Next Justice Should Uphold the Constitution, Not Interpret It
By Edwin Meese III, Chairman of Heritage Center's for Legal and Judicial Studies
Justice Souter’s decision to retire presents President Obama and the U.S. Senate with a decision of great and lasting importance. Although no originalist, Justice Souter rejected a liberal, activist approach on a number of important cases, particularly in the areas of crime, punishment, and lawsuit abuse. Supreme Court appointments are among the most important decisions of any presidency, but what is at stake is a potential shift from a center-left justice to a far-left justice.
Americans have a right to expect the nomination of a justice who will fully obey his or her oath to preserve the Constitution, someone with a proven fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as written. An essential qualification is that the nominee take the text of our Constitution and laws seriously. Americans neither want nor need a justice who looks for excuses to depart from the legal text and read into it what he or she wants.
As a senator and again today in the White House, President Obama has made statements that suggest he either does not understand these fundamental principles or that he does not agree with the important, but limited, role judges are given under the Constitution. Essentially, the president has signaled that he wants judges who would let their sympathies trump what the laws require. Americans don’t want judges who will bend the law toward the side they favor; they want a fair judge who will apply the law in the same way—as the people’s representatives in the legislature wrote it—regardless of who is before the court.
Given President Obama’s troubling statements, Americans expect the U.S. Senate to conduct a thoughtful and searching inquiry into the nominee’s approach to judging. That inquiry must be allowed to proceed without arbitrary timetables. And, at the end of the day, the Senate must be sure it does not grant a would-be activist life-time authority to bend the Constitution and laws in favor of his or her personal, political, or social beliefs. Our constitutional system and the American people require no less.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The newly Hispanic justice appointed to the bench is just another poor choice made for America. I am so displeased with her appointment I can not even remember her name at this time "Mrs. Sonja".
I am only pushing fourty years old and for the past ten years I have been syaing that the biggest problem with America is our Supreme Court. I say this because the proof is in the pudding.
The final decisions of controversy rest with the Federal Supreme Court.
It is our Supreme Court that allowed foreigners to eliminate "God" from the public pledge of allegence.
It is our supreme court that allowed foreigners to stop the national anthem from being played at the beginning of every public school day.
It is our Supreme Court that allows tax dollars to educate illegal aliens.
It is our Supreme Court that says it would be unconstitutional to stop illegal aliens from getting welfare.
It is our supreme court that says the US Consitution must apply to illegal aliens.
It is our Supreme Courts that allowed restrictions on where and when a public entity can fly the American flag.
There is much more that is not coming to mind right now but we Americans need to wake up and realize that we are creating our own demise in this Country and it is being lead by the Supreme Court.
We have already destroyed the American values before putting a female hispanic justice in the Federal Supreme Court.
I love President Obamma and I thank god every day that MCCain was not voted in. I honestly think that Mr. Obama made a very poor decision here, but as stated above I honsetly believe that our own federal court system had caused so much destruction that it will not even matter at this point who replaces who on the bench.
The sad thing is that millions of Americans actually wonder 'how could this happen to this counrty? The really sad thing is that our Federal Supreme Court sold us to Mexico and other Countries and we as Americans have no say in who replaces them.
I have one question that most Americans really need to ask themselves everytime our courts alter our constitution at the request of foreigners.
What would Mexico, Middle Eastern Countries, China and japan say to an American if we went to thier Country and made discrimination complaints about thier constitution?
The answer is that Americans love it to much here to go there and do that. The true answer is that if they did not eliminate your existance, they would certianly put you on a one way flight back home.
But here in America, just cry and yell loud enough for a foreiners complaint to be heard by our Supreme Court and our lovely justices will alter which ever part of the constitution you wish. Oh and yes, you can ask our Justices to alter the constitution even if you are here illegally.
Before closing I would like to point out that my Grandfather was in world war 2, 2 times, and is still with us and his response to the current state of America is "I am glad I am on my way out"
I know exactly how your Grandfather feels.
I think any Supreme Court Justices appointed and confirmed under the present administration would make Marx and Engels look like radical conservatives and capitalists.
About 1 1/2 centuries ago the supreme court felt a black man was worth less than a white man. Today we know this is not true, but didn't someone had reinterpret the popular beliefs about the Constitution for this change to take place. Change did not just magically appear, someone had to think, propose,and approve it.
The best and brightest man won the job fair and square. Hats off to Obama. It is just too bad that the Bush Adminsitration left him with a mess that no single president could fix in two terms.
I would hate to see what destruction would be caused if McCain won the election . One thing is for sure, we would be at war with half dozen middle eastern countries if McCain or another Bush got in there.
You Go Obama, clean this place up
Conservatives like to toss the term "activist judge" around whenever a well-educated, thoughtful and reasoned person looks at the constitution and the evidence and doesn't side with them.
Get this: the Supreme Court judges are supposed to be activist. They're at the top because they're reasoned and logical people and capable of interpreting what the Constitution does not tell us directly. As Lambda Legal pointed out, there was nothing in the Constitution explicit about segregation. It was the principles in it that guided the decisions to end it.
And the principles in the Constitution are unanimously in support of as much individual freedom as possible. That is undeniable.
Every time some loon decides he (she) has the wisdom to decide what another person REALLY meant by writing some rules or regulations, anarchy is the result. Most people have never heard of the Federalist papers and fewer have read them. They give insight to what the authors wanted when they wrote the Constitution. The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted ABSOLUTE assurances that the Federal government could NOT encroach on civil and moral rights that their creator gave them and that pre-dated the Constitution. (See Magna Carta.). Two-faced politicians and slimy judges have spent the last century doing everything they could to twist and distort these rights. Supreme court judges are NOT supposed to be activists, they are supposed to decide whether laws passed by congress are constitutional (checks and balances), and whether lower courts have ruled correctly on constitutional issues. The very thought that a judge leans one way or another is anathema to a justice system.
So we should go back to the way things were?
Take the vote away from women and put blacks back into slavery.
Notice they said Creator not God. The fight to restrict Gay rights is purely a religious one. For the government to step in and ban Gay marriage or otherwise restrict Gay rights plainly violates the 1st amendment as they are taking the side of specific religious groups over others who support Gay rights.
NO INTERPRETATION REQUIRED!
I think the whole opposition to Gay rights is just a scapegoat to scare parishioners into donating money and voting for church approved candidates. Money & Power is what it's all about.
Just listen to the crap they use to scare people:
Defence of marriage. If Gays are allowed to marry it will some how ruin all marriages. (They never explain how though)
Children will be taught in school how to be Gay. Really? Come on?
Churches will forced to perform same sex marriages. Not possible! Remember 1st Amendment.
God will visit his wrath upon America with hurricanes and earthquakes. Didn't happen in Canada and it's been six years since we've had same sex marriage .
Society will somehow break down and and the economy will fail. Oh wait that already happened under the Republicans. We're better off here in Canada with our Gay marriage. Society is still intact and the economy is not so bad as the US. (But let me thank GW et all. for having my pay cut in half. Good work there.)
Gay Agenda! The implied conspiracy that once they get their equal rights they will go on to do other things? Usually what the Gay Agenda is is left unspecified, But I've heard some real whacko stuff. Personally, I think the next step after equal rights is to throw one great party. Those guys can really throw a party. If you don't believe me come to Toronto first weekend in July for pride week. I'm going and I'm taking the wife and kids .
Anything in the above list sound like clear reasoned arguments or just fear mongering? Any supreme court justice that uses one of the above to deny rights to gays isn't worth their gavel.
My right to defend myself is there in the constitution but this activist judge doesn't view it that way. That's the kind of activism people are always talking about. The real deal.
You hear: "Activist... Judge"
Translation: "Any judge that makes a judgement that is contrary to what I already believe should be the outcome of the case"
A judgement that sides with gay rights is not automatically "activism". 1st and 4th ammendments are the basis for granting gay rights... How is that not constitutional. It sounds to me like you just want a judge that will side with your religious demands. Oh but wait! We have a secular government that requires secular reasoning, so I guess your religious reasons don't freaking matter when trying to decide wether or not someone who doesn't agree with your religion should have rights your religion doesn't want them to have.
It's funny watching religious people pretend their bigotry is supported by the constitution . I mean seriously... you people are always overrulled because you can't seem to get over the fact that not everyone lives by the rules of your religion, or will ever submit themselves to it.
Thank you Mister Jefferson, for building such a beautiful wall!
Her stance on the 2nd amendment is what has me concerned. What's next? States can take our freedom of speech away too? That would thrill the Islamic regimes. You see they want it to be illegal for anyone to take the name of Islam in vein. It passed at the UN level. You can bet they're going to try and get it passed here in the states as well. But the theoretical aside, my rights to protect myself are not negotiable. Take that away I might as well end my life because I'm not going to jail for refusing to relinquish my rights to personal protection.