Ann Coulter, whom no person can criticize for being soft on foreign policy, once made a comment implying that we are far more threatened by Liberal Judicial Activism at home than we are by enemies from abroad. Now, thinking about from where all previous prosperous, powerful cultures degenerated and fell, who among us would relish arguing the Negative against Ms. Coulter?

So, as we vote at the polls in little more than a week (or vote by refusing to vote), we will be making choices regarding issues as important as whether we want to monitor communications by terrorists or respect the "right to privacy" of vicious, pathological killers; treat captured foreign terrorists as enemy combatants or "respect" them as American citizens; secure our nation or maintain the status quo of walk in, drive in, wide-open borders; work to solve the problem of illegal aliens or "solve" it with another periodic amnesty; lower taxes or raise them.

However, as Ann Coulter has reminded us, the most important vote we make (just as the most important hell we raise) has to do with the Federal Judiciary. And that vote means how we cast our vote for President and Senators. Since there's no Presidential election this year . . . well, you must surely see where this is going.

Before commenting upon some key Senate races and their importance regarding San Francisco Values and the Federal judiciary, I need to say very briefly what Liberals (who think the Supreme Court should "look like" the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) have in mind for America's future. (Just in case there's even one person who doesn't know, the Ninth Circuit's hometown is San Francisco.)

I have written about this dictatorial abomination that awaits us previously, but it bears repeating. It is this: In a decision affirming the legality of a petition proposing a constitutional amendment offered by the people of Massachusetts, a Liberal justice of the state's supreme court took the opportunity to say that at a later date the court could determine the constitutionality of the amendment.

If you consider the act of judicial tyranny explicitly stated by the Liberal justice and conclude "It will never happen, even in Massachusetts" or "Even if it happens in Massachusetts, New York, or California, it will never happen in the U.S. Supreme Court," then stop reading here. Otherwise, you are invited to read the few words that close this piece, especially if you live in one of the following states: Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia.

Those of us who are lovers of Jeffersonian Democracy (that is, those of us who believe that from a moral point of view legitimate political power lies only with the People and from a pragmatic perspective reason that liberty and prosperity are best preserved when political power is exercised at the level of government closest to the People) cannot in good conscience vote for a Senate candidate who ultimately will confirm judges whose views concerning the role of the judiciary are antithetical to ours.

Moreover, accepting that thought and considering the political, social, and religious attitudes of the great majority of citizens of the states mentioned above, we immediately realize the stunning victory that Perverse Irony would achieve if any of those states were to be represented in the Senate by a Senator who loves Liberal Activist judges. So, too, do we commit ourselves to doing everything we reasonably can to keep that victory from occurring.

Finally, we accept the reality that everything said here pertains to every other state with a Senatorial race this coming November (indeed, to every other race that this year and in future years has an impact on the kind of judges we seat on our courts); for, adding to a maxim uttered long ago, "Eternal vigilance against The Most Dangerous San Francisco Value of All is the price of liberty."

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio