Straight Down The Middle
May 22, 2009 Political
Justice David Souter retires in June, at the end of the Supreme Court’s term for this year, and a new replacement for a Supreme Court Justice will be picked by Barama and his crew. A lot will be revealed by the choice of person he makes- will he/ she be an “activist”, a person who “champions the little people”? I expect so, although I will tell you why I think this is a bad idea.
First, a Judge is, by his/ her very nature, NOT supposed to favor any side in an argument, instead, relying on proper interpretation of the law to reach a reasoned decision. Any prejudice towards one side or the other, renders the Judge’s decision biased, and presupposes a predetermined position, in which case a responsible Judge would and should recuse him/ herself from ANY decision.
In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Tara Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas- Austin, says, “Judges are not to be passive spectators; adjudication is an activity, calling for the exercise of careful, objective judgment. Appellate courts’ responsibility is to police the Constitution. The rhetoric of “activism” notwithstanding, the proper interpretation and application of our law cannot be reduced to a purely mechanical process. If it cold, we would be replacing Justice Souter with a computer.”
Neither can these justices MAKE law- the best they can do is to interpret the laws that the legislators draft, in order that they conform to the Constitution- a hard job in and of itself, and made infinitely harder by the leading (some would say EXTREMELY MISLEADING) words inserted into various bills, designed to cause the reader of the bill to tilt for or against the content itself.
Some examples, “unfair methods”, “predatory pricing”, a “hostile or offensive work environment”, an “appropriate fair balance”, all of these terms and more are found in the content of actual bills, and the terms are put there to satisfy the constituencies that the lawmakers wish to appease, but these same terms make the job of Justices much harder, as the terms involve nothing related to law, but everything related to a specific perspective- something the Justices must not buy into, or their decisions are not true, but tainted.
Barama wants a Justice with “Empathy”- capital E- but as Tara Smith warns, it is not enough that the Justice must be an umpire, but also more than this in adjudicating law:
“In sports, umpires do not have a say in what the rules are. They are given a complete set of rules at the start of each season and charged to call the games accordingly. In the U.S. legal system, by contrast, courts are presented not only with the Constitution ( the fundamental rules of the game, as it were), but with specific laws made by legislatures, and by agencies of the executive branch (not to mention the court’s own precedents). The court’s responsibility is precisely to determine whether all of these purported laws are compatible with the Constitution, which is our ultimate legal standard.”
The route the court must navigate is fraught with dead ends and legal land mines, but in the end, what the court must determine is if these laws are indeed valid laws. In this sense, the Justices are more than umpires in that they have a say in determining these laws’ validity. The nine Justices, whatever their personal bias, cannot roll over and acquiesce to one side or the other- to do so would be gross dereliction of duty.
It is nice that Skinny B can consider a man, a woman, a Black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever puts a tingle up his leg, but the one thing he absolutely should not do is to attempt to put an ideologue on the court with a built in agenda of social engineering. If he does this, the damage to the court could last a generation, at least, before common sense could purge the wrongful decisions made in the name of social engineering and activism.
There is no place for activism on the bench- if you want activism, hire a great attorney with passionate convictions to argue your case, but the Justices are supposed to interpret law, not be pre- disposed to one side or another. To not be neutral is to do this country an extreme disservice, bordering on traitorousness.
Let the judges judge.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activism, liberalism, social engineering, souter
The Supremes? Maybe Not So Much.
May 4, 2009 Political
Here it comes, the biggest shift in policy the U.S. has known in many a year, as the first of possibly three Supreme Court Justices retires.
The first is David Souter, a supposedly centrist jurist that slipped by Bush 41, and immediately veered left, in the highest court in the land. This leftist shift caught Bush by surprise, and began a tilt to liberal causes until Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Roberts, and Justice Sam Alito were appointed as conservatives to the bench.
In seeking Souter’s replacement, Barama said, ” I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” This is a truly ignorant statement from someone who claims to be a Constitutional lawyer. The job of a Supreme Court Judge is to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to the cases at hand, not to spoon feed a decision to a person contrary to case law, out of symapthy. Sympathy prejudices cases, not clarifies them. A person might be sympathetic to the case, but if the law doesn’t support that case, you are not allowed to bend the law, or make exceptions- that negates the whole reason for a Supreme Court.
This is the true beginning of just how radically this person wants to change your society and the principles we have had as our core values. Barama truly doesn’t understand, or if he does, he just wants to impose his views on us. That is a facet of totalitarianism, imposing one’s will on the rest of society, and it sucks like a wind tunnel. To impose his will on us is very Taliban of him- perhaps we should begin calling him Mullah Hussein.If he appoints a liberal activist to the court, it will be the first of possibly three as Justice Ginsburg doesn’t have a lot of time left, and Justice Kennedy will probably be sweet- talked into stepping down.
What I am afraid of is the distinct possibility that whoever Mullah Hussein picks will be an advocate for “Transnationalism”, a term that, when translated correctly, means that we are no longer independent or sovereign in our country’s legal decisions- we could be overridden by a court of foreigners, who do not believe in our Constitution, or our independence, and be forced to obey the U.N.- I could not envision a poorer scenario for our country. We would be legalistically raped by every third- world dictatorship with a chip on its shoulder.
This is how the end begins- by choosing someone for a job requiring logical thought, but insisting that “empathy” be the primary focus in the job description.
Empathy is what needs to be left out of these decisions, in order that they favor noone, but dispense justice even- handedly. This is supposed to be the very definition of justice- equitable, and true, favoring no one.
The big Mullah- Mullah wants something different, and in most times, he would have his dictatorial tendencies quashed by Congress, who would provide a brake on the Executive power, but with Nancy Pelosi’s ADD, and Harry Reid’s natural insanity,there is noone who can be the voice of reason, unless the rest of the Democrats stop blindly following their leaders like whipped dogs, and actually act like real lawmakers. There doesn’t seem to be much chance of that, even though they are losing, or on the verge of losing any power the Legislative branch once had.
Both Republicrats and Demicans have a chance here- a fork in the road, and it begins with the replacement of David Souter in the Supreme Court. On the one road, there is an activist in the court, one that might try to twist the law to fit an agenda- on the other road, is a judge who interprets the Constitution the way it is supposed to be interpreted, strictly and honestly, with the only agenda being the continued Constitutional Health our country needs to maintain a balance to usurping theories like “transnationalism”. Whoever thought that one up was truly high or insane, or both.
I’ll put it as plainly as I can to all the politicians on both sides- here it is in a nutshell-If transnationalists get on our court, two things will happen for sure. One, our legal landscape will no longer be easily navigated, as we will have totake into account the laws of other countries, and, Two, you will have lost the independence that the Legislative branch is supposed to have, separated from the Executive branch- remember the civics lessons in High School? No?
Well then, there’s our problem. We apparently have been electing the village idiots. Let us at least not appoint one to the Supreme Court.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: independence, souter, taliban, transnationalism