Opinion

The Water Cycle:

The End Of the Supreme Court

With Kevin Ferguson

Months ago, after Bush announced his shocking opposition to “activist judges”, Jon Stewart clarified the new buzzword: an activist judge is simply one who disagrees with you. Conservatives, not just Bush, make the case that it’s imperative a judge not “legislate from the bench”, liberals, at least the ones I know, don’t. There is a reason; it’s not that they support bench legislation so much as most of them probably think that opposing it is the political equivalent of saying “all human beings should fly instead of walk.” It’s fucking impossible and you look like an idiot for saying it. Webster’s defines legislation as “the act of making laws.” As a Supreme Court Justice, your ruling will most likely overturn a law or two, isn’t that principally the same thing? So, back to Jon Stewart’s definition: John Roberts is an activist judge because he a pro-lifer. Sound the alarms!

In public hearings senators asked questions and Roberts either answered or dismissed them, depending on how controversial the issue it was. Unsurprisingly, Roe v. Wade was sidestepped more than any other issue: when asked about whether or not the ruling on the case was proper, he answered, “I should stay away from discussion of specific cases.” Thanks, dude.

And while were on that, isn’t it awesome that his job is to offer totally subjective opinions on cases and be one of the deciding factors in the third branch of our nations government? And the lifetime appointment he’ll receive? He’ll never have to answer to any constituency for as long as he stays on that bench (which, if he follows his predecessor will be a very, very long time). What’s best is that, as I said before, he isn’t even supposed to offer opinions until after he’s appointed, despite how socially subjective the position may be. Robert’s inevitable confirmation aside, the appointment process is indicative of something much larger.

High school government taught me that it’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution as best it can when a case is brought forth. So, the nine dudes in robes are qualified enough to offer a totally objective opinion on a piece of paper that is totally specific and not at all open to interpretation, right?

Right. Okay, so the Constitution is ridiculously open to interpretation. The fact that the Constitution/American Independent Party and the Green Party can claim to be the sole defenders of the entire constitution should be enough to convince anyone. You can have any belief and find some way to call it constitutional, and thus you’ll make it more American than the other beliefs, I guess.

The Constitution has been rendered an essentially meaningless piece of paper: were Hitler American, do you seriously believe that he would publicly oppose the constitution? He’d crown himself a divine protector and supporter of every word in the bill of rights, and would thus get his team of lawyers to find some legal technicality that manages the argument that Jefferson really would have supported the extermination of all Jews. So, offer as a plausible idea that, say, the Supreme Court needs changing, and people cry Anti-americanism. Why?

The United States has always had an irrational love affair with the American constitution, while simultaneously neglecting the more important lessons our founding fathers can teach us. In other words, we as a people put too much stock in the constitution and not enough in the declaration of independence. Thus, even amending the terms and roles of a Supreme Court justice is equivalent slaughtering a sacred cow: Hands off. Don’t tread on me.