|  Readers on Runaway Jurists
Editor: In regards to David Keene's Stop the Runaway Jurists, this is just more senseless stuff from the Judicial world. The Constitution seems pretty clear to me; I wonder why judges can't read it? David Gray
Editor: Regarding Mr. Keene's article, Stop the Runaway Jurists, is hard to imagine that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court believes it can act any way it wants. If that is the point why even have a constitution? I am no expert but I did not think their job was to legislate from the bench, rather it was to interpret law with respect to the constitution. These men and women in robes do not seem to have a clue as to what most Americans want and are bent on forcing their views on the people of this great country. They really must wake up !!! There is no room in their decisions for personal thoughts and feelings and especially no room as to using decisions from foreign courts to decide cases in the United States. I always thought we were a sovereign nation. Anyway, I believe some of them are out of control. Ronald Gigantino
Editor: David Keene is correct. Judicial independence is important. Politics should not sway the court, The only considerations should be the facts and the law. Andrew L. Sullivan
Editor: RE: Stop the Runaway Jurists. We need do as Thomas Jefferson did. Delete these fools as judges. I do not need to look to Europe for my standards of justice. We left Europe to escape their wrong views! Teri Kortens
Editor: Can't these justices be charged with treason against the Constitution for deliberately ignoring it when making decisions? There must be some way to get rid of stupidity on the bench! Thank you, Sherman Dye
Editor: Why ACU is not throwing its considerable support into educating the American public and lobbying for passage of HR3799 and S2082, The Constitution Restoration Act? Supporting weak legislation of the sort mentioned in your article will never achieve effective results. The Supreme Court has clearly, unequivocally announced that they no longer consider themselves bound by previous Constitutional constraints. It is past time to effectively rein them in. These Justices are traitors by whatever definition one chooses to use. Our Republic is slipping away while we dither! COL, US ARMY
Editor: In his article, David Keene is not stating conservative principles. Justice Kennedy demonstrated courage by reversing his opinion and correcting his stance on this issue. As a people, we should not condone state-sanctioned murder. The justice system is corrupt and abusive, effecting draconian 18th century justice. As a conservative of almost 40 years, I am appalled that you would suggest that we stand by and allow the “state” to murder our citizens, let alone those below the age of 18. Shame on you. Michael Redding
Editor: I am a longtime student of the history of the writing and ratification of the Constitution as well as a fellow conservative who is concerned about the direction the Supreme Court has taken. Many organizations, including ACU, have suggested or supported ideas such as use of the Exceptions clause in Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution to limit the Court's jurisdiction. My reading of the Founders finds no support for that interpretation of that clause. Neither the Federalists who supported it nor the anti-Federalists pointed to this provision even in their discussions of seeking to limit judicial usurpation of legislative prerogative/power
I do believe the anti-Federalists were correct in their warning of judicial supremacy being one of the products of the Constitution. Because I revere and believe deeply in the ideas behind our framing document and following the original meaning/text in interpreting it, I believe we must look to history for our solutions. In my opinion, we must begin to look to Constitutional amendment to solve this problem. Perhaps there are solutions short of this major step, and I hope there are, because, as you, I am hesitant to tamper with the Constitution, especially since the problem hasn't been rooted in the document itself but instead in the Court's misinterpretation of it. The answer is not to be found in provoking inter-departmental or federal-state Constitutional crises either. We must seek something with more firmament beneath it. There are many possibilities out there, but among them, as you have probably heard at one time or another, has been to have the Supreme Court (which I'll henceforth abbreviate as SCOTUS) justices either elected, or to have them serve a term, and rotate out. These both have advantages and disadvantages which I'll not belabor here.
Another suggestion that has come to mind has been, as I came across in one of anti-Federalist Brutus's pamphlets, to allow Supreme Court decisions to be overridden. Brutus pointed out that England's high court was subject to be overruled by the House of Lords. What about the Senate? The full Congress? The House? Personally, I am opposed to the latter as that would only highlight the obvious majoritarian concerns. A super-majority? In my Federalist/Madisonian heart of hearts, I would love to combine this with a repeal of the 17th Amendment so that any Senate involvement would strengthen the federalist bonds. Of course, I know that won't happen, but I can wish. Gene Wisdom
|
