It makes me cringe every time I hear or read about the 'left' or 'right' of the U.S. Supreme Court. They want to talk about 'conservative' judges vs. 'liberal' judges. Judges should be judges.
I'm writing this on July 4, the day the United States celebrates its independence from England. Through that independence we created three branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch.
They are supposed to operate as separate branches of government to bring some kind of checks and balances to make sure one branch of the government doesn't have too much power. When I was majoring in journalism at the University of Alabama, one of my textbooks was entitled 'The Fourth Estate', which basically meant that our founding fathers deemed freedom of press like a fourth branch of the government.
As a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the importance of a free press to keep the government in check. In a letter to his fellow delegates he wrote “If I had to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
If you've read my columns over the years you know I'm a big advocate of voting. Many people think their one vote doesn't count; especially in national races like president. Whomever we elect as president will only serve this country a maximum of eight years. Who the president nominates and who the U.S. Senate confirms to the Supreme Court can set the direction of this country for decades upon decades.
President Trump is expected to announce his choice Friday for someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Most conservative Republicans are jumping for joy that Trump will tip the scales of justice toward conservative views of the U.S. Constitution. Liberal Democrats are scared to death that a right-wing justice will totally tip the scale away from their agenda.
Folks, it's going to be tipped to the right, bet on it. Even those Republicans who don't like Trump will rally around a conservative nominee.
It shouldn't be that way. A judge should make decisions based on the law and based on precedent. Their personal views shouldn't enter the equation.
Too often I see appellate-level judges who try to legislate from the bench by simply interpreting laws a different way. It shouldn't matter whether they are conservative or liberal or anywhere in between; they take an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
I took media law when I was in college. Of all that I learned, or was supposed to learn, the lesson I got from that class was to call a lawyer when you have questions.
I've talked to several journalism classes over the years, and I drive that point home. Knowing the law, as it's written, isn't really worth the paper it's written on. Knowing how appellate courts interpret the law is where the rubber meets the road.
The wording in the law may not change, but what a judge or panel of judges say the law means can change the law. What's legal one day can become illegal the next based on decisions made by the Supreme Court.
During the confirmation hearings, my bet is Trump's nominee will get drilled by Democrats over Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion in the United States. The nominee will likely come from the federal appeals court and how he or she voted on that issue at that level will be brought out at the hearings. How they voted on issues like gun control, immigration, discrimination issues, search warrant issues and many more will be brought out. If they did their job right, they followed the precedent set by previous Supreme Courts and upheld the law of the land. They may not like the law, but they took an oath to uphold it.
Leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections, the debate over Trump's Supreme Court nominee is likely to take the spotlight.
I hope the nominee and eventual justice will make decisions based on his or her brain and not his or her heart or political affiliation.
