To the shame of American politics, this presidential election cycle has mutated into a “soap opera” with the newspapers playing the role of tabloids reporting the latest gossip. Amidst all the clamor about “who did what to whom”, about indecent tapes and charges of lesbianism and amid the flurry of secret e-mails floating down from cyberspace, it has become increasingly difficult to focus on the essential issues of this election. Apparently, the mainstream media is determined to inundate us with spectacular revelations about this and that until Election Day finally arrives on Nov.8. My conviction about all of these issues is this: If there are grounds for prosecution, then prosecute! Otherwise, let us concentrate on the immediate problem before us, namely an election that will have not only immediate, but also long-term effects.
As I have indicated in previous articles, I am primarily concerned at this point about the long-term effects of this election on our political system. Although no political system is perfect, the balance of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of government was certainly an outstanding achievement of our Founders. Unfortunately, the envisioned balance no longer exists. The Executive Branch has assumed an authority that was intended for Congress, and the Judicial Branch has usurped Congress by handing down rulings that really amount to new laws. An explanation of how and why this happened would require much more space than an opinion piece allows, but in my judgment, the shift in power has resulted from a very strong anti-democratic movement mixed with a considerable amount of hubris.
The Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices are entrusted with the interpretation of Constitutional law, not with the promulgation of new laws. Proponents of the present Supreme Court will argue that the Constitution requires interpretation since it is an historical document. That is true. But interpretation should take place within the bounds of the text itself. Consider for example, the Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. I do not know by what abstruse hermeneutical procedure one arrives at their conclusion from the text of the Constitution itself. Albert Einstein, who was known for his humorous aphorisms, once said of tax returns: You have to be a philosopher to fill them out–for a mathematician they are too difficult! Well, I don’t even think a philosopher could follow the reasoning of SCOTUS on many of its decisions. The California Proposition 8 was an example of democracy in action. The Irish vote on same-sex marriage was another example of democracy in action. In contrast, the ruling of our Supreme Court on same-sex marriage was a blatant disregard of the democratic process.
Independent of the flaws of the particular candidates in this election, we have a decision to make about the future of the Supreme Court. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one vacancy will soon be filled by the next President, and given the ages of other Justices, there may well be several other vacancies on the horizon. Hillary Clinton has promised to use the Supreme Court nominations to further her liberal agenda, whereas Donald Trump has vowed to appoint more conservative Justices. Since the tenure of these Justices will extend far beyond the term of the President, it is crucial that we consider carefully the constituency of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is more powerful than it has ever been, and it will continue to shape the destiny of our nation. Do we want a Supreme Court that faithfully interprets the Constitution or do we want a Supreme Court that makes decisions based on a particular ideology? In either case, the Constitution must be interpreted, but there is a decisive difference between an interpretation that reads the ideas of the interpreter into the text and an interpretation that honestly tries to discover the meaning of a text and bring it out into the open. Should the text of the Constitution prove inadequate for the issues of our day, there is a democratic procedure for changing it which involves Congress and the State Legislatures. Altering the Constitution is the responsibility of the nation, not the prerogative of the nine individuals who now seem to have become blinded by their own power.
So what kind of Supreme Court do you want? The choice is yours.
Villager Jack Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com