One of the ways in which a president shapes the future of the country is through appointments to the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. How do you see each candidate shaping the future of the court, and why is this important? (If you are supporting a particular candidate, focus on that one.) (here)
Of the many issues raised every Presidential election cycle that bothers me is the issue of the Supreme Court. Whether we like it or not, both sides have destroyed the sanctity of the separation of powers and the non-partisan court. Instead of upholding the Constitution, both sides look for a litmus test, usually in cases of abortion.
The only litmus test needed for the Supreme Court is whether or not the would-be justice believes that he or she can effective rule in a constitutional manner, regardless of the issue. Part of our heritage suggests that regardless of the issue, the judge must remain unbiased as he or she begins to tackle the case. If you ask a SCOTUS candidate how he or she would rule before hand, even on a hypothetical case, and base your decision on this, then you are attempting to control the court, something we must avoid. The Supreme Court is the weaker among equals, but i tis the anchor that must be allowed to hold the other two branches down. If we allow a Presidential candidate to promise, in an election, to pick a Justice based on political issues, we severely undermine the ability of the Supreme Court to remain neutral.
In the current session, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of voting rights’ act, among other key issues. One of the trains of thought is that the VRA is no longer needed given that the times have changed. Perhaps this is the case; perhaps not, but to pick a Court justice who will, regardless of the case before her or him, rule in favor of the VRA is to create a conflict of interest that is insurmountable. Congress has the power to issue legislation but must do so within the guidelines of the Constitution, subject to oversight by the Supreme Court. There will come a time when laws are no longer needed, but are more burdensome. This does not make the laws unconstitutional; however, I do not yet know the facts of the case either. And neither does anyone else.
The track both candidates take in promoting their candidacy as one who will mold the Supreme Court is troubling to me. Even Gary Johnson, supposedly one who respects the Constitution, would like to see the court molded to fit his views. Why?
What we need are candidates who promise to appoint Justices that have a proven record of non-partisanship, unbiased and objective rulings, and who will remain out of the political fray.
- Judge Scalia: Gay Sex Not Constitutional (newser.com)
- Supreme Court To Decide Whether Or Not You Own What You Own (yro.slashdot.org)
- CBI can probe wealth case against Mayawati: Supreme Court (thehindu.com)
- The Supreme Court Is Going To End Affirmative Action As We Know It (businessinsider.com)