The Idiocy of the Supreme Court Nomination Process

by Scott Wagner

Somehow, a left-wing Internet group got my name and sent me an e-mail declaring that the confirmation of Judge John Roberts “could undo all progressive decisions of the past century!” Apparently, they would have me believe, a conservative judge will undoubtedly rule against “progressive” court decisions and set back American “progress.”
I hope I am not the only person who sees the incongruous sentiments behind that statement.
I know very little about John Roberts, and have become so disillusioned with the Supreme Court that I honestly care very little about him. However, here is a sample of the questions posed to Roberts by senators during his confirmation hearings:
Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked: “What role would you play in making right the wrongs revealed by Katrina?” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) demanded to know: “What is the best way for our society to protect ourselves against terrorists not affiliated with a nation-state[…]?”
Here is my question: what does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court does not set foreign policy or determine the best way to protect Der Vaterland. The Supreme Court does not control disaster relief. The Supreme Court has one job, and it is a simple one: listen to America’s legal problems, look at the Constitution, and decide if it gives the government any authority to bother with their problems. It is not difficult.
However, the Supreme Court has become a grandstand for “activist” judges of the left and right wings. Recently, in Gonzales v. Raich, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court’s decision that medical patients who grow and smoke marijuana in their own homes are seriously affecting interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has a right to regulate (read: outlaw) it. In Kelo v. New London, left-wing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported the majority decision to allow the appropriation of private property in order to generate higher tax revenue for local governments. Both of these decisions illustrate two of the myriad of unclear interpretations of the Constitution the Court has made, and both exemplify the type of agenda-pushing that occurs on the level of the nation’s highest Court.
Does the Commerce Clause allow for regulation of locally grown marijuana? Does the Fifth Amendment allow private property to be stolen on behalf of private developers?
No, of course not. Sadly, common sense is lacking in our government today.
The political debate that has been raging about Roberts and his place on the Court is fundamentally misguided. The Constitution is apolitical; it does not lean left and it does not lean right. However, no one seems to notice.
The Left has the sophomoric belief that the Constitution is some kind of “living document” whose interpretation changes with time. The Constitution is not perfect, but nothing could be further from the truth. This assumption is founded on the idea that as American society grows, bigger government and more laws are needed in order to control it. Such disingenuity is as politically sound as the Marxism that grounds it. If anything, as American society becomes more efficient and liberal (not left-wing; I mean the real kind of “liberal”), there should be more restrictions on the power of the government to control its citizens. We are not moving in that direction, unfortunately, and will continue to see increasing politicization of our desecrated Constitution.
As has become more usual, the conservatives seem to agree. Instead of sticking to the strict constructionism that should be governing rulings of the Court, they are just as willing to sacrifice their supposed ideals of limited government in favor of the right-wing brand of social engineering.
Supreme Court justices are not elected officials. Far be it for me to extol the virtues of limited republican democracy, but at least we have one-quarter of ourselves to blame for electing the politicians who are ruining the nation. With the Supreme Court, however, there is no accountability. These are people who are appointed by the Politician-in-Charge, and they remain in power as long as they want. There is no reason the American public should tolerate judicial “activism;” if the Constitution does not give the government explicit authority to do something, it is reserved to the States or to the people. It is very clearly enumerated.
I do not know what future-Chief Justice John Roberts will do to stain the fabric of American liberty. I almost do not want to think about it. What I do know, however, is that the politicians in Washington will continue doing what they have been doing for decades, and America will remain blissfully unaware of the political destruction that occurs every single day.