opa-opines.net

So, Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire. Already some politicians are making picking a replacement into a political curcus. Personally I wonder how we can criticize a nominee that doesn’t yet exist.

We can, I believe, provide input to the Obama administration concerning the sort of person we prefer to see appointed to the highest court in our land. I have a few suggestions. First let us look at the Constitution.

The Constitution Article 2 Section2 details Presidential powers on this matter.

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties . . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Note that the Constitution simply says that the President “shall appoint” Judges of the Supreme Court , “with the advice and consent of the Senate”, It does not mention any qualifications for that appointee.

Surprisingly to many people, it is not necessary for a nominee to be a judge or even a lawyer. I have researched numerous issues in law books and court decisions. We have had lawyers and judges for many years and I am not sure that they have made the best decisions. Many politicians complain that recent justices have written new law instead of judging matters on the Constitution and laws already on the books. We may avoid that by appointing someone other than a lawyer.

Read the constitution. It is not difficult to understand. For example the Constitution says that the power of the federal government is limited.

The Constitution Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to

the people.

Despite this very clear amendment, Justices of the Supreme Court have decided that their rulings, or a bill passed by Congress, are above the Constitution. How can they make that huge illogical leap? Maybe it is because they are lawyers. Few laymen would suggest that Congress, The President, or the Court have the privilege of changing our Constitution. One example makes the point. Since there is no mention in the Constitution of a right to privacy or a woman’s “right to choose”, how did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade? The tenth amendment clearly says that, since those “rights” are not mentioned in the Constitution, the “right to privacy” and a woman’s “right to choose” are reserved to the States or to the people. To a non-lawyer such as myself, the Supreme Court must ask for a Constitutional amendment or leave it alone.

So, who do we want nominated to the Court? We want a non lawyer who can read, and not imagine what is not there. We want a person with common sense. We need a person who cares about we the people. We want a person who knows that the Supreme Court is not a legislature. I think many such people exist, let us recommend some to the President.