|
Rehnquist's
Strange Logic
January
3, 2002
by Bob Volpitto
In a January 1 article appearing in the Washington Post,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist lamented that by delaying
confirmation of Bush's reactionary-bent judicial nominees
the Democratic-controlled Senate "hurt war on terror." Is
it axiomatic to say that the Republican-controlled Senate's
obstruction of confirmation of Clinton's Progressive/Liberal
judges provided an open door to terrorist activities?
Nonsense, Mr. Chief Justice. It's all over ideology.
Judges are appointed for life terms, as you well know. Their
rulings determine the course of this nation's future. This
assumption is no better illustrated in the Supreme Court's
edicts of December 2000 when first there was a stay order
that prevented further vote counting in Florida and the subsequent
5-4 decision to anoint Bush president on very weak arguments
of equal protection and irreprable harm to their favorite
candidate if all Florida votes were counted based on voter
intent.
The Chief Justice further laments that the lack of lower
court judges will prevent the Supreme Court from hearing more
cases. Let me remind the Chief Justice that the Supreme Court
has the option to hear or not to hear any case it chooses.
In fact, statistics show that historically the Court only
hears one percent of cases that come before it - that's one
out of hundred brought to it for an appelate decision, rejecting
the rest.
Rehnquist further implored that we must return to the rule
of law which he and four other justices violated in their
December rulings more than a year ago. Ideology, with feeble
arguments to support it, supplanted the rule of law during
the search to insure a free election and reporting an honest
result.
Too, this court has back-slid on its once strong opinions
favoring federalism and judicial restraint - both favored
tenets of political faith of the current occupant of the White
House (or so we have been led to believe). We now have rulings
that favor federalism when it suits and are subject to Reactionary
Judicial Activism when deemed necessary to advance a personal
point of view. How convenient.
So, Mr. Chief Justice, it ill behooves you to lecture the
Senate on judicial appointments or proclaim a narrow interpretation
of Constitutional law that you and four other justices bent
to suit your personal political viewpoint. You may consider
your position a mere half step below Solomon's when it comes
to issuing judicial decrees but you are no less human than
the rest of us who view politics a human endeavor.
The rulings that were benchmarks of shame in years past in
the Dred-Scott case of 1857 and the Plessy-Ferguson case 1892
are no less blots on the Court's integrity than those issued
in December 2000. Weep all you may, sir, for stalled nominations
in today's Senate, but these senators are only trying to deny
more injustice.
|
