I hate the supreme court and our judicial system, but I am happy with the recent selection of John Roberts. I think I actually like him better than Bush, but that could be simply because I know less about him. In any event, I am frustrated with obnoxious democrats (just the obnoxious ones, some, like Lieberman, are ok) who will fight Bush's selection no matter who he selects. There is nothing wrong with Judge Roberts, and that seems to be forcing the obnoxious democrats into obnoxious whining and desperate complaining. I think that they would be happier if Bush had picked an ultra-conservative because then they could legitimately fight the selection. Now they are left with petty arguements and attempts to look deep into private memos hoping to dig some dirt.
I for one think that if liberals and women have a right to complain about the fact that there is now one less woman on the supreme court, I have a right to complain that there is no Mormon vote on the supreme court. (though Regan really really tried to put LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks on the supreme court; Elder Oaks refused). Seriously. Justices should be selected for their experience, qualifications, ability, and willingness to uphold justice. I'm not upset that there isn't a Latter-day Saint on the Supreme Court. I believe that the supreme court will still support Latter-day Saint rights. Women, don't fear. You're not going to lose your right to vote or any other right. And democrats-- Judge Roberts is a fair pick. I know you're mad that Bush got to pick, but you've had your turn and will likely have another turn to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Be patient.
Since I'm ranting and on the topic of the Supreme Court, I will let myself complain a little about the Supreme Court. Of course, I will only be tapping slightly into the ocean of gall, bitterness, and contempt I have for America's judicial system. You don't even want to get me started on the perversion of justice in the states and the little "defenses" that slow down the judicial process and make justice unobtainable in so many circumstances. Don't even get me started on the so called parent's rights and the horrible crimes that courts commit by decided the fate of children without their best interest sufficiently stated in law. Don't even get me started in the criminals that get off because of loopholes and bureaucracy. Let's just stick, for now, with the Supreme Court and it's power.
When the Supreme Court was created as the third branch of an inspired government, the Supreme Court was a group of elite, capable judges chosen to decide on a federal (above state) level whether or not a man had broken a law. That's right, they decided if people were guilty or not. This is the inspired Court of George Washington's day. This is the extent of the Court's power that can be found in the constitution.
Then came Maybury vs. Madison. Suddenly the Court assumes a new power- judicial review. This is the power to decide whether a law is actually legal based on the constitution. Now if the law is guilty, the Supreme Court can overturn it. This is only if the law is unconstitutional (ironic that this assumption of powers is unconstitutional). This is a *hesitates* good thing. It allowed future laws that, for example, limited voting, to be overturned. It allowed a lot of good things to happen and provide another check on the law making process. It is, however *hesitates* bad because there is no check or limit to this power that suddenly appeared without proper procedure (like an amendment) within the inspired constitution. It also adds to the amount of responsibilities of the Supreme Court- they have two purposes, the Constitutional purpose to pass judgment on men, and the assumed precedent of making sure laws are constitutional. So far I'm ok, but slightly leery. I'm ok because I like the constitution and think that all laws should uphold it. I'm leery because I don't think the Supreme Court assumed this power correctly, which means they could assume more power incorrectly.
It isn't actually until the 1960's that I lose all respect for the Supreme Court (or most of it at least). Griswold vs. Connecticut. This is when the Supreme Court assumed a new power- judicial activism. This is when the Supreme Court decided they had the power to decide if a law was in accordance with the "common good." What's wrong with that picture? Oh yeah, what exactly is the "common good"? In Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) someone was suing the state government over a law that made birth control illegal. I believe that law was indeed against the common good. I don't think the government had any right to pass that law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had a hard time justifying a constitutional basis for overturning this law. How do we solve this problem? Judicial Activism- extremely loose interpretation of the constitution. The Supreme Court said "the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion." Apparently there were "penumbras" in the third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments as well. In other words, though it isn't actually stated in the Bill of Rights, we can assume that there is a limited right to privacy. What?!!!! Assume?!! Listen to this: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system." Are you as outraged as I am?
Again, I agree with the short term outcome of this ruling- a bad law was overturned. But the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut, this judicial activism and the elusive, assumed right to privacy, lead to horrible things. They lead to Roe. v. Wade, for example. I am sick of it. I am worried for our future. If traditional marriage laws are overturned, it will not be by elected office, it will be by a group of non elected officials acting for a sense of "common good"-- an assumed justice. They are acting out of their constitutional powers.
I am tired of the commerce clause being twisted and mutilated. I am tired of the first amendment penumbra being perverted into something that doesn't exist. I am tired of the Supreme Court. I am tired of non elected justices that are not afraid of losing office taking power that is not theirs to take. There is a process whereby laws are made and unmade, and the process involves in this Republic, to which I salute, an elected body. My voice, though indirectly, should be heard. That was principle on which this nation was founded.
Recent Comments