In these past few days, following the death of Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, the Constitution has become all the rage, particularly among the Left. With the ideological power of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Leftist have decided that the Constitution is the new hotness.
I have been fascinated with so much pro-Constitution talk coming from the same Leftist who believe that the second amendment only covers flint lock muskets for the state militia, routinely use the 14th amendment to justify government power over any aspect of citizen life, and loudly and unashamedly dismiss the Constitution as an out of date document written by wealthy, old, white, racists. Now that the Constitution is all the rage, those same folk intend to wield it like a club, or so they threaten and so the Right fears.
I have also,been frustrated in having to remind so many educated adults that the nomination is a collaborative process while true that the President has the Constitutional authority to nominate justices to the highest court, the President does so ONLY “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Nowhere does the Constitution suggest that the Senate must rubber stamp a nominee, nor does the Constitution elaborate on any rationale for which the Senate may confirm or reject a nominee.
Most frustrating, however, is that in all this talk about the power of the President versus the power of the Senate, any talk about the power of the people has been either marginalized, or altogether absent.
The head of the executive branch indeed has authority to nominate judges, but he works for the people. The Senate may choose to reject, or block the Presidents nominee, but the Senate works for the people. In both instances, it is not the interest of any political party that must be protected, but those of the people.
To that end, it is imperative that any man or woman nominated to the highest court in our land be first of the mind that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the purpose of that document is to secure the natural rights of all men equally and as individuals not groups. Any lack of clarity on this point- any hesitation, or qualifying should be met with an invitation to exit the proceedings.
Additionally, any nominee to the court must believe that laws are to originate from and be written by the legislature, that those laws should not be written in such a way as to benefit one class, ethnicity, race or religion, or any people, or written to favor one industry over another.
Any nominee must also recognize the sanctity of private property and as such believe that the state does not have the power to confiscate the private property of any citizen in order to transfer the rights to that property to a private corporation. Nor does the government have Constitutional power to force citizens to use their private property in ways that those citizens do not wish to; neither does the government have the Constitutional authority to withhold the property of any citizen indefinitely and without a proper hearing of facts. Any equivocation in regards to these issues must also disqualify a judge from serving on the Supreme Court.
Finally, any prospective justice must see their role as that of an arbiter of law, with a mind to upholding the Constitution, and not a social engineer, empowered to enforce their social vision on the citizens of this nation. Similarly, any suggestion that a nominee is of the opinion that the bench is a place from which to legislate will be disqualified from serving.
The Constitution exists to protect the individual rights of the citizens. The only way to protect the interests of the people is to ensure that the interest of government, or the interests of special classes of people do not supersede those of the sovereign citizen. It’s my true hope that with so many people now reading and discussing the beautiful document that is our Constitution, that they come to demand the same qualities from any judge nominated and then to use the power of the vote to send packing any Senator or any President who disagrees.