The New Clergy

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu
It is ironic that the secular left which does everything in its power to repudiate religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is trying to impose its own cult on society. The State is their God and law their creed with lawyers acting as the new clergy. The federal circuit courts serve as their diocese and the Supreme Court acts as a Curia proclaiming orthodoxy by fiat. All sectors of government and the public are subject to the pronouncements of nine robed grandees who are not answerable to anyone. They have usurped power from the people and bestowed upon themselves the holy right to regulate all facets of our lives. They brook no questioning of their pronouncements. Only they know the will of God.

This gang of nine is supported by hundreds of thousands of acolytes who have been turned out by today’s seminaries, the law schools. They minister to the public reminding us of the sanctity of their scripture, which is so voluminous and arcane that only they can traffic in its use. They, like scholastics of old, have a knack for parsing every word until meanings become incomprehensible to the laity. They are needed to help us navigate the maze of ever-proliferating laws, which define their secular religion and intrude on our daily existence. We are like peasants during the Middle Ages who could not read the Latin Vulgate, thus had to rely on the priesthood for guidance to salvation. In the minds of these elites, only they hold the secret to salvation. And our persons, as we have no souls, are in peril if we don’t follow their counsel. This of course is to their advantage as it provides them with profit, as well as power.

No other association in America has the immunity from scrutiny that these people have. Every other group is, in the end, answerable to lawyers in one fashion or another. Lawyers are answerable only to themselves and the Byzantine system they have concocted. This lack of outside accountability leads to arrogance and corruption. They have used their religion to expand the reach of the State into every aspect of our lives. For example, what parent will have clear responsibility for and authority over their children if a recent decision by the ninth circuit court of appeals is left unchallenged? Whose property is safe after the recent dictate of the Supreme Court, which would allow local governments, in cahoots with wealthy developers, to virtually steal people’s property for reasons other than imminent domain?

Both decisions are invented from whole cloth to suit the statist zealotry of some on the bench. There is no historical precedent for either and, in fact, both go against previous law and tradition. Additionally, how many of us can challenge a state attorney general who misuses his office for political gain? What man or woman can fight a federal prosecutor run amok within the judicial system for personal aggrandizement? These “representatives” of the law claim the sanctity of their office. More importantly, they have the power of the contemporary inquisition behind them, i.e. government sanction. As with the inquisition, the scrutiny of these people or that of our modern day Torquemada, the ACLU, is ruinous. Even if one is not guilty of any crime, it is often safer and always less costly in time, money and emotion to admit one has gone astray and agree to do penance than to fight on principle.

GavelsThumbWhat can be done to strip power from this modern day priesthood?  In truth, very little. For decades, “We the People” have allowed zealots on various courts to re-write and misinterpret the constitution, according to their own heretical views. They have invented oxymoronic phrases such as “the constitution is a living document” in the attempt to foist their agenda on a dozing public. By allowing this to go on for decades, we have let them usurp power which was never meant to be theirs.

Ironically, the best and possibly only way to strip them of this control is to appoint justices who are not enthralled with this juristic belief and will voluntarily divest themselves of their illicitly gained power. This can only be done by selecting judicial candidates who believe that the judiciary has over-reached itself for far too long. They must be committed to reining in an institution that has run amok and to give back power to those who should rightfully hold it, i.e. “the people” through their elected representatives. President Bush’s appointment of justices Roberts and Alito seems to be a step in this direction.

We must also do our best to make clear that the legal profession is temporal and not spiritual in nature. We need to find a way to make these advocates accountable to others. That something is wrong in the legal community can be seen in the low regard in which it is held by the public at large. While many may agree, at least in theory, with Shakespeare’s character in Henry VI who said “the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers,” this sentiment is foolish, at best and anarchic, at worst.

The rule of law has given the world the best framework upon which to build peace and prosperity. But neither peace nor prosperity would be threatened, and would probably be enhanced, if we stopped producing so many of these legal practitioners. One practical way to reduce their importance would be to curb the out-of-control tort system in this country and to stop rewarding, but rather, punish miscreants for bringing frivolous and fraudulent cases. This can only be done by the people who appear to have been in a seventy year daze thus allowing the secular left to impose policies which would not have been approved by the electorate.

Political pressure must be brought to bear to rid our system of these parasitic prophets of perfidy.  We must take back control of our rights and put lawyers and the judiciary in their proper place. If we don’t, our rights will continue to be eroded by this most special of all “special interest” groups and the time may come when we will have no legal way to retrieve them. • (1542 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The New Clergy

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The only reason I wouldn’t want to kill all the lawyers is because they know the best lawyer jokes. But, good god, things have gotten out of hand.

  2. Kurt NY says:

    Good article and mostly right on target. However, when you say ” the best and possibly only way to strip them of this control is to appoint justices who are not enthralled with this juristic belief and will voluntarily divest themselves of their illicitly gained power,” I’m afraid you have too much faith in individual virtue. You are, of course, completely correct that the solution would require appointment of candidates to the judiciary with the proper ideas – originalists. But I do not believe that will be enough.

    All individuals, even the most well-intentioned, are subject to creeping subversion of purpose. And no individual is entirely immune to the calls of vanity – we all believe in our own goodness and we all wish to right what wrongs come to our attention. Heck, even Antonin Scalia, my personal favorite, has, on occasion sounded like he’s hustling up business, encouraging people to file certain cases affecting issues in which he has interest.

    Yes, we have to appoint only judges with the right attitudes (which would probably require trashing most of the law schools and starting over), but we also should impose term limits on judges, with potential recall votes for egregious overreaching. Power can only be restrained by other power, and all individuals are corruptible.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      This was written a while ago and I am leaning more toward what you mention. Since all we have to work with are human beings, term limits in all parts of government, might be a partial solution.

      If I understand correctly what Mark Levin is suggesting, I would also go along with the States calling a constitutional convention.

      As for the bureaucracy, their power to define laws and fill in the blanks where Congress has failed in its duty, should be quashed completely. All questions requiring explanation of any law should passed back to Congress. Make the SOB’s earn their pay and take responsibility for what they do. Fat chance.

    • ladykrystyna says:

      It is funny that you say term limits for judges, because that is one of the Liberty Amendments that Mark Levin proposes.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m reminded of this quote by Ronald Reagan:

    Someone once said every form of government has a single characteristic which forms the basis for its power; if that is lost the government falls. Monarchy for example is based on the affection and respect of the people for the Royal Family. When that respect and affection disappears the monarchy falls. Dictatorship is based on fear. It is successful only so long as the people fear the dictator. In a Democracy the underlying principle is virtue. When that is lost the democracy falls and ceases to exist.

    It’s not just lawyers. The underlying virtue of the entire people is severely eroded.

  4. ladykrystyna says:

    Well never fear. Not all lawyers are lost. My law school days helped to make me more conservative.

    And you know what helped, oddly enough …. Administrative Law class and Environmental Law classes. It taught me that most laws and regulations do not work as advertised. That tends to make one skeptical of laws and regulations.

    At least that is what it did for me.

  5. Libertymark says:

    Great write up, Fu. You had me up until your mention of the Roberts appointment. Since you admit writing this some time ago, that Roberts shout out must stick in the craw. It does mine.

    Today I read that the NM SC has ruled that your religious beliefs must leave room for popular secularism. (Read more here

    I am coming to the conclusion that our nation has crossed the Rubicon. I have little vision for a way back. If one can be convicted of felony for one’s religious beliefs, and presumably imprisoned there to, how far the re-education camps? How distant the gulag? How close the FEMA camp and the plastic coffins?

  6. Kung Fu Zu says:

    Thanks Mark. Yes I wrote the piece about six years ago. Roberts has been a huge disappointment. Maybe not a Souter, but still a let down.

    I have been following this action in N.M. since the beginning over a year ago. I hope they take this to the US Supreme Court. It is outrageous that religious liberty is being trampled in this way. A person has the right to a living.

    I keep telling people including the so-called libertarians that homosexual marriage is really about stamping on freedom of religion. Marriage has never been a part of homosexual culture. Hell, even the ancient Greeks knew that. They knew raising families depending on marriage between a man and a women.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    A nice analogy there. We could see SCOTUS as the modern liberal Politburo. One idea I once had was appointing SCOTUS from State supreme court judges — and if they lose their state position, they lose their federal one. This would allow some control. I doubt it would even require a constitutional amendment.

  8. Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

    Terrific piece. As my avatar is meant to convey (among other things) is that there are two sides to every story. Parasitic lawyers arguing for self interest can be countered by freedom loving ones defending our liberty. But you know that.

    I like term limits for judges. And loser pays rules. Both would go far to restoring the republic. But of all I like the idea that the God of Nature is greater than us all and not an entity here on earth we can hide behind. Thank you.

    *** UPDATE ***

    Terrific piece this weekend by Kimberely Strassel this weekend that underscores the point.

    (If you can’t see the entire article copy and paste the subtitle into Google’s search bar and follow the WSJ link on the link. A little known trick).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *