Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Liberal Activism Versus Conservative Activism
The 1961 Mapp v. Ohio decision by the Supreme Court was an interesting case that illustrates the modern era of judicial activism in this country. The Mapp decision became known as the “exclusionary rule” to the fourth amendment. That is any evidence seized in criminal cases could be “excluded” from trial if a valid warrant is not served by State law enforcement authorities (Federal authorities were already bound by the fourth amendment to issue warrants). Five liberal justices used judicial activism in their majority decision on Mapp v. Ohio because 1. They overturned precedent in Wolf v. Colorado; 2. Extended the fourth amendment to the States magically through the fourteenth amendment; and 3. Mapp v. Ohio was a first amendment case dealing with obscenity and had nothing to do with the fourth amendment – the liberal judges surprised everyone by turning it into a fourth amendment case on search and seizures even though no arguments were heard regarding that aspect of the case. Liberals hailed the decision as being a win for the rights of every American, especially for African-Americans (since the left claims that warrantless searches and seizures mostly affect low income citizens). If this is true, then there is no reason to come to these decisions by using deceitful methods, it would happen naturally over time. But truth be told, any law abiding citizen has nothing to fear from any illegal searches since there is nothing to seize. So the Mapp decision definitely favors criminals much more so than law abiding citizens. Over the course of the next 50 years the Conservative Courts began to use its own activism to roll back the broad nature of the Mapp decision. In different decisions the Court has ruled that there are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule: 1. If an independent source supplied the evidence; 2. If discovery of the evidence was inevitable and 3. If the authorities used good faith when conducting searches. It should come as no surprise these decision infuriated liberals – calling them activist rulings. Hence, in the liberal view, it is okay to use activism if and only if liberals agree with the decision. If liberals are going to use activism to interpret the Constitution, you better believe that conservatives will counter their activism to lessen the damage created by liberals. Remember, the key to conservative exceptions to the exclusion law from the Mapp decision are designed specifically to lock up criminals – not innocent persons. After all, innocent citizens will have no “evidence” to be confiscated. Liberals also claim that the number of criminals acquitted due to illegal search and seizures is small. Well, one guilty criminal released from custody due to an illegal search is one too many. Besides, statistics indicate that over 70% of the criminals released from prison commit a more serious crime within a few years. Liberals claim they are protecting the rights of all citizens, but is that true when their laws are putting more dangerous criminals back on the streets to terrorize innocent civilians? In fact, Dollree Mapp, who liberals hail as the Rosa Parks of the fourth amendment, was later convicted of narcotics and sentenced to prison. It should come as no surprise that 7 of 8 convicted persons affiliate with the Democratic Party. It should also come as no surprise that liberals try very hard to protect the rights of criminals over honest hard working American citizens – to get their vote. Today, liberals are even trying to remove the law which makes it illegal for felons to vote. This is also why they favor lenient sentences and the early release of criminals. The Mapp decision was the start of this nonsense of protecting the rights of criminals over every day citizens. Conservative states and people alike are called out for activism to try to curb things such as illegal immigration, Muslim immigration, the rights of terrorists at Guantanamo, ObamaCare, gun control, climate change, lenient drug laws, and abortion. But they are mostly trying to curb the overreach of the President, who has been an activist using executive orders, or activist judges. Liberals can dish it out, but cannot stand it when they get a taste of their own medicine. But keep in mind, conservative activism is mostly being used to overcome liberal activism mistakes to ensure honest civilians are protected from criminals.