No Need to Fear a Conservative Justice
October 3, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
This morning, President Bush announced his next nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Many people on the left are afraid the person ultimately selected for this position will be a conservative originalist (i.e., that he or she will stay too close to the original intent of the writers). This seems odd to me. If I were on the left, facing the prospect of judges chosen by my political opponents, I would want them to be bound to an objective text as closely as possible. Such candidates would be far less likely to base their decisions on thier own authority and opinion than those who believe the Constitution is a “living document” that can (and should) be shaped by the rulings of judges rather than by amendments from the people. Originalists who consider themselves bound to the authority of an objective text will not promote the ideas of a particular administration, be swayed by the ebb and flow of anyone's opinion, or find new “meanings” in the text that were never before considered.
In his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts said the following about the role of judges:
Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.
The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.
But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
No one, left or right, has any reason to fear a judge with this philosophy–one who is strictly bound to the laws passed by the people, no more and no less. Ultimately, his or her own political opinions will not matter.
So why do so many activists fear this? Possibly because they know that if the Supreme Court Justices actually do take what the Constitution says literally, they [the activists] will have to change the minds of a majority of the voting public to get what they want rather than those of only a few judges. In short, there will be no more short cuts. The playing field will be leveled, and everyone will have an equal opportunity to persuade the people and bring about change through the democratic, law-making process.
It remains to be seen whether Harriet Miers will achieve this, and whether this will then lead to more intelligent debate or merely to more of the kind of propaganda I described last week.
Related posts:
- Justice Stevens Agnostic about Existence of "Bill of Rights"
- Punishment is Necessary for Justice
- Air America Update
- Exhibiting God's Character: Both Justice and Love
- What is He Thinking?
- Souled Out to Propaganda and Hypocrisy
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics
content rss
Recent Comments