The criticism of the
SCOTUS is unwarranted
Yes, the Supreme Court has made some questionable rulings
over the years. But in the end, there’s
usually commonsense in how they rule.
Mostly, they try to determine whether a law or regulation – or an edict issued by the President – is acceptable under their
interpretation of the Constitution. Public
opinion is frankly irrelevant to their decisions. As it should be.
If we let public opinion alone be their guide, or allow
pressure from the legislative branch or the executive branch to sway them, we
might as well be Venezuela under Hugo Chavez.
We might as well ignore the Bill of Rights and the Constitution
altogether and have a monarchy.
Or mob rule.
That’s not how our government is supposed to work. There’s a balance of power for all the right reasons. It prevents a strong-man President from
running roughshod over the rights of others – including the rights of states reserved
for them by the Constitution. It keeps
Congress and states from enacting laws that can at times be arbitrary, capricious and
based solely on ever-changing public whims, instead of with a longer-term view to
what is essentially right or wrong, or even permitted under the Constitution.
Because the SCOTUS may or may not invalidate one or more
parts of ObamaCare this week, proponents of this overreaching legislation – conceived
in secrecy and enacted in ignorance – have launched a pre-emptive strike on the
Supreme Court. They claim that if this
convoluted pile of crap is struck down, it will only be because of conservative
judges acting against the will of Congress, the President, and the will of the
people.
No, if they strike down all or parts of the law, it will be
because it failed to pass muster under the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. And if they rule in favor of the law, it will
be because a majority of justices feel it did pass that test.
The Supreme Court is also expected to rule on Arizona’s
immigration law this week as well. The
same rules will apply: if they find it to be constitutional, they’ll let it
stand; if they find it to be unconstitutional, they will invalidate it.
There’s no great mystery on either case. No conservative nor liberal cabal at work.
It’s true that some justices think the Constitution alone is
the be-all, end-all, with clearly enumerated powers and restrictions; other
justices think the Constitution is more of a “guideline” and implies powers not
written there; still others think it all depends on the situation.
There’s no overwhelming consensus, which is why the court
works, despite the efforts of politicians and special interest groups to pack
the court one way or another.
A curious thing happens when someone is appointed to the
Supreme Court. In many cases, the ideologue
someone thought they were appointing for life becomes much different over time. Maybe it’s the lifetime appointment, maybe it’s
the interaction with others on the court, but for whatever the reason, an arch
conservative may become somewhat or aggressively liberal, a hard-core liberal can become more
moderate and even pretty conservative at times.
There’s no way of knowing exactly how someone will turn
out.
And that’s the beauty of the court. You have to have faith that the Supreme Court
as a whole is doing their job as apolitically and dispassionately as
possible. They prove that all the
time.
Attacking the court because you don’t agree with their
decisions is unwarranted. It’s disingenuous
to think they’re great when you agree, and political lackeys when you don’t.
More to the point, it’s outrageous for special interest
groups – and especially unseemly for Congress and the President – to huff and
puff about what the court should or shouldn’t do. It is, candidly, none of their business how
the court reaches its decisions, on what merits, or even the end result, once
their case has been heard by the court.
Pressuring the court one way or another has been tried many
times before. The court always stands up
to the challenge. Haranguing the court –
whether that’s in the press, or by publicly calling their integrity into
question during the State of the Union address – is embarrassing to us as a
nation. It accomplishes nothing in the
end, save further minimizing the prestige of Congress and the Oval Office.
The court will do what they see fit, regardless of the
political theater, or perhaps despite it.
That’s why we can count on them
No comments:
Post a Comment