense that all tyranny from the federal judiciary must be fully applied in the states as “the law of the land”?    

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33, even with regard to tyranny from the stronger federal legislature, that when it steps outside of the enumerated powers to crush the states, those acts are “merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such.” Twenty years ago, before transgenderism and redefinition of marriage was in vogue, Robert Bork said, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.”

Nobody imagined a state submitting to orders that were universally understood to be outside of the realm of federal control, especially when those edicts violated our history and tradition, and worse, punishing those who adhered to the most foundational state value.

Yet, now, even conservatives yawn when state officials are punished for not redefining marriage or when individuals are fined for not using their property or business to service an act contrary to their conscience. We legitimize the entire premise that such a ruling is lawfully binding on the states by promising to win elections with RINOs and appoint better judges.

Nobody explained the gravity of this judicial crisis confronting us, and the acquiescence of the people — even conservatives — to this foreign system of judicial supremacy in public policy better than Larry D. Kramer, former Dean of Stanford Law School, in his 2004 book on judicial supremacy:

Neither the Founding generation nor their children nor their children's children, right on down to our grandparents' generation, were so passive about their role as republican citizens. They would not have accepted-did not accept-being told that a lawyerly elite had charge of the Constitution, and they would have been incredulous if told (as we are often told today) that the main reason to worry about who becomes president is that the winner will control judicial appointments. Something would have gone terribly wrong, they believed, if an unelected judiciary were being given that kind of importance and deference. Perhaps such a country could still be called democratic, but it would no longer be the kind of democracy Americans had fought and died and struggled to create.[1]

This statement stands as an open rebuke to those who accept the legitimacy of redefining of marriage and gender by the courts as a given, exclusively placing their hopes in new elections to “appoint better judges.”

Kramer then asks, “What changed to make this deprecated sentiment not just real, not just respectable, but apparently prevalent?”

I think we all know the answer: A culture of beta males works wonders in allowing the most debauched usurpations to prosper and those who bravely refuse to comply are condemned by polite society.

[1] Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 228.

Daniel Horowitz is a Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.