KINDER'S COMMENTARY: IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE AT THE MERCY OF LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDICIARY

After a December rant in this space about the coming row over liberal, activist judges, I received a call from a good friend in the higher reaches of the Missouri state judiciary. "Kinder," said this conservative Republican appointee, eager to let me have it, "One of these days I'm going to write a newspaper column comparing all lawmakers to Ron Dellums," the radical liberal congressman from California. "Touche, judge," I responded. I hadn't distinguished between judicial activists on the federal bench, where the really disastrous problem is, and our state judiciary, where leveler heads usually prevail.

And now -- sooner, if anything, than forcast here -- the street fight over our courts, and over who will judge the judges, is heating up, and not a moment too soon. All it was was the most important issue in last fall's elections, and yet it was hardly mentioned. Bob Dole would give a promising speech signalling he intended to fight over liberal judicial activism as a front-burner issue, only to walk away, trying to make nice on Clinton-Gore turf. A sure recipe for the defeat that followed.

Last weekend in St. Louis before returning to Jefferson City earlier than usual, I found myself downtown with time on my hands. Walking around for exercise on a beautiful morning, I approached the Old Courthouse. Realizing that in all my life I had never been inside, I entered those venerable halls, there to soak in the history while reflecting on the infamous Dred Scott decision. Scott, every American youngster used to be taught, was the slave who, having traveled to a free state, sued for his freedom. His lawsuit took him through the hallowed halls of the Old Courthouse. Upon reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1857, there was rendered the most infamous decision in American history. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney enunciated his ruling: "The negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect ..." and hence couldn't sue for his freedom. Once a slave, always a slave.

The subsequent firestorm fueled the rise of the nascent Republican Party, helped touch off the Civil War and within three years helped elect to the White House an eloquent critic of the Dred Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln. See? Judicial stuff isn't always boring.

Issues of similar moment face our courts today. Can unelected federal judges, appointed for life and accountable to no one, order tax increases? Clinton and Carter appointees say yes, and the aboriginal principle of the American founding -- no taxation without representation -- is gone. Is welfare a right, like freedom of speech or religion? Yes, say the liberal activist judges. Can judges order a certain city to build public housing, guaranteeing the ruin and destruction that follows in its wake? Absolutely, say the liberals. Can voters adopt the color- and gender-blind language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the law, as they did with the California Civil Rights Initiative? No, say the same liberals, one of whose number struck down what the people had just passed by a margin of 700,000 votes. And on, and on.

This past week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a margin of 295-125, a non-binding resolution to support an Alabama judge who is defying orders to stop displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft delivered a major speech signalling his willingness to enter this fray alongside freedom-loving Americans aware of what is at stake. It is good to see Ashcroft willing to step up to this fight. For it will take a lot more than non-binding resolutions if the runaway federal courts are to be reigned in, and our liberties secured.

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communications and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.