Court Not so “Supreme”
Someone told me that the justices on the Supreme Court function in an ivory tower. If that is true, they have lost their way, their perspective. That “ivory” tower can turn to “coal” if they are careless.
Legal decisions on their level should be relevant to the lives of the people of the United States – regular folks. I believe that it is a primary task of the Supreme Court to protect us from our government. Sometimes they do this well (Miranda, Gideon) and sometimes they fail miserably (Bush v Gore). It is part of their job to assess what is happening in life – if they are viewing the rights of a millionaire (as they did recently), they should balance that against the rights of a poor minority person. It is a tough balancing act, but I think it is their job. To me the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter, the Solomon who makes wise decisions involving real people.
There is a danger in having the Court appear to take sides. One of the guiding principles in human rights is that “every right begats a duty.” If I have the right to free speech, the people around me have the duty to respect my right and not interfere with it – today such courtesy is rare. Unless others recognizing my right, I do not really have it.
All to often the Court appears to be taking sides, for example in Bush v Gore they seemed to rule for Bush instead of making a clear interpretation of law. Were the voting results accurate? The court avoided a clear stand. If the Court rules on a case, their ruling ought to be written as a principle. In Bush v Gore, their ruling should have established criteria concerning the rights of voters and the necessary procedures to protect those rights. As a minimum the states needed to be told they must have an audit trail so that after the results are announced the validity of the count can be established.
It is nearly time for another election and whether the counting will be accurate is unclear. We can not afford another election being decided by the court.