Now that we know who President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is, the buzz has now started over what he thinks. Not about the Constitution mind you. The Democrats and their Leftist brethren are concerned with his views on “key issues”, particularly Abortion.
When will Americans dispense with the notion that a Supreme Court nominee’s personal views on any one or one hundred issues is relevant to his/her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice. What does matter is the nominee’s view on the Constitution. Namely, does the nominee view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” or a contract between the people and their government. If a nominee chooses the former, he/she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court that is. Such a person would be well-suited for the Supreme Court of France or Canada.
This “living, breathing document” nonsense is what has led the Court to engage in Constitutional Amendment via judicial fiat. The Court’s duty is to decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution; not personal feelings, public opinion, judicial precedent, or the interests of social justice. Where the Constitution is silent, the court has no authority on the issue. When the court is engaged in judicial review, which is to say, reviewing Acts of the legislature, they are to base such review, again, on the Constitution. Where no Constitutional authority can be found, the court must find the Act unconstitutional. Prior court decisions are not part of the Constitution and have no more authority than one gives them. These decisions may not serve as the basis for deciding cases before the court however the court may take judicial notice thereof and make adequate reference to same.
With that said, I don’t care how a judge feels about a specific issue. All I need know is how he/she views the Constitution. For it is clear to me that anyone who views the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” naturally believes that the Court has the authority to create laws and rights where non exists; that the Court must step in and act when the legislature has failed to do so. Those who hold this view do so because they believe, like the late Senator Fullbright, that the Constitution unduly limits their ability to do for the people what they know is best. This is not social justice. This is judicial tyranny.
Do we really want people on the Supreme Court who believe that their world-view must take the place of and fill the perceived holes in the Constitution of the United States of America?
When will Americans dispense with the notion that a Supreme Court nominee’s personal views on any one or one hundred issues is relevant to his/her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice. What does matter is the nominee’s view on the Constitution. Namely, does the nominee view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” or a contract between the people and their government. If a nominee chooses the former, he/she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court that is. Such a person would be well-suited for the Supreme Court of France or Canada.
This “living, breathing document” nonsense is what has led the Court to engage in Constitutional Amendment via judicial fiat. The Court’s duty is to decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution; not personal feelings, public opinion, judicial precedent, or the interests of social justice. Where the Constitution is silent, the court has no authority on the issue. When the court is engaged in judicial review, which is to say, reviewing Acts of the legislature, they are to base such review, again, on the Constitution. Where no Constitutional authority can be found, the court must find the Act unconstitutional. Prior court decisions are not part of the Constitution and have no more authority than one gives them. These decisions may not serve as the basis for deciding cases before the court however the court may take judicial notice thereof and make adequate reference to same.
With that said, I don’t care how a judge feels about a specific issue. All I need know is how he/she views the Constitution. For it is clear to me that anyone who views the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” naturally believes that the Court has the authority to create laws and rights where non exists; that the Court must step in and act when the legislature has failed to do so. Those who hold this view do so because they believe, like the late Senator Fullbright, that the Constitution unduly limits their ability to do for the people what they know is best. This is not social justice. This is judicial tyranny.
Do we really want people on the Supreme Court who believe that their world-view must take the place of and fill the perceived holes in the Constitution of the United States of America?