How to Stop the Manhattan Mosque? Find an Activist Judge

Hypocrisy in politics is often not hard to find. Ronald Reagan touting himself as a fiscal conservative or Newt Gingrich championing family values quickly come to mind. The left is guilty of it too. President Obama in Cairo last year rightly decried the evils of Western colonialism and stated his intention of bringing all American troops home from Afghanistan, while at the same time was working on a plan to add 30,000 troops to that country.

The latest glaring example of hypocrisy comes from none other than televangelist Pat Robertson. He has always supposedly been an opponent of judicial activism--a philosophy of judicial interpretation fueled by a loose application of the law. The hatred of judicial activism is, in a nutshell, this: judges interpret the law in a way that usurps the will of a democratically elected body, such as a legislature. The Supreme Court overtiring an act of Congress could be an example.

Of judicial activism, Robertson famously said, "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

More dangerous than the worst act of terrorism on American soil? That's a pretty serious charge, so I would think that Robertson would stay away from anything that might result in judicial activism. Alas, I am wrong.

Robertson is the brainchild behind the interest group American Center for Law and Justice. Its latest activity is a lawsuit against the Manhattan Community Board to stop the mosque planned in lower Manhattan near Ground Zero. Last week, the community board approved the building of the mosque by a unanimous vote, 9-0. Yes, a democratically elected body makes a decision, and Robertson goes running to the courts looking for a judge who might usurp that decision. Hypocrisy at its finest.