|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: iTunes gift certificates July 3, 2005 The Future of America By Jan A. Larson The Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provide both the reason and opportunity for the President to nominate and Senate Republicans (and fair-minded Democrats, if there are any of them anymore) to confirm a true constitutional constructionist to the Court. The Kelo case, which has been the subject of numerous editorials in the past week, is possibly one of the most egregious rulings to be handed down by the Supreme Court since the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The Court's decision in that case excised a major portion of the Fifth Amendment just as the decision affirming the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign speech was a body blow to the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of speech."
"... nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation."
One doesn't need a black robe to understand the literal meanings and a cursory knowledge of early American history provides enough insight into the Framers' intent that the First and Fifth Amendments should rarely, if ever, become the subject of a case before the Supreme Court. Yet this Court effectively amended the Constitution from the bench in a manner that would leave the Framers rolling in their graves by finding a way to extract an otherwise hidden meaning in both cases. The pronouncements of the Supreme Court, no matter how outrageous or contrary to the written word of the Constitution can and do shape the nation for generations; witness the decision in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal." Plessy remained the law of the land until reversed in 1954 by the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Fifty-eight years of legalized segregation. Possibly the most contentious decision ever handed down was in the case of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortions. Roe remains the law of the land. Millions of lives have been changed forever and millions more lost before their first breath as a result. Thirty-two years, and counting, of misery and death. Make no mistake; the nine Supreme Court justices are the most powerful people in the country. Individual justices routinely serve anywhere from 15 to 30 or more years, are not accountable to the voters and their decisions may endure for decades. As a nation that respects and upholds the rule of law, that law must be absolute and predictable to be effective. Rulings that consider "evolving standards" and "international opinion" undermine the rule of law. The rule of law ultimately emanates from the Constitution and that must be the written word of the Constitution, not the whims of just five unaccountable justices twisting the meaning of the written word to fit their political or social ideology. Ideally Supreme Court rulings would be unworthy of headlines, buried in the public announcement section of your local newspaper. Except in the most contentious of cases, the well-informed citizen should be able to accurately predict how the Court will rule on a particular case. This ideal can be achieved if those that sit on the Supreme Court apply the Constitution as written, with absolute standards, which are as applicable today as when they were originally written, "evolving standards" notwithstanding. Given the current nature of partisan politics in Washington, the currently makeup of the Senate and the stakes of a Supreme Court appointment, one can only assume that the fight over the next nominee, whomever it may be, will be contentious. Ted Kennedy suggested that the President get his nominee "pre-approved" by Senate Democrats. Democrats also reserved the right, under the agreement by the Senate "gang of fourteen," to filibuster any judicial nominee that they consider "extreme." Anyone want to wager that the President's nominee to fill Justice O'Connor's seat, whomever that may be, will be considered extreme by Kennedy and Harry Reid? Republicans hold control of the Presidency, the House, Senate and a majority of state governorships. Conservatives have spoken in the past three national elections. The left is unable to advance their agenda via the election process, leaving their only option in the courts. Now is the time to put a halt to the relentless advances of the progressive agenda in the judiciary. With the resignation of Justice O'Connor and uncertain futures for Chief Justice William Renquist (health issues) and Justice John Paul Stevens (85 years of age), President Bush may ultimately make more than one appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing will shape the domestic side of his presidential legacy more than the individual(s) that he appoints to wear the black robes. If it takes the "nuclear option" in the Senate to win confirmation of a constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court, then nuclear it must be. The future of America depends upon it. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
