U.S. Supreme Court Flavors

The tricky part is interpretation. The Constitution itself is a straightforward document that details how we are to govern this country. It describes the three branches and the jurisdiction of each. It has a bill of rights to delineate the rights of the citizenry. The constitution is amendable whenever it becomes necessary.

But amendments are not a slam-dunk even when the proposed amendment has passionate support. Amendments need three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposal. This requirement makes it difficult to get an amendment passed. The diversity of experiences by the citizens of each state, make it difficult to amend the Constitution. Any proposal needs the ratification of 38 of the fifty states.

However, there is a work-around. Our Supreme Court Justices act as seers. They know that the Constitution does not specifically address all issues. So they take it upon themselves to divine meaning in the Constitution. It is in the divination of the meaning of the Constitution where the Court flavor comes into being.

When an issue comes before the Court that the Constitution does not specifically address, the Justices can rule one way or the other or they can refuse to hear the case. They write their opinions in that magnanimous legal jargon that is supposed to convey omnipotence.

The decisions passed down by the Supreme Court are 'flavored' by the makeup of the Court. Politically left justices tend to rule in favor of issues that favor Liberal causes, while politically right justices tend to rule in favor of Conservative causes.

If the Constitution does not address an issue, their decision sets a precedent that serves as a guideline for future courts to use. Justices from the right or the left would not dare send an issue to Congress for a decision by the people using the amendment process. The Supreme Court Justices reserve the power to amend the Constitution through their decisions. That is why their makeup is so important politically.

In a perfect world, the Supreme Court would only decide issues addressed by the Constitution. Amendments that clarify the position of the will of the people on the social issues of our times should be proposed. For instance, if you think abortions should be legal, put the proposal through the amendment process. If the proposal gets 38 states to ratify it, then it becomes the law of the land. If not, then the people have spoken, abortion would not be granted status. You might ask: "Why would we need an amendment for this issue?" Well, if Congress passed a law allowing abortion, it would be challenged and go to the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution does not mention abortion, we would be leaving the decision of rewriting of the constitution to 9 men in black robes instead of the will of the people.

It is time to utilize the amendment process. The people need to decide the social issues of our times. The beauty of the amendment process is that if the people make a mistake, they can undo it with an amendment. Let the Justices decide on those cases covered by the Constitution and not have the power to continually rewrite it through decree.

Cheers,

-Robert-