Movie proves Hollywood is runaway liberalism

Brian Smith
Daily Egyptian

As if America needed more proof of Hollywood≠s unabashed liberalism, here comes the liberal feel-good movie of the year, "The Runaway Jury." What starts as an interesting plot slowly unravels to reveal a not-so-hidden agenda about gun control. However, the movie reveals much more about Liberals than intended.

In "The Runaway Jury," actor Dustin Hoffman plays a lawyer suing a gun manufacturer for millions of dollars, claiming they are responsible for the shooting death of his client's husband. This part is a bit confusing since guns do not possess the ability to enter buildings, aim themselves and pull their own triggers.

A jury specialist played by Gene Hackman, who has been retained by the gun company to "secure" a verdict, opposes Hoffman. Liberals don't believe anyone is against them unless they≠re manipulated by some "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Actor John Cusack manages to get on the jury for this trial. Cusack seems able to steer jury opinion in any direction he pleases. He and his girlfriend hit up both sides for $10 million ˘ whoever pays first is guaranteed a jury verdict in their favor.

The bottom line ˘ evil Hackman pays the money, noble Hoffman refuses to pay and the gun makers still lose.

Surprise! John Cusack is an ultra-Liberal anti-gun nut! Hoffman≠s side is awarded millions, and Hackman ends the movie chugging whiskey.

This movie used an interesting storyline to advance liberalism and demonize Conservatives. The evil cheater Hackman is constantly portrayed sitting in smoke-filled rooms with gun makers plotting how best to manipulate the system. And Hoffman, struggling throughout the entire movie because he so passionately believes in "a world without guns," fears the only reason he'll lose is because the trial is unfair.

As biased as this movie is, "The Runaway Jury" exposes more about Liberals than it does Conservatives. For decades, Liberals have been unable to advance their agenda with any degree of continuous success.

The biggest strides in liberal policy have come from the judicial system. This movie shows no matter how ridiculous the claim, no matter how the law is written and no matter how the public might feel about the issue, the courtroom is a liberal dreamland in which anything is possible ˘ from tobacco lawsuits to legalized abortion, the sky is the limit.

Liberals use the courts to achieve what they cannot win at the ballot box. The only way to advance liberalism in this country is by not having to face the public. Elected officials who get too liberal are voted out of office; judges who get too liberal are given raises. Lifetime tenure provides judges give adequate cover to distort and stretch the law.

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Constitution. Poll after poll has shown Americans overwhelmingly disagree with the 9th Circuit, but as of now, they≠ve made it illegal to say the pledge in a school in nine states. There is no way Congress would outlaw "under God," making the ruling all the more insulting to voters. But where voters don≠t have a say, liberalism thrives.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been busy banging the gavel with their left hands as well. Affirmative action was recently rubber-stamped by the Court despite its lack of public appeal or constitutional basis.

A recent ruling overturning a state sodomy law was so broad that the next logical step is legalized gay marriage ˘ again, far left of American public opinion.

And let≠s not forget the granddaddy of them all, Roe v. Wade. Instead of allowing individual states to elect people to decide whether or not abortion should be legal, the Supreme Court decided it would be more fun to invent a constitutional "right" to have an abortion.

Since the judiciary is the only real source of liberal policy in America, it's no wonder Liberals get all bent out of shape when Republicans are in power, and it's their turn to appoint federal judges.

Democrats, the alleged party of equal opportunity and tolerance, are refusing to even allow a vote on President Bush's judicial nominees, such as Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic), Priscilla Owens (a woman) and, coming soon, Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman).

Democrats also fought tooth and nail to prevent the confirmation of only the second black Supreme Court Justice in history, Clarence Thomas. Democrats seem only to want minorities to serve as judges if Democrats can tell them how to think.

Meanwhile, the only judges that are acceptable to Democrats are judges that can find all sorts of things in emanations of penumbras of amendments. Word on the street is Hollywood is busy working on the sequel, "The Runaway Court of Appeals," in which the 9th Circuit declares universal health care a constitutional right.

Right Angle appears every Monday. Brian is a law student. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Egyptian.

Copyright 2009 - Daily Egyptian