Monday, June 28, 2010

Focus On The Supreme Court

Two things happend today that should draw our focus to the Supreme Court.

First, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment does indeed give Americans the right to keep and bear arms, stating that state or local attempts to limit such rights are un-Constitutional. The case before it was a Chicago suburb's restrictive handgun restrictions.

"It is clear that the Framers ... counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
- Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for the majority opinion.

No matter what your personal opinion is of guns and gun ownership, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right granted to all American citizens by the Constitution. This ruling affirms that government actions, be they federal, state, or local, cannot deprive you of your Consitutional Rights.

This is a huge victory for those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law in this country.

What should scare us to our core is that the ruling was 5-4, straight down conservative/liberal lines. One Court seat shift to the left, and this ruling would have been completely opposite. Imagine our country if the Supreme Court gives a green light to anyone in a position of authority being able to curtail your Constitutional Rights - at their discretion.

Second, the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan began. Kagan is in line to replace John Paul Stevens when he retires from the court. Kagan is an Obama clone - inexperienced, far left liberal, activist - a clean sheet he can form and manipulate at will. She's never sat behind the bench, and her experience before any court is minimal. Her claim to fame is in academia - one of the elite Ivy League eggheads everyone makes so much fun of.

Kagan is being put forth as an independely minded moderate - someone who will judge strictly by the rule of law. Bullshit. She worked for Thurgood Marshall, the biggest activist judge the Supreme Court has ever known. She idolized him and his views, and his belief that his judging was based upon what he felt and wanted first, the law and the Constitution second. That's not me saying that - it's his own words. If it is possible, she may be even farther to the left than Sotomayor or Ginsburg. She's also young, so her liberal vote will be on the court for decades to come.

Democrats will praise her. Republicans will throw some tough questions at her. In the end, she will be confirmed - the only way Republicans could stop it would be to filibuster, and they don't have the stomach for it.

One of the incredibly important reasons Obama and the Democrats must be taken out of power is the next Supreme Court nominee. So far, Obama's sent two persons to the court - two liberals to replace two liberals. The next justice to retire may very well be a conservative - and there's not a chance in hell that Obama will nominate a conservative to replace him. If Obama gets to make that pick, he will influence the Supreme Court and its rulings for years after he's an afterthought.

By strict definition, there can't be liberals or conservatives on the Supreme Court. Democrat or Republican should be irrelevant. The Supreme Court's charter states that it is to enforce the law of the land and the Consitution of the United States. There is no grey area in that. There is no room for activism. No room for empathy, no room for personal feelings. This is critical, and the Framers knew it. An attitude that someone thinks is proper and must enforced, another person might believe is wrong and must be blocked. Who's to say which is correct? Judges acting on empathy, or social conscience may believe they are doing what must be done by interpreting or massaging the Consitution to meet their personal beliefs. But they have no right to do that. They are expressly forbidden from doing that. The Framers knew there must be an impartial 'judge' as an equal arm of the government, to make sure that Congress and the President are not allowed to circumvent the Constitution.

No matter if they are on the right or left, Supreme Court justices are not allowed to let their personal feelings affect or become part of their rulings. If they do, they corrupt part of the fabric of our country. Unfortunately, it seems that they all do - some more than others.

No comments: