"This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature.
But they make law."
- Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D) New York
Gee, that's not what I was taught. I was taught that Congress makes law. The Supreme Court decides how it applies to certain cases, and whether or not the law is in line with the Constitution of the United States of America (if it isn't they "break" law, or invalidate it -- strike it down -- but they don't "make" it.).
To graduate from High School, I was required to pass a test on the US Constitution. It was so important that when they thought they lost my test results, I almost had to take it again.
I think to be elected to Congress, you ought to have to pass a test on the US Constitution. You should be aware of the framers intentions and state of mind when they wrote it. These were bright men. Their ideals should not be brushed aside lightly. They put a lot of thought in to it.
Shumer's thinking is in line with what activist groups want. A Supreme Court that can make law. If a Supreme Court can make law, activist groups can bypass the democratic process (Congress) and lobby the defacto dictators of it instead.
In the same press conference, Sen. Leahy (D), Vermont says
We have, right now, the most activist Supreme Court in my lifetime. No Supreme Court of my lifetime has overturned or undercut more laws passed by Congress than this Court has, everything from Violence Against Women on through, environmental laws, employment laws, all of these things.
This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law.
-- Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D), Vermont
Hmmm.... my definition of an activist court is a court that makes laws. The Senator from Vermont believes that a court that rules that laws, or parts of laws are unconstitutional is an activist court. Senator Leahy, that IS a large part of the job of the Supreme Court. Just because a law is passed for a politically enshrined good cause (violence against women, environmental laws, employment laws, etc) doesn't mean it's a good law or is in line with the Constitution of the United States.
It's one of the things that irks me most about the left. If you are against a bad environmental law, then you are labled as "Anti-Environment". If you are against a bad domestic violence law, then you are "Anti-Woman". If you are against a bad civil rights law, you are "Racist".
You are not even allowed to consider that the law might have some serious flaws. What happened to the favorite Liberal rallying cry -- "Question Authority!"? (one which I happen to agree with, but more on that in another post)
What I want in a Supreme Court Justice is someone who understands and embraces the Constitution of the United States of America, not an "Environmental", or a "Pro/Anti-Life" judge, or a "Pro/Anti-Buisiness" judge, or a "Pro/Anti-Gun" judge. I want a judge who knows what his or her job is, and perhaps more importantly, what it isn't.
From what I can gather, Judge John Roberts is just such a Judge.