Published October 9, 2005 in the Hibbing Daily Tribune
By Aaron J. Brown
If this month were an educational children’s program, the magic number would be “nine.” Teams of nine do battle as Major League Baseball playoffs continue this week. And the Supreme Court, the most powerful group of nine in the country, tops headlines with the recent confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice and President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers for an Associate Justice spot.
Though baseball and the Supreme Court both vie for my attention these days, I must admit that the Supreme Court vacancies will have a bigger impact than the pitching performance of Randy Johnson. (Though I was hoping Bush would do the right thing and nominate Johnson, if only to add that extra layer of intimidation onto lawyers arguing before the high court.)
LAWYER: As you can see, the right of privacy doesn’t apply in this case because…
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RANDY JOHNSON: (stares, twitches mustache).
LAWYER: OK, it does. It does! (weeps).
It’s got to be hard for a president to pick a Supreme Court justice. You’re looking for someone who’s going to rule how you want, but the nominees can’t commit to anything before they’re on the Court. In fact, some justices prove to be the opposite of what the presidents who picked them thought they’d be.
In a way, it’s kind of like being in that first semester at college when you have to pick a biology lab partner from a group of strangers. You don’t have much to go on, other than gut instinct. There’s no guarantee that they won’t later say, “My religion doesn’t allow me to dissect crayfish,” or “let’s sneak in after hours and liberate these frogs from this concentration camp!” You’re stuck with them.
Only with Supreme Court justices you’re stuck with them until they die (and their insurance plan is really, really good). Also, instead of science projects, they decide if you’ll receive a body cavity search on the hood of your car next time you get pulled over.
One thing you hear a lot about … well, if you watch as much cable news as I do, is the debate over “activist judges.” According to some, activist judges cause most problems in America. They’re the leading cause of divorce, for one, due in part to their insatiable thirst for adultery. They form terror cells, often sacrificing their own lives to bomb schools and churches. When you see a starving child on television, know that they starve because a bloated activist judge snatched food from their tiny fingers.
OK, I exaggerate, but some folks really have a problem with judges who don’t follow a strict “constructionist” viewpoint on the legal system. The constructionist viewpoint calls for the justices system to literally interpret the U.S. Constitution, written in the 18th Century, without making any rulings based on intent. (That’s why you see all the musket balls and medical leeches strewn about the offices of Justices Scalia and Thomas).
That’s the big argument – should the judicial system interpret the Constitution for its intended purpose, since there was no Internet, global economy, electrical grid or equal rights at the time of its framing – or stick to the words only, letting the will of Congress (remember “freedom fries?”) dictate such things. We’re told that Roberts and Meirs lean toward the more conservative constructionist viewpoint, but we’ll have to see how they rule, should Meirs also be confirmed.
Whether you’re a constructionist, activist or Yankee fan (I’ll let you decide which two of these things are bad), there’s just no way to predict how these Supreme Court vacancies will impact our daily lives in the future. New Chief Justice John Roberts said that as a judge, he’d stick to calling balls and strikes and leave the hitting and pitching up to the other branches of government. That’s fine, but you have to wonder how Associate Justice Randy Johnson would have handled all this.
Play ball!
Aaron J. Brown is a columnist for the Hibbing Daily Tribune.