Coming to Grips with the John Roberts Nomination
Guy T. Sturino
September 19, 2005
Anyone with as much as one eye half open and one ear uncovered over the past weeks has seen and heard the Senate struggling with trying, with little success, to determine what drives John Roberts. What has become evident is that we can be intimidated and even frightened by the power vested in one person, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The reason this is even possible is that, because we are a nation of laws, those who control the law control the people. There is cause for fear.
Why is that? Because we are a nation of immigrants and, in the words of the constitution, imports. Precisely because our ancestors either came here freely, or were imported against their will, and in either case brought with them a myriad of traditions, the deference to law became, out of obvious necessity, the cornerstone of the new American culture. Deference to law is the single binding element in a population with widely varied values concerning family, responsibility, religion, and even freedom. The Senate has cause for concern.
Our constitution gives ultimate control of law to the Supreme Court. That is an enormous power which rests with only nine people out of two hundred fifty million. Nine people who are not directly elected by the people and who, once appointed, hold control of the law for life.
The Supreme Court has the responsibility to ensure that the Congress does not pass laws, and the Administration does not create Executive Orders that are contrary to the explicit wording or intent of the constitution. Further, the Supreme Court has sole discretion to decide which cases, or questions of constitutionality, they will even consider. Therein, of course, is the basis of the fear.
If a lower court makes a decision, or the President signs an Executive Decision, which is considered, by some, inconsistent with the constitution, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear argument, then we must assume that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court or the President. However, we are left without the benefit of their reasoning, and are often left having to follow the law without understanding it.
Even when the Supreme Court does hear a case we are often left bemused, befuddled and sometimes angry because the opinions of the majority and minority seem to be in direct opposition while referring to the same areas of the constitution.
While it is generally accepted that reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on the same information, it is none-the-less disturbing when our laws are open to such differences in interpretation.
Which brings us back to our culture. The American culture is not based on what we think so much as it is based on what we do, how we do it, where we do it, and when we do it. Why we do it is simple, because it’s the law. Therefore, if we want to understand our culture, we must understand our first law, the Constitution of the United States. After that, for the sake of our sanity, we must believe that the law protects each of us and that it will remain constant and consistent with what we have learned. Unfortunately, the constitution is just words, words that can be twisted and spun just as readily as the news. The wrong group of nine Justices could literally tear our culture and our country apart.
The Senate has a daunting task. The Supreme Court has the power to make the final interpretation of the law and, therefore, has the power to define who we are as a society, and who we will be. The Senate must determine if we are at a fork in the road with one path leading to the expansion of personal liberty, and the other leading to the expansion of control over the individual, or if Judge Roberts is intending to lead a middle-of-the-road court. After three days of answers to the Senate’s questions, we are no better able to understand the basic motivation of John Roberts today than we were before the questioning began.
If we can’t see the path ahead, probably the best thing to do is stay put. As it is, the country is being asked to accept an unknown personality to occupy the most powerful position in the country on blind faith. This is both morally and intellectually unacceptable. Maybe another candidate can better illuminate his or her deepest convictions so that the Senate can make a truly informed decision about who we are, who we will be, and who will guard our path along the way.
Why is that? Because we are a nation of immigrants and, in the words of the constitution, imports. Precisely because our ancestors either came here freely, or were imported against their will, and in either case brought with them a myriad of traditions, the deference to law became, out of obvious necessity, the cornerstone of the new American culture. Deference to law is the single binding element in a population with widely varied values concerning family, responsibility, religion, and even freedom. The Senate has cause for concern.
Our constitution gives ultimate control of law to the Supreme Court. That is an enormous power which rests with only nine people out of two hundred fifty million. Nine people who are not directly elected by the people and who, once appointed, hold control of the law for life.
The Supreme Court has the responsibility to ensure that the Congress does not pass laws, and the Administration does not create Executive Orders that are contrary to the explicit wording or intent of the constitution. Further, the Supreme Court has sole discretion to decide which cases, or questions of constitutionality, they will even consider. Therein, of course, is the basis of the fear.
If a lower court makes a decision, or the President signs an Executive Decision, which is considered, by some, inconsistent with the constitution, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear argument, then we must assume that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court or the President. However, we are left without the benefit of their reasoning, and are often left having to follow the law without understanding it.
Even when the Supreme Court does hear a case we are often left bemused, befuddled and sometimes angry because the opinions of the majority and minority seem to be in direct opposition while referring to the same areas of the constitution.
While it is generally accepted that reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on the same information, it is none-the-less disturbing when our laws are open to such differences in interpretation.
Which brings us back to our culture. The American culture is not based on what we think so much as it is based on what we do, how we do it, where we do it, and when we do it. Why we do it is simple, because it’s the law. Therefore, if we want to understand our culture, we must understand our first law, the Constitution of the United States. After that, for the sake of our sanity, we must believe that the law protects each of us and that it will remain constant and consistent with what we have learned. Unfortunately, the constitution is just words, words that can be twisted and spun just as readily as the news. The wrong group of nine Justices could literally tear our culture and our country apart.
The Senate has a daunting task. The Supreme Court has the power to make the final interpretation of the law and, therefore, has the power to define who we are as a society, and who we will be. The Senate must determine if we are at a fork in the road with one path leading to the expansion of personal liberty, and the other leading to the expansion of control over the individual, or if Judge Roberts is intending to lead a middle-of-the-road court. After three days of answers to the Senate’s questions, we are no better able to understand the basic motivation of John Roberts today than we were before the questioning began.
If we can’t see the path ahead, probably the best thing to do is stay put. As it is, the country is being asked to accept an unknown personality to occupy the most powerful position in the country on blind faith. This is both morally and intellectually unacceptable. Maybe another candidate can better illuminate his or her deepest convictions so that the Senate can make a truly informed decision about who we are, who we will be, and who will guard our path along the way.
Print
Email
