If We Don't Believe...
 

...that the nine justices that finally navigate the process for nomination and confirmation to the highest court in the land won't let their decisions be influenced by political idealology or advocacy of a particular position, then we're all in a whole lot of trouble.

The people who finally rises to that position have been extremely well-schooled in both the written and common law, in most cases have already served in a judicial positions as well as those of advocacy, and probably understands the weight and importance of each and every one of his decisions better than almost anyone else. People who are selected for nomination to the Supreme Court know and respect the position in which they might serve, probably better than we do.

Presidents can nominate candidates who might not meet the standards for service, but fortunately the process for their confirmation almost always weeds out the unqualified. The names Harriett Meiers and Robert Bork come to mind. I say "almost" only because I can't think of a justice that has navigated the process of nomination and confirmation, but I leave a small amount of room that it maybe that might have happened in the past.

Is there room for different interpretations of the written as well as case law? Of course. Both were written and/or decided by humans who might have been imprecise in writing or interpreting the law or may have decided cases on facts or situations which may no longer apply to the current times. Can a justice who is selected because he reaches decisions based on "a strict interpretation of the Constitution" be relied upon to always decide by that standard in each and every case? No, of course not. Again, neither the written law or the cases which provide precedents are sufficiently precise to always permit that.

The decisions made by the highest appealate court in the land considers the evidence, decisions, arguments and cases that were produced by advocates and judges who range from appointees to elected and whose education, experience and qualifications are often far less than the justices themselves. They are not supposed to "make" law from the bench, but often the documentation of the cases they decide is far from adequate to prevent the influence of their own experience and character.

But we MUST have the confidence that the Presidents that we elect will make responsible choices in their nominations, that our free press will provide the transparency of the nominee's character and body of judicial decisions, and that the Senate plays the proper balancing role in the confirmation of the candidate's nomination.

The framers of our Constitution did a brilliant job in designing a near flawless process for the selection and balancing of the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. Our responsibility is to remain confident and supportive of the results, and vigilant that the process is not and cannot be changed.

Steve, I tend to agree that justices, esp in the higher courts, do rule in an honorable manner. The issue is how the individual judge determines what is the correct interpretation. A good case in point (no pun intended) would be the infamous public domain ruling when SCOTUS ruled against private property rights v. public advantages by 5-4. Yes it was a liberal/conservative split, but the decision reflected not political intent but the basic political and social beliefs of the justices. In many cases, a decision may be cut and dried --- in others, there is room for interpretation. When interpretation enters the picture, those social/political beliefs take over. Another example would be the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. If there is any wiggle room in a case, you know it will come down with the most liberal ruling.

That is what makes the the selection criteria of POTUS and the make-up of the Senate so important. In recent years, the Senate seemingly has almost usurped the power to designate judges. The current Senate will likely be a rubber stamp on choices, but had McCain won, he would have a very difficult time getting confirmations. Look at the battles Bush had with Alito and especially the lower courts. Not that long ago, Ginsburg, a confirmed Liberal, got 97 votes and Scalia, an equally confirmed Conservative, got 98 votes.

Some comments Obama has made about judicial picks scare me. Seemingly, he wants judges who will use emotion in making decisions in preference to the law. In discussing his vote against Roberts, he stated that court cases demanded "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." He has said he wants judges who know what it's like to be poor, black, gay, old, etc. I want judges who know the law and leave the making of those laws to the legislatures. But I'll worry about that later.

An aside: Steve, if you don't mind my asking, for whom have you worked in the District? You're always knowledgeable about gov't workings and a lot of the behind the scenes actions.

I agree. Another example is the Bush vs. Gore decision by the Supreme Court in which five conservative judges relied on "innovative" readings of the Constitution to resolve the presidential dispute. There were four dissenters, with Justice Stevens lameting that the actual loser of this presidential election was “the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

I don't count on the "free press" doing anything that is not in ITS self interest, and that definitely does not include providing objective and impartial reporting of facts to the nation and/or the world. This past campaign is testament to how the press avoids stressing anything it doesn't want to, and outright BSing to drive public opinion into specific directions about people and issues. If we rely solely on the "free press" for our information, we will definitely have no freedom.

AMEN AMEN to this. There is/was so much ignored by the media during the campaign...both primary and general....that will dribble out in the next few years and some folks will wonder...HOW !!! The press control a lot of what we "think". Heard a fellow last week, sorry do not know his name but a radio commentator (not Limbaugh or his ilk) saying that he wonders how the main stream media will ever get over the coverage of the campaign.

And it has to do so much with what the particular media outlet believes and how it leans. Today in the New York Post which leans right there is a front page article about Democratic congress folks spending a luxury couple days at an island retreat, but you will not find that story anywhere else. If you read faithfully ONLY the New York Post, guess what you may think. If you read the New York Daily News, which leans left you may think that anyone Republican is the devil himself.

I use only the two NY papers to illustrate the point. TV is worse, and while the radio side has been more conservative, THAT according to the "news" is going to go by the wayside as the left wants to pass laws to restrict and make equal on the radio, which is amazing to me, but more on that if it comes to fruition.

One person's "innovative" is the other person's "obvious."

SCOTUS may not perfect, and is again is just one of three prongs in the triad of government. That being said, the justices do find themselves with situations where they have favor with several arguments, and make the best choices they can justify based on demonstration via written opinion representing that justice's personal interpretation of the matter and ascribed to by others who may or may not add their own writing to the decision.

Do justices simply throw their morality onto the table and say "I will interpret the law based on my subjectivity?" No, that does not happen, or they would not have made it into nomination or confirmation. Can they have diffferent interpretations? Yes, and when that happens, the written opinions, especially of the minority, provide the Legislature with the guidance on what will be required of the Legislature to change laws so that the SCOTUS decision becomes moot when that same situation reappears. If you read the written opinions carefully, the explanation for how that justice ruled is sculpted for legislative action, and don't ever think that justices don't discuss their written opinions (even when they disagree) so that the correct "signals" are given to the other two prongs of the triad as to what to do next.

It is key to remember that SCOTUS decisions are based on today's law as written, and oftentimes even the justices 'admit being personally between a legal rock and a moral hard place. That's why there are so many 5-4 decisions, and a check of the justice's votes often show that 5-4 is not captured by the same "liberal" and "conservative" justices, but a diverse mixture based the facts and not a morality or persuasion. But, the law is the law, and only the Legislature can change it, and 5-4 decisions are basically SCOTUS screaming at the Legislature to get to work on the matter.

If the Legislature ignores billboard-sized notices from SCOTUS as to what's today's written word, then I can't blame any of the nine justices for the failure of the 535 on Capitol Hill to do their jobs.

As a side note, I know a judge who decided he didn't care what the law said, he was going to make his decisions on what he believed was "right" according to his morality and opinion. This judge is a very good man - one I would personally want on my side in almost any situation. He never looked at a case with prejudice, and really believed in his "gut" to make the best call. He never cared if an appellate court overruled his decisions, which happened more to him than any judge I know. The SCOTUS justices know that they are the "end of the line" legally, and work to meet the "letter of the law," whatever that may be, because they can't rely on their "gut" since there is no check beyond them except an all-too- often self-serving and apathetic Legislature.

I found it interesting that one of the Supreme Court justices themselves came right out and said that the judges are not impartial guardians of the law.

At least they still have humility....