ANSWER: The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
In an ideal world. The reality is our government is no longer beholden to the Constitution, puts party before Country, and makes up the rules as they go.
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
I said in my last number, that the supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to shew the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.
There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
Actually our federal government is still beholden to the Constitution. But I do agree with you it is acting in rebellion to its text and legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
”The deception of the appeal for a “convention of states” lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it’s easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a “convention of states” in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016
How do you figure that when the Constitution delegates specific powers to Congress and they in turn defer to either the Executive or faceless unelected bureacrats under the Executive? Where is oversight of the various alphabet soup agencies that are also de facto writing new law via regulations/agency rules?
You have just identified one of the ways our federal government is acting in rebellion to our Constitution and its documented legislative intent.
JWK
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
And in the process they rebel against our written constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
The way I see it, SCOTUS only function is to interpret decisions from lower courts when Constitutionality is questioned, or if either the Legislative or Executive Branches have a Constitutional ISSUE. SCOTUS IS NOT there to mandate a change to LAW making it Constitutionally palatable. They are to strike it ALL down if there is a Constitutional Issue with any part. Let the Legislative branch fix it or not and let it die. Lower Courts should also be HELD to the same standard along with removal from the bench if 3 of their Ruling are overruled by a higher court or the Supreme Court. Offending Judge/s should be automatically removed from the bench, impeached for attempting to rule outside their sphere of power granted under the Separation of Powers for the 3 Branches of Government or they are just Plumb Ignorant of the Constitution and Law.
Huh? The primary function of a supreme court Justices does not change regardless if one agrees or disagrees with a particular written opinion.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
To be sure, our Constitution, in clear language, tells Judges and Justices what their fundamental job is, and also commands them to adhere to “the rules of the common law”.
QUESTION: What is the most fundamental rule “of the common law”?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited system only object to Supreme Court opinions when they are not in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
Those who object to Supreme Court rulings because of their personal feelings and desires, and criticize specific judges and Justices based on these grounds [their personal feelings and desires], are the very type of people our Constitution was designed to protect us from. And that is why we must never forget what a judge and Justice’s fundamental job is, which is “. . . to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.”
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
There isn’t really a check on the judicial any more. The process for amending the Constitution has become so unlikely to happen that the SCOTUS isn’t worried about it at this point. That’s scary.
you should have put it in the gray quotes box. For a few seconds, I thought you were getting all stuffy and wonky.
But… yeah… he could not have been more wrong. But cut him some slack. He might have simply been naive, believing that the judiciary would be honest and faithful to the words of the constitution… never imagining such activists as Ginsburg and Sotomayor on the bench.
