Thoughts on the Supreme Court

So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.

It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.

I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.

Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.

The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.

Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.

I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.

I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.

This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.

The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?

I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.

Public School vs. Prayer

This week, the school board in Carlisle, PA voted to allow teachers to meet with students in the "Meet You at the Pole" campaign, where students meet at the flagpole to pray (it passed 8-1). To me, this seems like a no-brainer. What is the problem with this?

Well, the one person that voted against this did so because he thought it would lend itself to a government establishment of religion. He wondered how this would affect the students if they saw their teacher going out to the flagpole to pray. Maybe, their religion is different from a teacher's religion. Maybe the student believes in no religion. Either way, why should it bother the student how someone practices their faith. (As a sidenote, isn't it interesting how these atheists do not want someone else to 'force' their religion on them, yet they want to push their beliefs on others.)

Anyway, after doing a little bit of reading, I found out that these prayers at the flagpole are not audible prayers. The students meet and pray silently, which would allow people of any religion to come together and offer up their prayers without offending anyone else (I am not speaking to the idea of ecumenical prayers, I am just addressing the issue of a teacher and prayer). How could this possibly be an establishment of religion when the teacher never has to say what religion he/she adheres to?

But, where do we draw the line? Do we tell teachers that they cannot go to church, because an atheist student (or parent) may see that teacher walking into a church that they do not agree with? Do we get offended if they go to a church of a different religion? Can we tell them to stop praying in restaurants, just in case they may be seen by a student? This is utter foolishness.

The Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. These complainers need to read many of the documents written by the founding fathers. They need to read many of the state constitutions. The founders had a tremendous faith in God and wanted him to be an integral part of the lives of those who served the people. However, they were smart enough not to condone a state-sponsored religion. They never said our leaders should not be religious.