One of the longer-running collective tantrums to occur in this country’s history is the Liberals’ protestation of the Citizens United ruling a few years ago which allowed corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns.

In the days after the alleged apocalyptic decision, Liberal journalist Mark Shields almost gave birth to several of his organs on the air when discussing the horrors that Citizens United would unleash on this country. Other Liberal wing-men have followed suit.

Now, like scenes out of Beau Geste, Liberals are revisiting the attack of Citizens United but with a new angle: the ruling allows donors to political action committees to remain anonymous. Such is not true, despite what each self-anointed Cerberus of the election process may claim at the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and other Liberal precincts.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently postulated that under Citizens United “you can run the bombing campaign or destroy your opponent without having your face or voice associated with it. That’s what Newt wasn’t aware of. It’s his fault that conservatives like them have gone along with these court decisions…”

“Gone along with these court decisions?” Isn’t that what law-abiding citizens of the United States are supposed to do when a Supreme Court decision is rendered? I am unaware of a “conscientious objection” clause in the Constitution that allows people to disregard high court decisions that they deem wrong, for whatever reason. If there was such, as Liberals seem to imply with their heartburn over Citizens United, would Roe v. Wade qualify? Of course not, according to Liberals. It is only their pet projects that should be given credence when such reach the super-legislature better known as the Supreme Court. And if the Supremes do not come down on their side, it can only be “judicial activism” worthy of being overruled by any citizen with a conscience and soul.

And this is what generally separates Liberals from Conservatives. I abhor abortion and recognize that Roe vs. Wade was an intellectually and jurisprudential infirm decision in that it arbitrarily (a no-no for courts) picked 3 months as when life starts. But I also recognize it as the law of the land, as per our Constitution, and I deplore anyone who tries to prevent such via violence or undue intimidation; John Brown, while correct in his ultimate goal, was wrong in his methodology and got what he deserved.

Liberals would do themselves well to realize that abeyance to Supreme Court decisions is not a buffet approach: all decisions, no matter how unpalatable, must be respected.

-I.M. Windee