Dear Fox News Editor,
In your editorial named "5 Places You'll (Probably) Never Find a Supreme Court Justice" you cleverly emphasise what America will loose with the retirement of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. With the admission of nominee Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a lot of things will change in the US Supreme Court. For example, like you said, if Kenan is confirmed, single member of the Supreme Court will have attended Harvard or Yale. I agree with you that these 9 Justices will be making decisions involving healthcare, enviornment, terrorism, etc. even though they don't have much practical knowledge about these issues. Also, with the retirement of Stevens, the Supreme Court will loose its only US army veteran and a Protestant Justice. In United States, being a Protestant has a lot of significance as the earliest settlers and colonies were mainly Protestant.
You also mentioned the different ways to interpret the constitution by a Justice. One way could be by simply following what the constitution says and by believing that it cannot be "distorted" or open to any interpration. But if this was the case, the Court wouldn't really have much significance since its not doing anything special. The other way would be to interpret the Constitution in our own way and allow it to be ammended as scenarios change. To further strengthen your argument I would say that this is the real role of the Supreme Court and this is what the Founding Fathers themselves wanted. It can be seen in the Necessary and Proper Clause which allowed a broader interpration of the Constitution and allowed ammendments to be made as times change.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/12/peter-roff-horace-cooper-elena-kagan-supreme-court-harvard-yale-nascar-church/
No comments:
Post a Comment