A major outcome of the Presidential election is the future of the Federal Supreme Court. The next President will most probably be nominating at least one, perhaps two, new Justices to the Bench. Of course, Congressional approval will be required. Federal and State SC Justices make very important decisions that influence our Country, actually making Laws (through their judgments as to what the Constitution and Laws on the books mean and how they are applied) and exercising greater authority in specific cases than the President and Congress together
A dramatic illustration of this judicial authority is what has happened in three States in the matter of “Gay Marriage”. I am not here arguing for or against Gay Marriage, but rather about the role of the State Court in legalizing it in all three States.
“Connecticut yesterday became the third state to allow same-sex couples to marry after its sharply divided Supreme Court ruled [4-3] that a state law allowing gay couples to enter in civil unions denied those couples their constitutional right to equal protection.”
“Connecticut follows Massachusetts, which was, by court order, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, in May 2004, and California, which became the second by court order, in May.”
“In his majority opinion yesterday, Justice Richard N. Palmer sided with gay rights activists. He wrote that the ‘segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm,’ in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody.’ “
“In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that ‘there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage." "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. [This matter] is a decision for the Legislature or the people of the state and not this court.’
“Governor M. Jodi Rell, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said she would abide by the decision even though she disagrees with it. ‘The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut.’ “
“Leaders of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which represents the state's Catholic bishops, issued a statement saying they were ‘extremely disappointed’ by the ruling, which they called, "a terribly regrettable exercise in judicial activism.’”
“‘The real battle in this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle, a lifestyle many people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept,’ the statement said“.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/10/11/conn_ruling_allows_same_sex_marriage/
Justices of State Supreme Court overturned a State law which had been determined by elected Legislators and which reflected the will of the majority of citizens- actually the outcome was determined by just one Justice [4-3]. This is not justice or the way the three branches of constitutional government are supposed to work.
It could be argued that Civil Rights Law has been made this way. Where would African Americans be today, legally, if the Supreme Court of the Nation had not over turned the accepted Laws and desires of the majority of citizens at the time? Most would now agree that such judicial activism was a good thing.
But, I agree with those who say this decision was not about Civil Rights and that is the difference. This Court decision reflects the ideology of a minority, an attempt to change dominant culture values, not anyone’s legal rights.
“…this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle…”
“…institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."
The Connecticut Justices took it upon themselves to legally bestow and guarantee that status and its social acceptance to a minority group against the will of the majority. I’m saying that they had no right to do that, but they argue their decision was Constitutional and that settles the matter for them. How do these both Federal and State Judges come to this conclusion? Judges increasingly consider the Constitution to be a “living” document, subject to changing interpretations determined by contemporary values and standards. Basically, the Constitution means whatever they say it means. The traditional view (my view) comes from those who interpret the Constitution according to what they believe was the original intent of the Framers. On that basis Justices find no warrant in the Federal Constitution for “Gay Marriage”, Abortion or Affirmative Action.
I believe we must elect a President who will nominate only those candidates to the Court who are strict constructionists and not liberal leaning “judicial activists“. I realize the meaning of the label is disputed. I am not using it as a code for the advocacy of conservatives positions about anything. I take it to mean determining and adhering to the common sense meaning of the words in the Document as used by the Framers. I take it to mean close adherence to the words of the text. Others might emphasize original intent and usage of that text. [Notice the parallel to how the Bible is interpreted]
Currently, the Conservative Justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and, debatably, Chief Justice Roberts. (Robert Bork would have been another) Particular votes by these men on particular cases have been disputed, as to whether they were really cast on the basis of strict constructionism. But, in principle, Strict Constuctionism is the judicial philosophy of these men. They are the type of men John McCain has promised to appoint to the Bench.
See quotes listed on the website of the liberal People for the American Way. They list the quotes of John MaCain to prove why, in their opinion, people must not vote for him.
http://www.savethecourt.org/content/mccains-ideal-judge
As to Senator Obama, I have not found any extended, formal statement by him expressing his judicial philosophy (he was a Constitutional Law Professor) or about Strict Constructionism as such. However, he has often indicated that he would not nominate conservative candidates and that he favors judicial activism in the promotion of liberal, nanny state goals-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3px9jvG0N8
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114809.php
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
http://www.slate.com/id/2183930/
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-on-supreme-court-appointments-we.html
