Where Bill O’Reilly’s Going Wrong
January 27, 2009
Revealing a much-unacknowledged ability to combine graciousness with his
beloved pithiness, Bill O’Reilly frequently asks guests brought on to
counter his Talking Points, "Where am I going wrong?”
The meister of the No Spin Zone hasn’t asked me that question, but I’m
responding anyway — not with respect to a Talking Point but to
statements he’s made about how much of a traditionalist President Obama
is regarding topics such as the Second Amendment and gay marriage.
So, here, pithily, is my answer:
Bill is going wrong because like every other Democratic president from
JFK on, Obama talks a traditionalist game but will nominate activist
judges who will make liberal views the law of the land.
Not wishing to be critical without offering something constructive,
I’m providing the following information to help Bill O’Reilly get going
The Second Amendment. It is true that Obama has frequently affirmed his
support for the idea that the Amendment guarantees an individual’s right
"to keep and bear Arms” — as opposed to the liberal interpretation,
whereby the right applies only to government.
That support explains why Obama has said he agrees with the ruling in
District of Columbia v. Heller (June ’08). However, Heller
came down on the side of the individual right 5-4, with the Court’s four
liberals condemning the majority decision as "law-changing” and creating
"a dramatic upheaval in the law.”
"Law-changing.” What chutzpah — but then judges of the stripe Obama has
promised to nominate never tire of arguing that the Framers were so hot
to grant the right to bear arms only to government entities that they —
with the full support of Frank and Fannie Farmer — proposed an amendment
which stands as the only part of the Bill of Rights that does not grant
a right to the people.
As the facts stated above reveal, every honest person (including Bill
O’Reilly) must admit that what Obama says about the right to bear arms
means nil while what he intends to do about the judiciary means
everything — an everything that reduces the traditional view of the
Second Amendment to nothing.
Gay marriage. People across the political spectrum hold a variety of
opinions about this issue. However, lying beyond opinion is this:
Wherever gay marriage is legal, it has been made so not by a legislative
act or referendum but by a ruling issued by the kind of judges Obama has
promised to nominate.
So much, then, for any practical meaning in Obama’s assertion that he
regards marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Frighteningly, however, the irrelevance of Obama’s words about marriage
pales when compared with the fact that liberal judges are using gay
marriage cases to raise the dictatorial nature of liberal judicial
activism to an entirely new level.
In this regard, O’Reilly ought to educate his audience about Schulman
v. Attorney General (July, ’06), in which the Massachusetts Supreme
Court ruled that a petition by the commonwealth’s people for a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and
a woman was legal but added this:
"A positive vote enacting the initiative, however, might not be the end
of the story. If the initiative is approved by the Legislature and
ultimately adopted, there will be time enough, if an appropriate lawsuit
is brought, for this court to resolve the question whether our
Constitution can be home to provisions that are apparently mutually
inconsistent and irreconcilable.”
Yes, in those astonishing words, the liberal judges plainly assert the
power to declare a constitutional amendment duly enacted by the people
unconstitutional, a concept to which the liberals of the California
Supreme Court recently gave credence when they agreed to hear a case
against Proposition 8.
And when Pride induces five power loving liberals of the U. S. Supreme
Court to embrace this jurisprudential abomination, American democracy
will truly be finished.
Imagine, for example, that the Court declares the death penalty
unconstitutional and then does the same to a constitutional amendment
restoring capital punishment.
Or imagine the passage of a constitutional amendment limiting federal
taxes, only to have it declared unconstitutional by liberal justices for
running afoul of the Due Process Clause and a dozen other clauses (not
to mention their thousand "penumbras”) with which it is "inconsistent
Of course, liberal activists may not yet have the votes to achieve this
ultimate power grab. (We shall see in the case of Proposition 8.)
But as much as anyone, O’Reilly knows that since the days of the Warren
Court, liberal judges have advanced their oligarchical cause with an
insidious, relentless stealth.
Indeed, to impress his audience about the danger of this dirty,
high-booted foot that has been insinuating itself in the door of
American democracy with increasing arrogance and insistence during the
past fifty years, O’Reilly will find this quote, in which Jefferson
speaks of the judicial activists of his day, invaluable:
"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like
gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining
ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing [the other
branches of government] insidiously . . .”
Instead of naively praising Obama’s "traditionalism,” there’s much more
O’Reilly can do for the folks — including providing substantive analysis
of the fact that for half a century the Republican Party has sold out
the American people regarding the issue of liberal judicial activism.
Although details of that betrayal of principle are so voluminous that an
enumeration and analysis of them must wait for another time, I cannot
end without asking the man behind "The Factor” to consider the
significance of the fact that more than 40 Republican Senators voted to
confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court as a "consensus”
that’s it regarding where I think O’Reilly is going wrong. As for the
help provided, I hope the bold, fresh piece of humanity who has built
himself into television’s most important voice in news analysis finds it