The Sage Observer

Our U.S. Supreme Court

Please, let me hear from you if you disagree; but, my understanding of the duty and responsibility of any justice of our Supreme Court is to interpret the constitutionality of those laws brought before them with absolute objectivity absent of any and all personal, political, and religious prejudice and opinions—their only concern being to determine if the law in question, the law under consideration, is compatible with the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. They are not trying the original case before them. They are not deciding who is guilty and who is not guilty. Whether or not they believe in abortion doesn’t matter. Neither does their views on gay marriage or beliefs on slavery or anything else. The only reason they are reviewing any case before them is to determine the constitutionality of the law being applied. Ultimately, in the final analysis, the members of our Supreme Court are the sole protectors of the very foundation of our sovereign government—the law. They are appointed for life. They must be perfectly objective and responsible. Yes. This is the strict interpretation of the law regarding their duties. There is another interpretation which allows for adapting our Constitution to changes in times, technologies, etc, beyond which everything else I have said above is true.

In the last year of President Obama’s administration, a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court due to the death of Justice Scalia, and President Obama nominated Justice Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to fill the position. In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider Judge Garland’s nomination, waiving the Senate’s advise and consent role under the Constitution. In conjunction with this, “dark money” sources spent millions of dollars in opposition to his appointment (this is all a matter of record and readily available through Google). Now comes Republican President Donald Trump who appoints his candidate, Neil Gorsuch. To make a very long story short, this same “dark money” spends another ten million dollars in support of the Republican candidate (again, this is all a matter of record and readily available through Google).

Is this the way our democratic republic is supposed to be governed? Is this really in the interests of our people or is it in the interests of the providers of all that “dark money”? Judge Gorsuch refuses to respond to questions as to who is behind all this sordid financing (and he doesn’t have to—he isn’t required), but can you really believe he will be as objective and impartial in his judicial deliberations, if he is appointed to the court, in light of all this? Do you really believe you will get honest government under our Constitution from his decisions?

Let me know what you think. In the meantime, this is Ronald Miller, www.sageobserver.blogspot.com signing off.