The kind of Supreme Court Justice someone wants indicates the kind of country he or she wants. Does one want a government that abides by the consent of the governed, as envisioned by the authors of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and laws passed by Congress, or a government controlled by a Judicial Oligarchy, five or more unelected, unaccountable, and fallible people that impose their will on the American people?
Donning a black robe doesn’t confer wisdom or divinity. Supreme Court Justices made many bad decisions, e.g., approving slavery, “separate but equal”, and interning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Recent decisions outrage Conservatives and Progressives, e.g., eminent domain (Kelo), Citizens United, gun control (Heller), and Obamacare.
The legislators who passed Obamacare and its supporters, including President Obama, repeatedly said that Obamacare included a penalty, but not a tax, for not buying health insurance. But, to approve Obamacare the Supreme Court ignored the clear words of Obamacare authors and supporters by declaring that a penalty is a tax.
Without imposing the majority’s will to approve Obamacare by redefining clearly defined words, Congress may have passed a better healthcare bill, one that actually expanded coverage, improved results, and reduced costs.
The Obamacare decision is an example of judicial activism, deciding cases based on justices’ personal preferences rather than on the law, the Constitution, and the intent of their authors. Judicial activists use various excuses for their decisions, e.g., foreign laws, new word definitions, and interpretations contrary to original intent.
Some people use the term “living Constitution” to justify judicial activism, suggesting that Justices need to “modernize” the Constitution. But this means Justices are overriding the intent of the American people and usurping the authority that the people gave to our elected representatives.
Judicial activism advocates want the Supreme Court to dictate what the American people don’t support.
Our US Constitution is like a contract for work. The employer (the people) defined (in the Constitution) the work scope, i.e., the authorities and responsibilities, for the employee (the government). Only the employer (the people) is authorized to change the work scope (by amending the Constitution).
Our Constitution is “living” because it continues providing the protections, authorizations, and limitations as originally intended over 200 years ago and as amended by the people and/or their elected representatives. Constitutionalist Justices protect the consent of the people by basing their decisions on the intent of the authors of our laws and Constitution as approved by the people and/or their elected representatives.
When Supreme Court decisions are based on judicial activism, then the American people no longer control their government; we are being ruled by a judicial tyranny.
