By By Craig Ziemba / guest columnist
Oct. 10, 2004
While the focus of this Presidential campaign has been the war on terror, there's another issue that looms even larger and will impact the future of American society far more for generations to come.
With eight out of nine members over the age of 65, our next president will likely have the opportunity to name two or three justices to the Supreme Court. The ideology this new court follows will determine whether unelected judges will continue to bypass the ballot box by imposing their will upon the people from the bench.
When it comes to judicial philosophy and the type of justices they would appoint, Sen. Kerry and President Bush couldn't be farther apart. George Bush promised in his acceptance speech before the Republican convention to "continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law." Meanwhile, liberal senators like John Kerry and John Edwards have spent the last four years blocking Bush's judicial appointments precisely because they disagree on that crucial point.
At odds
For decades, the Left has achieved victories in the courtroom they never would have been able to win at the ballot box. Whether it was removing prayer from the public schools, legalizing abortion, or legalizing computer-graphic child pornography, the Supreme Court has repeatedly returned verdicts that were at odds with the beliefs of the vast majority of the American population.
This is in part because federal judges no longer confine themselves to the mundane task of interpreting laws in light of the U.S. Constitution. They've become fond of creating laws and rights themselves and pulling determinations of "constitutionality" out of thin air. This practice is not only intellectually dishonest, it's also a breach of the separation of powers that endangers the future of our republic.
Like most federal office holders, our Supreme Court justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Yet, increasingly, justices disregard the Constitution or consider it as only one source of law to be consulted among many. In a recent speech, Justice O'Connor claimed that international treaties and decisions in other countries' courts could be persuasive authority in American courts. Justice Kennedy cited a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that created a constitutional right to homosexual acts.
And if you're uncomfortable with John Kerry's "Global Test" in foreign policy, just wait till he has the opportunity to appoint judges who will apply a similar global philosophy to cases before the Supreme Court.
No thanks. If I wanted to be subject to the International Criminal Court (which John Kerry approves) and judged under Belgian law, I'd move there.
Ignoring the Constitution
Where do federal judges get the idea that they can ignore the Constitution of the United States, disobey its limits to their power, and rewrite it without amending it? Perhaps they overstep their bounds because they don't like the idea of God-fearing, gun-owning Americans deciding whether or not they will pray before a high school football game or post the Ten Commandments in a state (not federal) courthouse.
A second term for President Bush would certainly mean a four-year battle over the federal judiciary. George Bush has promised to restrain the activist Supreme Court by appointing judges who will respect the laws of the United States as they are written, not as the justices or the rest of the world wish them to be.
Battles must be chosen wisely, and this one is worth the fight.
Craig Ziemba is a pilot who lives in Meridian.