Everybody has Top Ten Lists, and so does Judge Napolitano.

Top 10 Legal Stories of 2012 | Fox News Insider

Generally I like the judge and I am sorry Fox cancelled his show, but… (Please have the link open on your screen when you read my comments.)

1. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Thanks to totally irrelevant “reasoning” by a supposedly conservative Chief Justice, this abomination is now law and will remain so. No future Republican president or congress will ever have the political courage to undo it, anymore than they had the courage to undo the New Deal or the Great Society.

2. Voter ID Laws and Provisional Ballots

Voter fraud by any other name is still…. voter fraud.

The argument that voter id will lead to national id cards is bogus. EVERY state already issues driver’s licenses and non-driving id cards. Most states issue them to illegals, too. All states USED to require id at the time of voting. Many still do. There is no issue here except Democrat resistance to taking away a key advantage they have on election day.

The good judge could have and should have made a constitutional argument based on the equal protection clause that all states must require voter id, that the current random state standards give unfair advantage to some at the expense of others, that allowing illegals to vote, allowing some voters to vote multiple times by precinct-hopping, by the use of absentee and provisional ballots and other illegal means effectively infringes on the rights of legitimate voters and deprives them of equal treatment in the exercise in this most supreme of civil rights and duties.

3. Immigration

This is the first hint of the lunacy that libertarian “philosophy” leads to. If the good judge is correct (if our rights come from our Creator — as the Declaration of Independence declares — how can they differ because of where our mothers were when we were born?) then we MUST let ALL people on Earth, every last goddam one of them, become US citizens. What garbage.

4. Affirmative Action

More of same fuzzy thinking. If the Court had ever been interested in interpreting the Civil War amendments as striving to make our laws color-blind, then they would have ruled affirmative action unconstitutional at its inception back in the 1960s.

5. Right-to-Work Law

Ditto. And this one dates back to the mid-1800s, when unionism and compulsory membership were “invented.” If the Court had any interest in interpreting the First Amendments as both the freedom OF association and the freedom FROM association, then they would have done so LONG ago.

Wait till they apply the same reasoning to the imaginary “separation of church and state,” and come out with a ruling that freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. Good bye public displays of…  religion? No. Just Christianity — yet another violation of the equal protection clause. Everybody conveniently overlooks the second part of this clause, which is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means, in private AND in public.

6. Same-Sex Marriage

This is the second and clearest sign of the lunacy that libertarian “philosophy” leads to: “your right to choose a mate is a fundamental liberty with which the state cannot interfere.”  Ahem. Are we supposed to take this to mean that man-made law trumps NATURAL LAW? What does “MATE” mean, anyway? If my “mate” can be the same sex I am, then why not multiple “mates” (some religions permit that), why not communes (the hippies tried it), why not “open marriage” (just plain catting around to “relieve boredom”), why not… animals (sheepherders and sheep have long been looked at with suspicion), why not… objects (sex toys, anyone?). In other words, ANYTHING but the only thing that has ever sustained a healthy family and healthy children — a female MOTHER and a male FATHER “mating” for life… Why do we even bother to have laws and a Court?

7. Domestic Drones

Well, hell, they already call it “battlefield America,” so why not do drones, right? You already can’t go anywhere in NYC without being on camera all the time. As the most popular crime shows demonstrate night after night, good old fashioned detective work is being replaced by looking at streams of video footage. Never mind probable cause, never mind search warrants, never mind expectations of privacy of your PERSON, never mind the Bill of Rights. This is NOT your grandfather’s America.

8. Stand Your Ground Laws

Excuuuuse me, but the good judge has still left the door open to being charged with manslaughter. Whose side is he on? DO we or DON’T we have an absolute right of SELF DEFENSE? Do I or don’t I have the absolute right to protect my life, my family and my property? At the very least the Court and people such as this judge should explain CLEARLY what it is that I need to do and how I need to prove that I acted appropriately and legally in self-defense.

9. Fast and Furious

The good judge is continuing to perpetrate a deliberate misconception and distrotrion that the anti-gunners had injected into the argument over the Second Amendment. He is making a reference to “military grade” weapons. At the time the Second Amendment was made part of the Bill of Right, there was no distinction between INDIVIDUAL military and civilian arms, that is, swords, pistols and rifles. There was no doubt that the Founders did not mean to include in this Amendment the cannons, rockets, mortars and other military weaponry with which they were familiar. It was only in response to the gangster era in the Roaring Twenties and the 1930’s that the government required a special license to own fully automatic rifles (submachine guns). Just to be clear, SEMI-auto versions of the M-16 and the AK-47 which were used in the Vietnam War are NOT “military grade” weapons, because the military uses the full-auto versions.

The issue being obscured and ignored in Fast & Furious, as in all debates over the Second Amendment, is the individual citizen’s right of SELF DEFENSE (which is a biological imperative imposed by nature on all life forms), and by direct, logical inference from the wording of the Amendment and the discussion of it in the Federalist Papers, the right of the states to protect themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic, including the federal government itself. It is these rights that the gun control nuts want to destroy. And it is a strange lapse in libertarian reasoning that the good judge does NOT make this point in reference to the single most important provision in the Bill of Rights which he as a champion of liberty should to hold supreme above all the others.

10. Marijuana Legalization

And finally we come to the third and most important evidence of the lunacy that libertarian “philosophy” leads to, and, just like gay “marriage,” it too is rooted in disregard of and disdain for simple biological facts. This is far more than a states’ rights issue, this is far more than an economics or taxation issue, and in fact it trivializes the issue by casting it as conflict between state and federal law or as a question of economic or tax policy.

Above all man-made law, including the Constitution, is NATURAL LAW. A man-made law invites failure and fosters a disdain for all laws if it insists on being in conflict with natural law.

And the facts of natural reality are that:

  • Legalization will not decrease marijuana use; in fact may increase it, because “if it were harmful, it would be illegal;”
  • Smoking marijuana is still smoking, and therefore has the same bad effects on your health as smoking tobacco;
  • Marijuana is INDEED a gateway drug, as anyone who has ever had to cope with drug addicts would know;
  • Marijuana is NOT harmless, it DOES “rot” your brain;
  • Marijuana DOES make you “high” and functionally incapacitated;
  • We still have a bad enough problem with drunk drivers, we don’t need an entire new class of drugged drivers on the road, legally high on marijuana;
  • We have a chance to use technology to eliminate drunk driving through ignition interlock systems; the last thing we need is drivers high on drugs for which there are no breath analyzers;
  • The economic argument is bogus; people will avoid paying a tax on marijuana, if by no other means than by growing their own and “sharing” it with “friends;”
  • Legalization will NOT drive the current criminals out of business. They’ll just “go legit” and use their legal marijuana business as cover for other criminal activities or just diversify into other crimes, just like the  Mafia had done after Prohibition. They will use their expertise in criminal tactics to drive legitimate growers out of business;
  • etc.

The  good judge in particular and the libertarians in general are really off base on this one.