Rep. Cori Bush, D-MO, tweeted last Wednesday. “I would love to see a Black woman who will insist on racial, environmental, social, disability, and economic justice named to the Supreme Court.”
Commenting on that statement, one of America’s foremost presidential scholars, Dr. Tim Blessing, Professor of History and Political Science at Alvernia University, had this to say, “I note the quote: ‘I would love to see a [nominee] who will insist on racial, environmental, social, disability, and economic justice named to the Supreme Court.’ It is a well-accepted rule that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Although the court does overturn past decisions, the key to Anglo-American law is ‘stare decisis’ based on precedent and the text of the constitution as past decisions have determined it to be or interpreted it (the law in general) to be. While the court does legislate in its own way, its legislation is restrained by the Magna Carta, article 45, injunction: ‘We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law [which presupposes that there is a law already in existence and not being initiated by the decision of one officer] of the realm and are minded to keep it well.’ The law descends to the court from the interaction of the Executive and the Legislative branch. The call for a court member to BEGIN with the finding already in mind, i.e., a ‘justice’ that arises from other than constitutional means, is a ‘justice’ that deprives the legislature and the Executive of their functions as representatives of the realm and its people (or, in our instance, the republic). It is, in short, profoundly anti-democratic, profoundly aristocratic, and is so in a way that violates the most fundamental bases of the Anglo-American rule of law. It is, in short, a call to a society where ‘justice’ is only the ‘justice’ of the victors.”
Constitutionally the high court is charged with interpretation and review, it is not supposed to legislate to any ends, left or right. It is thus designed to be independent of ideology, party, or partisan factors. Thus Bush’s wish above shows a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution or a willful defiance of it.
Judicial review in the US was established by the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. From the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Marbury v. Madison was a legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.”
If there is only one thing to know about the Supreme Court it is Marbury v Madison. It defines the court’s role as one of review. Not ideological, not legislative, not overtly political or partisan, but one of review and only constitutional review. Many these days would be well served by remembering that.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
Have had 2 tier justice under Trump admin via Deep State to date
We have been awash in Judges making law, legislating from the bench and creating legal opinion from legislation where the legislation itself is silent or fails to state unequivocally that this means that or doesn’t mean that. It is a common and not misplaced criticism of our courts. Picking a Justice who has not been a constitutionalist and who is picked for racist or sexist reasons, which totally violates how many legal precedents and laws supposedly preventing discrimination,is to wage a further ideological war and is the height of hypocrisy. The constitution is there to PROTECT all of us and the mechanisms for its change are made difficult because without those protections we’d already be a banana republic dictatorship where the strongman du jour makes the constituion fit his own needs as needed.
Ya, this whole goal for them to elect a black woman to SCOTUS, is highly irregular. Nothing more than a Marxist move by a Marxist / Socialist / Communist regime. To simply fill a seat based on color is affirmative action on steroids. It doesn’t matter to them her qualifications, but just that she’s a black female. It’s nothing more than an affirmation of their CRT agenda. The first goal should be their interpretation of the law, etc, and that they are IMPARTIAL!
Rep.Cory Bush is a socialist moron,and needs to be voted the hell out of office by a wide margin.Judges and justices must follow the law and U.S. Constitution to the letter.They cannot interpret the law or the U.S. Constitution as they see fit,and they must be unbiased and non political.Does she NOT know the laws of the land,and did she NOT read the U.S. Constitution,the very Constitution she swore to protect and uphold as she was being sworn into office?My guess is she didn’t,and she doesn’t give two s**ts about it.Just like every other socialist currently holding local to federal offices in the U.S.