Tilting The Court To The Right
Many have bloviated in the media about how the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito will "tilt" the current make-up of the court to the "right". This is deduced by the belief that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a "swing vote" on the high court, flip-flopping with either of the other eight (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy? to the right, and Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter to the left). I have a big problem with the way this has been described in such political terms.
Now I am not so naive as to think that politics do not play into the high court. If one reads Men In Black by Mark Levin, one would find that politics has always played into the high court, beginning with John Marshall and his doctrine of judicial review, which, in effect, began the usurpation of the power to write law by the court by changing the purpose of the court from applying the laws written by the Congress to the interpretation of laws and ultimately the Constitution. Such politics have brought us many a judicial fiat, from forced bussing to the "right" to have homosexual sex. But the court was intended by the founder to be an apolitical body that would impartially apply federal law, using the Constitution as the rule and guidepost to decide which side was on the right side of the law. If the high court did what it was given authority to do by the letter of the Constitution, then many cases that have been experiments in social engineering would have been decided in a manner that did not require implications and "penumbras", nor would any case require reference to any other body of law outside of our Constitution. But, alas, people are political with their biases, and this has spilled over into the court.
The left has consistently lost the social engineering battles at the ballot box over the last several years, and many have become wise to the same rhetoric we have heard for the last 60 years. Even though the candidates may not actually be conservative, candidates who run on conservative platforms have consistently gained steam and power over the last 20 years. In 1994, Congress was a majority Republican for the first time since before the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Republican presidents have won 7 of the last 9 elections. Liberals no longer have the mask of the big media to dupe the American people into thinking that they are mainstream if they are liberal, in the modern sense. The only place that the left has been able to hold power is on the Supreme Court.
If anything, the court will remain tilted to the left, as Anthony Kennedy has proven to be no bastion of conservatism. But, quite frankly, I do not want the court to tilt to the right. And, I certainly do not want the court to continue leftward either.
I want the Supreme Court to tilt to the Constitution of the United States, in the spirit of the founders. I want for the high court to apply the law as written by Congress to individual cases, using the Constitution as the standard for their jurisdiction. I do not want the court to write laws by judicial fiat that either pleases me or disappoints me. I do not want them writing law. Applying, not interpreting, not writing, but applying.
I want a court who will review controversial cases decided with erroneous Constitutional application and correct the mistakes of past courts. I want a court who will be honest enough and humble enough to admit that the Constitution was very narrow in the scope of the duties and obligations of the federal government, and that all other decisions were left to the states.
But if I believed that would happen, I would be naive.
Now I am not so naive as to think that politics do not play into the high court. If one reads Men In Black by Mark Levin, one would find that politics has always played into the high court, beginning with John Marshall and his doctrine of judicial review, which, in effect, began the usurpation of the power to write law by the court by changing the purpose of the court from applying the laws written by the Congress to the interpretation of laws and ultimately the Constitution. Such politics have brought us many a judicial fiat, from forced bussing to the "right" to have homosexual sex. But the court was intended by the founder to be an apolitical body that would impartially apply federal law, using the Constitution as the rule and guidepost to decide which side was on the right side of the law. If the high court did what it was given authority to do by the letter of the Constitution, then many cases that have been experiments in social engineering would have been decided in a manner that did not require implications and "penumbras", nor would any case require reference to any other body of law outside of our Constitution. But, alas, people are political with their biases, and this has spilled over into the court.
The left has consistently lost the social engineering battles at the ballot box over the last several years, and many have become wise to the same rhetoric we have heard for the last 60 years. Even though the candidates may not actually be conservative, candidates who run on conservative platforms have consistently gained steam and power over the last 20 years. In 1994, Congress was a majority Republican for the first time since before the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Republican presidents have won 7 of the last 9 elections. Liberals no longer have the mask of the big media to dupe the American people into thinking that they are mainstream if they are liberal, in the modern sense. The only place that the left has been able to hold power is on the Supreme Court.
If anything, the court will remain tilted to the left, as Anthony Kennedy has proven to be no bastion of conservatism. But, quite frankly, I do not want the court to tilt to the right. And, I certainly do not want the court to continue leftward either.
I want the Supreme Court to tilt to the Constitution of the United States, in the spirit of the founders. I want for the high court to apply the law as written by Congress to individual cases, using the Constitution as the standard for their jurisdiction. I do not want the court to write laws by judicial fiat that either pleases me or disappoints me. I do not want them writing law. Applying, not interpreting, not writing, but applying.
I want a court who will review controversial cases decided with erroneous Constitutional application and correct the mistakes of past courts. I want a court who will be honest enough and humble enough to admit that the Constitution was very narrow in the scope of the duties and obligations of the federal government, and that all other decisions were left to the states.
But if I believed that would happen, I would be naive.
posted by Badbeans | 7:31 AM
1 Comments:
I agree Badbeans.
If the court ultimately does tilt toward the Constitution, it will be considered, by definition, a move to the right. Simply because it has veered so far to the left over the last thirty years.
Post a Comment
<< Home