Bruce Fein has an outstanding op-ed in today’s The Washington Times.

He nails Senators Clinton and Feinstein for why they are voting against Judge Roberts as Chief Justice.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California mistook justices for missionaries in elaborating their opposition to Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as chief justice of the United States.
…
Mrs. Clinton’s ideal Supreme Court would have ordained the Bill of Rights. It would have outlawed slavery. It would have acquitted John Brown. It would have prohibited child labor. It would have summoned into being the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. And the contemporary Supreme Court, according to Mrs. Clinton’s way of thinking, should recognize a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and eliminate compensation disparities between men and women.

It is a fair inference Mrs. Clinton would do away with Congress, the executive branch and the states in favor of the Supreme Court when civil rights, voting rights or women’s rights are at issue, at least until she occupies the White House and Democrats control the House and Senate.

Yes, very true. The Constitution has those pesky legislative and executive branches in it. I mean the toothless hicks in fly over country might not understand what they are doing and could elect ogres to the House and Senate. These uncouth barbarians then get to pass laws….for shame. An enlightened Supreme Court should step in and save the unwashed masses from themselves and write law from the bench.

Mrs. Feinstein fretted that Judge Roberts was uncommitted to “[a] basic right to privacy that extends from the beginning of life to the end of life.” The senator was undisturbed that a “right to privacy” is nowhere mentioned in the text or subtext of the Constitution. She was unalarmed by the prospect of judges deciding when life begins or ends, which could occasion an absolute prohibition on abortion. Neither was Mrs. Feinstein concerned that a right to privacy unhinged from the Constitution would naturally protect polygamy, prostitution, drug abuse and child pornography in the home.

Remember, when a Liberal says anything about the right to privacy, what they mean is the unfettered right to abortion and the right to engage in gay sex. Period. That is about as cut and dry as you can get. Senator Santorum was ridiculed when he said that regarding the “right to privacy”:

…if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does

But how was he wrong in saying that? Oh I see, the “right to privacy” only applies to those things that Liberals are for. Interesting.

What this all boils down to is that the Left does not want any laws that legislate morality. But yet, they still see the need for some “morality” laws, such as laws against sex with minors and incest. But I ask you, how long do you think they will be content with the way things are? Things continue to go further and further left. There are fringe groups on the Left that think that adult – child sex is not only ok, but healthy. I kid you not. The same goes for gay marriage. I am sure that many gay people want to get married because they love each other and because of the benefits that marriage ascribes to you and your spouse, but the hard Left wants gay marriage and group marriage and any other marriage for the simple fact that when every one or thing is married, all significance of marriage vanishes. There is a great line in the movie The Incredibles when Mr. Incredible’s nemesis, Syndrome, is monologueing about his plans to regulate superheroes to the trash heap of history:

I’ll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be super. And when everyone’s super, no one will be

That best sums up the Left’s attack on marriage. They want the death of marriage. Marriage after all, is the ultimate morality law. It is ordained and blessed by God (even if you don’t believe in the Christian God, all other religions have their god or gods bless and approve of marriage). How can we have that on the books. The Left must destroy anything that even smells a bit like morality.