You Ever Wonder Why Politicians Obsess Over Appointing A New Supreme Court Judge?
The answer is really quite simple. It’s because the truth is, by and large these federal judges are nothing more than judicial activist. Their appointed by politicians with a political agenda that doesn’t necessarily align with the law or the Constitution. When they make a decision about who they’re going to appoint, they don’t make the decision based on who they think will be unbiased to any political agenda, or who they think will do everything within their power to follow the Constitution and the law to the letter regardless of their political affiliations political and policy positions. No no, it’s quite the contrary.
They choose somebody that they believe will make rulings that are aligned with their political agendas and political affiliations views regardless of how aligned they are with the actual law or Constitution. Their political agenda comes before any laws or Constitutional restraints that lie before them. Every once in a while, you do get a president with integrity that will take the proper decision process and make the proper decisions in who they appoint, that they believe will truly follow the Constitution and the rule of law regardless of any political affiliation, but that’s becoming increasingly rare.
Having an even number of Supreme Court Justices is actually much better and what may have been originally intended. By having an even number of judges in the Supreme Court, it creates judicial restraint, which helps the cause of checks and balances in our system. Judicial restraint with an even number of justices deadlocked 4-4 forces decisions in the case to be upheld by the lower courts, but does not create a legal precedent.
Even in the 1800’s when they added an extra judge creating an odd number of judges to the Supreme Court, it wasn’t because they wanted an extra judge to have the final say in a constitutional decision. It was because the country was growing and they needed an extra person who was educated and informed about policies and laws in the newly developed areas of the country. So in essence they simply needed an extra expertise to help they’re judging decisions.
Now my opinion about Judicial review with the Supreme Court…
I’m against the whole Supreme Court judicial review debacle. I don’t believe that the ultimate decisions should be made by the Supreme Court. We have a congressional process that is far more aligned with the checks and balances system that the country was founded upon. Is it perfect? Nothing is perfect. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the Supreme Court. The court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of our Constitution. This sounds great, but in reality, it opens the door for tyranny. Because in essence we are allowing the courts to have the ultimate say if legislation is Constitutional or not. But is that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind or did they want Congress to have the ultimate say in what is Constitutional or not? Because even if Congress passes a bill that may in reality ultimately be unconstitutional, the process itself was still Constitutional and therefore if we the people find that Congress passed an unconstitutional bill, we can vote them out of office so that unconstitutional bill can be overturned through the Constitutional process of Congress as opposed to opening the door to every piece of legislation being put in front of the Supreme Court to rule on. In fact, the courts are finding themselves writing legislation with the whole principle of the courts writing law and judging law coming down to one person now being literally equal to 535 members of Congress. So even though the House and the Senate pass laws through a well-designed checks and balance system, one unelected guy, with one vote on the Supreme Court could have the final say.
– Michael Vincent –
Ron Paul Talks About The Supreme Court And The Soft Tyranny Of Judicial Review…