Supremely Obligated

What is the true responsibility of the Supreme Court?

(wikimedia commons)

With today's nomination of Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice, why not take a look at the Supreme Court, its role and responsibilities, what it is, and what it is not. I do not know much about Gorsuch as of yet, just what I've read in the past few days. But I'll tell you this much: the founders would have loved him. The same cannot be said for all the current justices on the Court!

Personally, I will find it fascinating to watch the fight that the democrats have promised over this nomination. Why? Well, because they don't have a leg to stand on. Not when you consider what the founders actually intended as the role of the Supreme Court. Liberals want nothing to do with applying constitutional law to cases brought before the Court. They want Supreme Court justices to bend that silly Constitution to their will, not even to the will of the people, necessarily, but to theirs.

The democrats keep saying that any justice nominee who is not "in the main stream" will not be considered. In the main stream? What the hell is that supposed to mean? It sure sounds as though it refers to public opinion. Which has NOTHING to do with the obligation and responsibility of the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton said, while on the campaign trail this past fall, (paraphrasing here) that a new president should be someone who would nominate a justice who would (quoting here) "represent all the people". WHAT?? The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent anyone! That is the job of the legislature, not the Court. The Court represents the CONSTITUTION, and nothing else.

The obligation of the Supreme Court is to listen to cases brought before it and decide on its merits or lack thereof based on the Constitution of the United States and the laws legitimately enacted within its parameters and passed by the legislature. As Alexander Hamilton so beautifully said of the Supreme Court in Federalist #78: "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." (my emphasis)

Judge Neil Gorsuch (wikimedia.com)

This shows that the founders meant the justices to make judgments on the cases brought before them based on the Constitution and the Law created under it. They were not to be influenced by the purview of either of the other two branches of government, which serve to legislate and to enforce the laws, but ONLY to make a judgment as to the constitutionality of that law.

So what happens when a Supreme Court decision has a result that is not favored by the majority of the people? Well, first of all, the result of a decision should not be a consideration of the justices at all. It's not their job to contrive a decision that will either avoid or create any given outcome, no matter how onerous that outcome may be.

A good example of the spurning of this principle was the ruling on the Affordable Care Act (better termed the UNaffordable Care Act), when Judge John Roberts based his decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Act, in part, on the upheaval that would ensue if it were overturned. SO WHAT? Roberts had no right to take the result of his ruling into consideration. His JOB was to judge the case on its merits based on the Constitution of the United States and its laws. Period. It certainly was not the court's job to fill in for the errors made by the framers of the Act, which is exactly what they did.

The answer to the question above was ingeniously written into the Constitution itself. If the people object to the outcome of a decision based on their Constitution, they have the right to introduce an amendment to that Constitution. THAT is how a changing society and evolving understanding of justice is accommodated. NOT by using the bench of the Court to push decisions in one direction or another to please the people.

(wikimedia)

So, democrats, BRING IT ON! If nominating someone who is "in the main stream" is your test, you are sadly not aware of the true purpose and responsibility of a Supreme Court justice. Theoretically, it should not matter what the personal beliefs and political leanings of a justice even are. Because he or she should not allow those to influence his or her decisions. Instead, every Supreme Court decision should be made with those blinders of Lady Justice firmly in place.... and eyes focused only on the remarkable and lasting document that our founders created for us and the thoughts and words of those founders concerning it.

Theirs are the only opinions that matter.

Kat