The 2008 Election Is About the Supreme Court and Much, Much More

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046341300351057527.post-7043136935563228542008-07-07T10:23:00.000-07:002008-07-07T10:45:37.282-07:00The 2008 Election Is About the Supreme Court and Much, Much More<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_gbV7B6quyNY/SHJSMOJNmMI/AAAAAAAAATo/Rs5ye4HqdQY/s1600-h/Supreme+Justices+A.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_gbV7B6quyNY/SHJSMOJNmMI/AAAAAAAAATo/Rs5ye4HqdQY/s400/Supreme+Justices+A.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5220325287984470210" /></a> <<< US Supreme Court Justices As someone interested in politics and the up coming election, if you are reading this, I'm sure you've probably heard the comments that if McCain is elected, we'll all be in trouble with his highly conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees. But are you aware that the 2008 election is much more important than just having a court full of conservative Roberts or Scalia type Justices? The Supreme Court Beyond 2008: First, please start with the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is a life-time appointment. With possibly three openings in the court coming up for the next US President, whomever makes the nominations will be selecting the candidates that, when seated, could easily be on the bench through the next three presidents. So, under those circumstances, a strong, highly conservative court could last through your life span and your children's lives as well. Now you might say, "So, what's that got to do with me and my family?" Well, let's look at how a conservative justice makes decision versus a moderate justice. The concept of strict constitutional judges, such as Justice Scalia, is that the Founding Fathers, through the writing of the constitution, were telling future Justices "what" to think in making their decisions. Therefore, they feel that it is imperative that they follow the original understanding in a strict and unwavering fashion in order to respect democracy. In other words, there is no room for interpretation or for updating the concept of what the writers of the constitution had decided at the time of its ratification. As an example, in the second amendment, it says that we have the "right to bear arms". Now, at the time the document was written, there were only muskets, mortars, long-rifles, swords and knives. A strict constitutionalists could then say that "the right to bear arms" today means that having an AK47, an UZI or any semiautomatic weapon in your home would be perfectly legal under the US Constitution. On the other hand, a moderate judge such as Justice Breyer would say that the US Constitution was written to give the Justices directions as to "how" to think, not "what" to think. Based on that approach, since the founders are long gone, there is no way to know exactly what they were thinking at the time of the Constitution's development. We do know that, just as there are different opinions expressed today, the founders did not all agree on what finally became the final draft. There is plenty of written history that shows that Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Franklin and the other founders all had their separate views on what was the right approach. Somehow, they finally came to an agreement to eventually come up with a final document, but they did not all agree 100%. And this is a key reason for why they established a structure with many checks and balances, three houses of government and a Supreme Court with 9 Justices. They knew there would be disagreements in the highest court and that they needed an uneven number of Justices in order for them to come to any final decisions. The point is, today the discussions in the High Court are not for developing a set of rules by which to live. Instead they have to do with using the foundation and structure of the Constitution to make fair decisions for the circumstances at hand. Therefore, having a Supreme Court, that currently has 5 conservative Justices and 4 moderate to liberal Justices, means that three more McCain appointees would load the highest court in the land in a lopsided conservative position for possibly 2-3 decades. The concept of "fair and balanced" would then be closer to the Fox News idea of "fair and balanced" than what I believe was anticipated by our forefathers. Beyond the Supreme Court: As to the other election issue, the previous, heavily Republican weighted Senate and House had both been very busy in trying to set up the larger, lower court systems with conservative judges. Past moves and efforts by the previous Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has fortunately been nipped in the bud which was in the process of getting as many conservative, Republican judges into the lower courts, in particular into the Federal Appeals Courts. (The Federal Appeals Court is referred to by many of those involved in law as the courts that "really count".) Most people today don't understand that, under the Republican run Senate, a past critical decision occurred that could have changed the function of the Senate and the make-up of the Appeals Courts for years to come. The Critical Decision: In 2006, President George W. Bush had nominated five controversial judges to the Federal Court of Appeals. In the past, the Senate "filibuster" has traditionally been used in order to stall, postpone or eventually have a nominee withdrawn, if enough Senators could be assembled to force the issue. However, most Americans don't know that the "filibuster" is not permanent or a part of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is just a long-time Senate rule. That being the case, by having a solid voting majority of Republican Senators, if the Republicans chose, they could have used what they refer to as the "Nuclear Option" and could have voted to eliminate the "filibuster" as a Senate option forever. Based on this threat from the Republicans, seven Democratic Senators agreed to not filibuster three of Bush's five Appeals Court nominees. In exchange, seven Republican Senators agreed to vote against a "Nuclear Option" to permanently eliminate the filibuster. The Republicans did however state, at that time, that they would reserve the "Nuclear Option" for more "extraordinary circumstances" if needed in the future. This compromise between the Republican and Democratic Senators was not given that much major media attention at the time. But even the highly esteemed Senator Robert Byrd, considered the most learned constitutional advocate in US politics, stated to a group of DC reporters that; "We have kept the Republic", after the vote against the "Nuclear Option" was announced. As I have said, not electing McCain is much more than the Supreme Court. It is the economy, healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy and global warming. And by keeping the Senate majority away from the Republican's, their "Nuclear Option" can be neutralized.....for now. It must be said that the Democrats never made a "Nuclear Option" threat during the many years they controlled the Senate. But the Republicans decided to go that far, just in order to get their conservative judges installed around the country. Now that they have lost their majority, perhaps they realize that to use the "Nuclear Option" could have eventually been a very bad decision for them, in the long run. But are we willing to think that they learned anything from this? Don't press your luck. Please keep all of this in mind, when you are making your November voting decisions.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Gary is also a Feature Writer for American Chronicle On-Line Magazine. Many of the items shown on this "Common Sense" Blog will also appear on the American Chronicle Magezine at: http://commonsense-gater.blogspot.com/</div>Gaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15396177924062506072noreply@blogger.com