There's Only One Law That Supreme Court Judges Interpret


I haven't been sure where to fall in the debate over whether the President made a good choice in picking Miers. There are some very interesting political angles to the nomination - how should Democrats react? Democrats who've been screaming "No Right Wingers!" Now that much of the right wing is screaming "she's not one of us..." Kinda takes the wind out of thier sails. This strategy certainly has advantages.

But I'm really more interested in the approach a judge takes to the Constitution... I buy it that the legislatures should legislate. That's why the SCOTUS medical marijuana ruling, and the justice department going after Oregon's assisted suicide law are wrong. It's not about drug use or the sanctity of life... It's about the federal government's power to limit the several states' action in those areas. The 10th amendment has been gutted in the last half century, it's time to get back to the words meaning exactly what they say.

Our federal government is limited by the Constitution - the founders meant for the Federal Government to only do what the Constitution explicitly said it could. It's really not that complex a document. Are Supreme Court Justices any smarter than anyone else in the law profession, politics, or gubmint for that matter? I doubt it. I think Baby Troll got it right that "...It presupposes that the Constitution is and ought to be so mysterious a document that application of its principles cannot be made by mere mortals..."

So really it's more important that a SC Justice nominee be a person of intelligence, integrity and committed to the limitations that the Constitution places on the power of the federal government to limit the actions of the states.

Yet to see whether the nominee is that person, but the arguments about what school she went to and how she's never been a judge fall flat for me.



Head on over to Mudville's Dawn Patrol