It remains unclear to me whether those spinning forth with the primal cry "President Bush must appoint replacement justices to the Supreme Court that will unite the country" are being purposefully misleading; are woefully ignorant of Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution or both.
Advertisement - story continues below
One need not be a constitutional scholar when reading Section 3: Articles 1 & 2 to understand no such constitutional requisite remotely or suggestively exists. One need only be able to read – which considering the state of public schools today may be challenging, but not an impossible obstacle to overcome – even if it means having someone read it to you (or them as it were).
TRENDING: Capitol authorities on high alert Thursday over 'real inauguration' threat
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Advertisement - story continues below
Section 1: Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Advertisement - story continues below
Section 2: Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Advertisement - story continues below
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Article 3 establishes the Court and establishes the types of cases said court is to hear. The responsibility of its justices is to interpret the Constitution and decide questions of federal law. If the court had followed its jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, abortionists would not need fear a reversal of Roe – it would never have come before the Supreme Court to start with.
Even so, as Steven Ertelt points out, if Roe were overturned yesterday, abortion would only be illegal in seven states. "In the rest of the states, the scrapping of [Roe] would make no immediate difference" ("If Supreme Court Overturns Roe, Abortion Illegal in Only Seven States," June 28, 2005) But I digress.
Harry Reid, D-Nev., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Joe Biden, D-Del., and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., all display their rank partisanism and their unmitigated, shameless dishonor to the very document they are sworn to uphold. Theirs is an infidelity rivaling that of a former Baptist Sunday school teacher who decided the Bible was corrupt and worthy of his contempt.
One expects such over-the-top vitriol from the likes of Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice and Ralph Neas of People For the American Way – they, like Michael Moore and Danny Glover, are proof positive that in a free society, publicly espousing insanity and borderline treasonous opinion doesn't sentence them to firing squads.
The president has promised to appoint those who will honor the intent of the Framers.
Those manics running to and fro claiming he must appoint according to their directives argue a canard meant to mislead, subvert and redefine the Constitution as written.
It is an absolute falsehood to suggest that a justice to the Supreme Court must by constitutional fiat be anything other than an arbiter of the Constitution as written and intended.
Listen carefully to the "sky will fall" rhetoric from the aforementioned and their minions and reread what the Constitution dictates for the Supreme Court – then ask yourself how could those elected, who presumably know the Constitution, be so wrong about what it actually says? Why would they willfully and intentionally attempt to mislead Americans pursuant to what the document actually says? Why would they argue for those who advocate for a court that rules on issues belonging to the states and that are clearly defined as outside the original intent of the Framers?
Why would America not want justices who understand theirs is to uphold the original intent of the Framers – not clever postulations of American Civil Liberties Union lawyers?
