|
|
Voice |
|
|
Write:
|
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are beating people to death. The conception has grown and been cast in concrete that everyone has to fit in one category or the other. That is particularly true of our elected officials. They can’t be impartial and represent everyone. They must cater to one extreme or the other, according to the popular conception. That has even become true of the judiciary. The moment any name is mentioned for a judgeship, those who appoint themselves responsible for establishing categories get busy. Searches may go back as far as kindergarten to see what a nominee for the bench ate for lunch or when he or she went to the rest room. This is especially true for anyone with eyes on the highest judiciary position in the land—the Supreme Court. The President is expected by the party that put him in office to be true to the party label. A Democrat is supposed to appoint a liberal. A Republican is expected to appoint a conservative. They seldom fail to disappoint their constituents. Just don’t ask why you have to be liberal to be a Democrat or conservative to be a Republican. No one is supposed to be independent—although the majority of Americans likely are and quiet about it. Judges who withstand the character assassinations that go with the gamut of hearings on the way to the appointment are given a label. They are supposed to stay in the mold created for them. Once in a while a Supreme Court judge breaks out of the mold. Earl Warren did. President Dwight Eisenhower was the Republican President who appointed Warren to the Supreme Court and expected a conservative justice. He was surprised. Warren broke the segregation barriers in public schools. Eisenhower always lamented his appointment of Warren. But being liberal or conservative should have nothing to do with the law. It is unlikely anyone can find a piece of legislation that says a law has to mean other than what the wording states. No law says it has to be interpreted as liberal or conservative. No law has wording clear or implied that a judge has the right to say it means other than what is stated. President Thomas Jefferson inadvertently gave the Supreme Court that power in 1803 with the case of Marbury versus Madison. He refused to honor the midnight appointments of President John Adams and the case went to court. Jefferson asked Justice John Marshall to decide who was right. Victory in the case went to Jefferson. The power to interpret what the law meant went to the Supreme Court. Over the years they have acquired more and more power through the introduction of case law over Constitutional law. One judge decides he knows what a law should mean and other judges uphold him. They are not supposed to make the laws, either by decree or so called interpretation. The law is color blind and impartial. It should not be a social arbitrator, just a statement to conduct human and official conduct. Congress should have simply passed a law to end segregation, not relied on Justice Warren to do what the legislative duty was. And if a law meant one thing ten or 20 years ago, it should mean the same thing today. A new face on the Supreme Court should make no difference. If there is to be a change in the law, that is the job of our legislators, not the men and women in ostentatious black robes who see themselves as royalty. Blackstone said a long, long time ago that a law should be clearly written so that it’s understandable by the average person. The term void of vagueness is applicable. If some lawyer eager to show off his knowledge of Latin makes the wording so complicated no one can understand it, the judges should declare it void for vagueness. Tell the legislators to rewrite it in clear English so that everyone knows what it means. No one needs to interpret the Ten Commandments. They are clear, concise and understandable. That’s the way law—and judges—should be. They shouldn’t be void for vagueness.
|
