A court at
The judge wrote in his ruling, "Freedom of expression...including the freedom to set up a political party can be seen as the basis for a democratic society. It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political parties," he said. And with those words, this judge has clearly defined for us the perversion that has taken place of the role the judiciary is supposed to have in the day-to-day function of a republic...and why the
In this case, a judge zealous to defend what he considers the right of certain individuals to assemble and organize has overlooked both the legality of that group's activities, and the impact his decision would have on the greater good. By permitting a voice in society to those who are breaking the law, judges both codify and justify crime, which should be untenable. This is the same kind of thinking that would have us stop surveillance of those who are in America--most likely--to do us harm. It's the same kind of thinking that worries more about cultural appropriateness of meals served to terrorist conspirators at Gitmo, than it does about how many American lives were likely saved by keeping those prisoners out of the mainstream.
**WARNING: Star TrekTM reference ahead**
Perhaps Spock said it best, in The Wrath of Khan. Sometimes, the doomed First Officer related, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few…or the one." Where the rights of child molesters, those who practice bestiality, and those who vote for them are concerned...those who are chosen to represent the will of the people must represent, not just their clearly-enunciated will for today, not just a democratic ideal...but what is best for the future of the republic, as well.