With the confirmation hearings going on for Alito, it makes me think of what I expect of a judge on the Supreme Court.
I have been reading "The Heritage Guide to The Constitution" over the last month. I’ve been going slow, reading one or two Sections and/or Clauses with the explanations every couple of days. Allowing time to absorb what was written, how it has been ruled on in past cases and referenced with "The Federalist" to listen to what the Founders intended. This has taught me that the creators of this document were incredibly careful about the wording so as to be clear in their intent.
I have watched judges creating law out of whole cloth merely because they think that it would be a good thing for the country. Living in California with the 9th Circuit has given more than enough examples of this practice. If a law is required to address an issue, it needs to be specifically passed by the State or Federal legislatures, not ruled by fiat from the bench.
The Constitution was not meant to be a “living, breathing document”. It is what it is. There is a way to have it address whatever is necessary for the good of the country. AMENDMENT. If an issue needs to be addressed on the Federal level, a three-fouths majority of the states in the Union will ratify the law and it becomes part of the Constitution itself.
The idea of the purposefully general wording in parts of the document were written so as not to exclude future needs, not to allow a general wide ranging interpretations. Specific rights are enumerated with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments.
A Judge should read the Constitution and decide the case on what the words say. If it is not addressed, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction and it should be remanded to the state level.
UPDATE: WorldNetDaily has an article on HR 4379, the We The People Act, which would remove from federal courts' jurisdiction any case involving religious liberty; sexual practices, orientation or reproduction; and same-sex marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment