With the passing of Justice Scalia, we are again thrown into a confirmation battle over the political ideology of a new Supreme Court justice who will be interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.
Ironically, the passing of the champion of original intent in interpreting laws has created a national debate as to how the Constitution will be construed.
What a sad state of affairs that the death of a single person has thrown our entire nation into a state of uncertainty about the future of our constitutional rights.
The fact we are worried whether a replacement justice will simply read the law and apply it, versus imparts his or her political ideology is ludicrous.
Any inkling of willingness to follow politics over the written law ought to be grounds for disqualification or removal from a judgeship.
The very concept of an unelected and life-tenured judiciary making political decisions ought to outrage Americans.
The institution offends every notion of democracy because, unless you have a law degree from some elite private school, most of us never have the remotest possibility of becoming one of these chosen few.
Yet 320-plus million of us are forced to look to these privileged individuals to tell us what rights we may rely upon.
As Americans, we can no longer tolerate the idea of selecting judges who desire predetermined outcomes. Laws that can mean anything mean nothing.
Americans and our leaders must demand judges who will follow the law wherever it leads, and let the legislature change it if necessary.
There should be no question that the Constitution and federal laws should be applied as they were approved by the citizens of the United States and their elected representatives.
The only way to guaranty this will require a constitutional amendment to limit discretion of judges to specific rules of construction in applying the law to a set of facts.
Scalia’s passing illustrates that if the death of one man changes what the Constitution says, it is time to amend the Constitution.