|
| |
The Purposeful Selection
of a Supreme Court Justice
Government/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
July 8, 2005
- In a more perfect United States there would be a
separation of politics and government rather than an illegitimate separation
of church and state. The fact that there is absolutely no mention of the
latter in the US Constitution hasn’t stopped ideologues and activists from
forcing that bit of fiction down our collective throats. Neither has the
constitutionally derived authority of We the People thwarted them from
hijacking the act of governing for the benefit of politics.
I don’t blame those who haven’t a clue as to how our government is supposed
to work for their lack of knowledge. US History, as a subject in our
schools, is practically non-existent thanks to agenda driven unions and
un-mandated political correctness. History has been replaced by
multi-cultural curriculums designed to move our youth away from having pride
in our country’s history and toward a globalist ideology. Because of this
our Founding Fathers are now simply our ‘Founders’ even though they were all
men, Jefferson is noted more for being a slave owner than the author of the
Declaration of Independence and Lincoln was gay.
I could go on about the National Education Association’s initiative to
re-write American History – or historical cleansing as I like to refer to it
– but that is another column all together. Suffice it to say that their
multi-cultural agenda has more to do with socialism than it does with the
accurate preservation of American History.
It is for this reason that we shouldn’t be surprised by the rancor which is
starting to surface over the upcoming nomination for the position of US
Supreme Court justice.
President Bush gave the American people a pretty clear idea of what kind of
person he intends to nominate for the vacancy created by Sandra Day
O’Connor’s retirement. He said, "There will be no litmus test. I'll pick
people who can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright, and
people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and people who won’t
legislate from the bench.”
With that statement he has made it quite clear that he intends to faithfully
fulfill one of his duties as president by nominating a guardian for the
United States Constitution rather than a judicial ideologue.
The Supreme Court’s purpose is both simple and complex. While lower courts
are charged with determining guilt or innocence, right or wrong, the
legality of the issue, the Supreme Court is charged with determining the
constitutionality of most arguments brought before it. Its guiding principles
are laid out in the US Constitution and hold steadfast and true in the face
of extenuating circumstances, precedent, world events and especially the
socio-political climate of the day.
Because of this it is imperative that justices be selected based on their
knowledge of the US Constitution and US History rather than their political
or social ideology. The oath of a Supreme Court justice mandates that
social, political and global ideologies be excluded from their
deliberations, opinions and rendered decisions. If one is to be in symbiosis
with the intent of our constitutional framers the only legal rubric that
should be used is the US Constitution.
Special interest groups from both sides of the aisle, along with their
associated "in-the-pocket” politicos, are now starting to be heard setting
single-issue prerequisites by which any nominee will be judged. But the
problem with a single-issue "litmus tests” for Supreme Court nominees is
that in every instance but one they promote single-issue ideological
agreement over the intimate knowledge of the US Constitution and US
History. Thus is the ignorance of the "one trick pony.”
At no other time in recent history has it been more important to select the
best person for the job – a constitutional scholar – over a patron of the
single issue. Therefore, the only litmus test that should be imposed on a
Supreme Court nominee is that of constitutional knowledge.
Mired as we are in a "culture war,” it is important, now more than ever,
that we have competent, unbiased and trusted stewards to guard our country’s
most precious principles. If we allow single issue special interest groups
to influence who is selected as guardian for our Constitution our elected
will be making the mistake that the rest of us will have to live with for
generations to come.
|
|
