Need for justices to put reason before bias

To The Daily Sun,

Our Constitution endures because the judiciary functions as prescribed by that document. The Constitution established the court as a third arm of the government. It should not legislate nor administrate. Its sole function is to evaluate and rule on the constitutionality of legislation or points of law in cases brought before it. The court can and should check the executive when it oversteps its constitutional authority.

The docket of the Supreme Court is determined by those cases referred by lower federal courts of appeal. In that sense, the court is political in nature to the extent that the lower courts are referring cases of political importance to one party or the other. Justices of federal courts are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. In that way, the party in the White House injects politics into the process.

That brings us to the current nominee. He, the nominee, is the second for this administration and will most certainly change the court. For that reason, it is rancorous to the extreme. The last few days have proven that, for sure!

Why the big deal on this particular appointee? He will most assuredly be a change agent. There will be no swing vote to prevent cases being decided only along party lines. This is not the first time the court has been packed by the party in power. I think I can state that it did nothing to enhance constitutional rights when it in the past and will not be a thing to desire in present or the future.

Aside from the Roe vs. Wade flap, what other issues might be adversely affected by a conservatively packed Supreme Court? A list might include immigration, gun legislation, campaign finance and the all important free speech issues.

In an effort to take care of the “problem” of illegal entry into the U.S., there will be a strong effort to get rid of those who are here without documentation. Attempts to abridge due process before deportation may be one of the ways that the court could overstep its constitutional mandate.

In the realm of campaign finance the court has already “created law” with its ruling in the Citizens United decision. Will it continue to endorse undue influence on the electoral process? Will it evaluate and rule in cases involving issues of over-reach by the executive branch without bias? You may ask what issues, for instance? Here is my list of examples of overreaching:

1. Imposing tariffs without consulting the legislative branch. Some would say that the Agriculture and Commerce Departments in his cabinet were not asked for a list of possible impacts.

2. Releasing classified information that may endanger the welfare of those protected by the secrecy required in the performance of their jobs. The Bush administration had some problems with that as I recall.

3. Rescinding environmental regulations that are designed to protect us from atmospheric contamination. Disregard of environmental consequences for commercial reasons abound.

That is my list, feel free to add to the list if you wish. On the ones above, the court will most certainly be called on to rule on cases that find their way through the lower courts. There is a need for the justices to put reason before bias when evaluating the executive branch.

How does the impeachment, as defined in the Constitution, affect Supreme Court justices? The phrase, for cause, is not well defined but has been tried on a justice in the past. Samuel P. Chase was impeached, but not convicted by the Senate. It more or less established that political bias alone is not enough to convict an impeached justice. Actions stemming from the bias might be, however. Thereon rests the case for freedom. Tyranny should not be allowed in any of our branches of government.

Bill Dawson

Northfield