Thursday, January 12, 2006

The libertine, Democratic Party inquisition of Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, began Monday.  As I was channel surfing, I came across a rebroadcast of one of the days hearing.  A Republican Senator on the committee (I believe he was from Texas) was saying that even before the hearing there were 22 Democratic Senators who will vote against his nomination because he is not the activist judge that the supporters of these 22 Senators want appointed to the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, I believe he is correct.  Just as unfortunately, two of those 22 Senators are from Illinois.

The libertines know that their agenda for America including the present practice of murdering unborn babies can not be achieved through the legislative process.  They know that the only way they have achieved any significant portion of it is through court decisions of activist Justices and judges who have rewritten the Constitution through judicial fiat.  The judges and Justices are making policy decisions instead of being the impartial referees of the legal system that they were intended to be as written into the original Constitution.

Their almost total reliance upon the courts to achieve their ends was evident in the last Presidential election.  While President Bush was promising to appoint “strict constructionists” to the courts who would follow the U.S. Constitution as written, candidate John Kerry was promising to appoint to the courts only those individuals who would continue the murderous practice of abortion.  President Bush wanted members of the courts who will uphold the Constitution.  John Kerry wanted members of the courts who would continue to write decisions to implement their libertine policies regardless of the clear wording of the Constitution.

There are present within the United States today two very different views of the purpose of our court system.  One is to be an impartial referee upholding the U.S. Constitution and insuring that the laws passed by Congress are applied as mandated by the elected members of that body.  The other is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress and/or vetoing those laws to achieve a desired end as envisioned by those unelected judicial members.        

In the first view, the opinions of the members of the court don’t matter to any great extent because they should normally (We are all human and sometimes don’t achieve our own standards.) apply the law and/or the Constitution to the particular issue before the court and reach their decision not upon their personal opinions but rather upon what the law and the Constitution require.  The second view, places much greater emphasis upon the opinions and beliefs of the court members because they are more concerned with the outcome of the decision rather than upholding the law and/or Constitution.  

In this case, the wording of the Constitution is used not in forming the opinion of the judge or Justice but rather to justify the decision reached by them.  If it is necessary to interpret the Constitution differently to do so, then that is exactly what is done.  Thus, you have the Supreme Court deciding that the Constitution allows the murder of unborn babies and defining the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment as really meaning that a “wall of separation between church and state” is required even though that phrase can not be found anywhere within the Constitution or its Amendments.  This point of view is actually an assertion by the Court that they know best what is “right” for the nation.  

Watching the committee hearing, it is easy to determine which members of the committee support each of the two viewpoints.  If the member concentrates on the personal opinions of the nominee, he is most likely an advocate of activism and desires only members of the court who will support his position on the issues of the day.  Particularly when they believe they will be losing power on the court, they will further argue that the new nominee should have the same political positions as the previous court member to main a “balance” on the court.  Thus, President Bush should have appointed another “Sandra Day O’Connor” to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

Unfortunately, the editorial writers of the Journal Star seem to be adherents to the second viewpoint.  In an editorial published on 1/10/06, page A4; they write about specific issues that they believe Judge Alito should give his personal opinions about.  They further declare “If Alito’s history is any indication, he will be no champion of the little guy on matters ranging from privacy to civil rights to the scope of government and corporate authority.”  (News flash to the editorial writers:  Even though they don’t define “little guy,” neither he nor another other member of the court system is suppose to be a champion for anyone.  They are supposed to uphold the Constitution as written!  Being the champion for anyone is to be an advocate and a policy maker—not the courts role or function.)  Also, they wrongly declare “To the victor go the spoils.”  

The courts are not nor should they be viewed as some kind of prize to help determine policy in the nation.  And that is the problem!  The courts have taken on powers never intended and have become the ultimate policy maker.  To remain a democracy, we must end this slide into Courtocracy and end it now.  The Senate needs desperately to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and we need to pray that he is the strict constructionist that he seems to be!      


Post a Comment

<< Home