Purposeful Selection of a Supreme Court Justice
Frank Salvato
July 07, 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 History has been replaced by multi-cultural curriculums designed to move our youth away from having pride in our country’s history and toward a globalist ideology.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 argument 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 knowledgeable 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.
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications.
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 argument 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 knowledgeable 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.
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications.
Print
Email
