Future Supreme Court Justices
Suffer me a minor point and attendant suggestion.
For a while—just for a while, mind you—perhaps we could set aside the idea of politically motivated paybacks, quid pro quo motivations, and ideologically driven hopes in appointing Justices to the Supreme Court.
I know, I know: Radical! OUTRAGEOUS, even.
Hear me out.
Perhaps, for just a few appointments, we could seek in potential Justices these three qualities:
a vast understanding not merely of common law but of its evolving arc across time in building an ever more refined rationale of rule by which people should interact with one another both in their capacities as individuals and in their small and large aggregates as groups;
a profound knowledge of the history of statutory law that may guide clear understanding of what laws mean, what intentions were purposely crafted in their enactment, and how that intent in application comports with the United States Constitution;
a keen insight into original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution that we may have an unyielding anchor in documentary statement that was written by men of sufficiently great wisdom who were motivated to establish a nation that would not be drawn asunder from external enemies or internal strife.
Concomitant to these qualifications, and acting as an umbrella over them, we would in our search for Justices look for those who could masterfully balance strictly constructionist interpretation of statutory law against the desirable, if often impatient, impetus afforded by time and social evolution to advance the community from early brutishness to later, humane accommodations. In broadest summary of this most important, overarching selection criterion, and without any defect in the above three requirements, every person considered for position on the high court would always, unfailingly be dedicated to preserving at all possible opportunities the underlying interest those founders of this republic had in finding the means by which natural law could be respected in the maintenance of a civil, well-ordered society.
That last, overriding criterion would be the most important and the most difficult to fulfill because it is the tendency of the ignorant, the rash, and the harsh to imagine that individual freedom is anathema to a maximally civil, well-ordered society. It is not, but it is far easier to find a construction of law that permits license at the expense of order or, as is common in the present time, a construction of law that progressively subordinates freedom to the interest of government in security as a flawed proxy for order.
Such guiding principles in the selection of men and women for the high court would necessarily demand that radicals like Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, ideologues like Associate Justice Samuel Alito, political favorites like Chief Justice John Roberts, and imbeciles of political opportunism like Associate Justice Clarence Thomas be turned away. It is their kind who, in the cacophony of their opinions replacing judgment, beliefs replacing reason, and personalities replacing jurisprudence, deny this nation the opportunity to construct an arc of constitutional law that adheres as closely as possible to the principle that free people accorded their rights under natural law organize to the best nation and, consequentially, the best society.
In fear of bias to the Left, the conservatives cast their lot with the degraded men and women of the extremist Federalist Society.
In fear of bias to the Right, liberals are now planning their response with men and women who might promote this or that agenda.
In neither case, however, do we have any conversation about finding those who would, despite personal affiliations and background, locate a profound, consistent respect for liberty, a deep suspicion of the state in its authority, and a brilliance of mind to walk the narrow and harrowing path that would keep us safe as a nation and free as a people. That conversation is worth having.
As the alternative, we may continue a long, tit-for-tat, debilitating whipsaw of Supreme Court decisions from one case to the next and one era to the next in which event enduring natural law never emerges, while passions, agendas, and plans are paraded as the pale imitation of the rule of law.
I submit that it is in this degraded arc of Supreme Courts that the greatest harm will be done, for it is in this environment, where the rule of law is at auction, that justice cannot be aligned to its gravest duty, which is to hold at bay the ever-waiting state that would prefer obedience at the fist of law to compliance at the behest of freedom.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
Comments
Wrote blackdog:
Wrote blackdog:
And I had not seen the comment below. Damn, Wraith, you better start acting really stoopid soon or you really might get drafted.
But then that never slowed the neo-bastards down, did it?
Wrote nightshift66:
A noble plan, Dark Wraith. I, however, am willing to bet that tit-for-tat is the order of the day for however long this form of government remains standing.
Wrote trog69:
Good morning, nightshift66 and obvious Wraith is obvious. hehehe. You have this habit of bringing up fairly apparent subjects that are somehow overlooked by most. Of course it's the case that in a wise justice, they'd rule along the constitutions lines, rather than their own ideology.
My question to you and nightshift66 is, how do you feel about Obama's constitutional law background? Have we had a president who was able to pick a justice who backed natural law over expedient rulings? Even if Barack is careful on who he picked, there's no guarantee that justice would rule appropriately. I've read a little about B. O.'s stint as a law professor, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so I can't pretend to be able to parse his mind's eye towards constitutional leanings.
Wrote trog69:
Oh and Hey, Blackie! Hope your doing good, buddy.
Wrote nightshift66:
I am not familiar enough with Obama's theories of law to say what his personal views might be on the subject. I can say that given political realities in D.C., no matter what his theories of law might be he will be pushed, even driven, into choosing justices who are perceived to be correct on three or four hot issues, primarily abortion. Even if Obama has some desire to correct the partisan mess of SCOTUS, he will not be permitted to do it. And I've no indication that he actually wants to do so.
Wrote Peter of Lone Tree:
The person who is elected president, if called upon to choose someone to nominate for the Supreme Court, will probably select whoever gives the best head.
Wrote trog69:
Even if Obama has some desire to correct the partisan mess of SCOTUS, he will not be permitted to do it. And I've no indication that he actually wants to do so.
One reason that I'm anxious for the election to be over is the possibility that Obama might somehow divulge his thoughts on why he kowtowed to the authoritarian/corporate entities by voting for the FISA/Telecom Immunity outrage. Of course, as DW has commented, protecting the Dem leaders who are just as guilty of covering up the lawbreaking of this administration must have some ties to his and others (Morton Halperin, for ex.) reversals on this. As a supposed constitutional expert though, Barack needs to come up with something other than the obvious horseshit his mouthpieces have shoveled out.
I fully admit that I don't see anything that would pacify me on this, so I'm sure to be disappointed no matter what he says. My only hope is that enough nitwits screw up while delving into personal data they have no business looking through, and enough of our representatives in the legislature are hammered until some changes are made.
Also, I'd like my pony to be yellow and blue, with pretty green eyes. And my SS payments tripled, please.
Wrote trog69:
Even if Obama has some desire to correct the partisan mess of SCOTUS, he will not be permitted to do it. And I've no indication that he actually wants to do so.
Okay, this time I'll comment on topic. Why wouldn't Barack Obama's choice, if not a blatant ideologue, be accepted? If he has the majority that most pundits( Praised be their names!) predict for the legislature, he shouldn't have too much problem getting his pick seated. I'm not well-informed about the SC nomination machinations, so I'm eager to be corrected.
I agree with you that so far, Obama hasn't shown any indication that he'd do much to buck the system.
Wrote nightshift66:
trog69, of course the Senate will confirm his selection. I meant that his selection will be dictated by the economic interests that back him.
Wrote Lisa Ranger:
Breathtaking. Eloquent. Might you consider sending this essay off to other publications? I believe it should be read widely, beyond your erudite pool of readers.
"natural law could be respected in the maintenance of a civil, well-ordered society" -- to this, the conspiracy theorist comes out. A little dissent among the hoi polloi is a good thing, as it diverts attention from the moneyed criminal classes. To foment bigotry, hatred, whatever, through inaction or intent, is protective of a corrupt regime.
A truly civil and aware society is at cross-purposes to administrations which play shell games.
Wrote Wild Clover:
May I ask our esteemed host how many justices in our history have actually been chosen for these qualities? I would guess only a handful, as well as mentioning that these qualities do reside somewhat in the eye of the beholder...I also know that most of the justices, recent nominations excepted, have tended during their tenure to grow beyond partisan and idealogical confines and actually do their jobs. I personally tend to hark to the preamble when I decide what any clause means in today's world...the preamble is the author's statement of intent, the precis as it were of what the rest is only the filling in of details. Part of those details were putting in provision for the future needs of the country as it matured and grew...either through the amendment process, or through the interpretation of the court taking into account things like no longer needing a militia in each burg to run off maurading Indians, or assault guns being a hell of a lot nastier in the hands of a madman than a flintlock. Like society deciding women were human. Like deciding blacks were human.
Right now the court reflects the corporatocracy this country has become. It reflects "compassionate conservatism" ala Bush. Society is beginning to soundly reject both concepts. I'm hoping that the court holds true to history and steps out ahead of the curve. I won't hold my breath, since the "true conservative" types seem to take such pride in their ignorance and lack of care about societal ills. The nominees I would like would be one's who did not believe in the myth that a corporate entity has equal rights to an actual human being, and who is willing to open their eyes to where the society is heading and judge the ancient guidelines accordingly. I don't care if they be liberal or conservative, they need to be progressive and concerned about the individual's rights. Right now, that kind of criteria probably means a liberal judge...I'd say a libertarian, but I'm not sure they would smack corporate power...caveat emptor and all that, you know.
Wrote trog69:
Nightshift66, sorry 'bout that; I was too tired to read properly, and my response showed it. I agree that there are moneyed interests and ideological "advisors" who will steer BO toward their idea of a great SC justice. Just as some justices did not follow the script as much as their supporters had hoped, though, I wonder if Obama's constitutional law background may help him select a more balanced jurist? I mean, if Bush could nominate so horrid a creature as Miers, couldn't O'Barry do his own thang, and go for a more temporate choice? That's what I'd hope for, anyway.
Wild Clover, your take on the 'human rights' accorded to corporate entity is right on. Law-wise, "I know nuzink, Herr Colonel!", and I'm sure I'd be surprised by what our founding fathers would say about some of our 'progressive' stances, but I'd bet that they'd never, ever have wanted that travesty of a reading to prevail.
Wrote nightshift66:
No offense taken, trog69; I wasn't particularly clear in my original comment. I would certainly expect Obama's SCOTUS and lower court choices to be better than McCain's on some issues, such as abortion. But on questions of corporate power and the existing financial structure, I think they'd be about the same.
Add Comments
Log in
Become a Registered Commenter
« Return to the main page.
This blog offers Internet travelers a place where they can discuss economics, finance, politics, and other topics of scholarly and practical interest to thinking people. Your comments are always welcome, and your visits are most appreciated.
Your host of this Weblog is an award-winning college teacher and writer who specializes in economics, finance, mathematics, business administration, computer hardware and software skills, and English grammar and composition. His extensive writings on the history of the English language appeared on About.com in the avatar of the Selig Wraith in the 
Send a Secure Message to the Dark Wraith
![[Valid RSS]](http://dark-wraith.com/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
I hereby in my capacity as ingrate and rablerouser do nominate the Dark Wraith as a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. By virtue of his superior mind, great heart and vast store of courage he has earned this appointment.
Ballots noted, the Wraith will be sworn in tomorrow.
Case closed. This proceeding is adjourned.
To the lumberyard!!