So Bush's Supreme Court nominee is a conservative dude. To replace a liberal chick. Something doesn't add up. Actually, what doesn't add up is why Sandra Day O'Connor is leaving before William Rehnquist, who is, perhaps not ironically, yet another conservative dude. In case you ever thought the law was clear, think twice about how judges, charged to impartially interpret the application of law, can be so easily politically located by their matrix of past decisions. Oh, were it only that life was generally so clear.
Now you know I've got that overdeveloped left wing, so this development will obviously bother me, but what I find more upsetting, unnerving and generally frustrating, is the continual criticism of the Supreme Court, both in the US and Canada, as feigning ignorance of its judicial role and leaping into the realm of proactive legislation. But there's just one problem, at least in Canada, the Supreme Court has only done so when the legislative body (House of Commons) has shirked it's responsibility in this area. In fact, I think in Canada, our Supreme Court, when it makes such proactive decisions, is really only doing so because it finds concordance with other equally powerful or important legislation. You'll notice that the Supreme Court of Canada leapt into the same-sex marriage debate in the absence of leadership from the PM. And aside from the fact that they were given that reference question, they really, in my humble opinion, had such authority to rule of this issue because it is a matter directly related to the interpretation of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for the US, admittedly, I know less, and what I know only comes from that hottie Anderson Cooper (mwah!), but I think the issue is the same. If you believe in the constitution of the US, that document that begins with the powerful phrase "We the people...", if you believe in the fundamental separation of church and state as is supposed to be the case in that godly (and godawful) America, if you believe in the system of checks and balances mapped out by the founding fathers, why on earth would you revisit Roe v. Wade?
So to all you politicians, don't slam the court for doing what you don't have the courage to do. The point of the Supreme Court is to LIFT up the fundamental laws of the country for inspection and introspection and SEPARATE the beliefs of a church from human rights and civil liberties. Yep, lift and separate. And without Sandra Day O'Connor on the US bench, I think they will be sadly lacking in this department. ;)
Now you know I've got that overdeveloped left wing, so this development will obviously bother me, but what I find more upsetting, unnerving and generally frustrating, is the continual criticism of the Supreme Court, both in the US and Canada, as feigning ignorance of its judicial role and leaping into the realm of proactive legislation. But there's just one problem, at least in Canada, the Supreme Court has only done so when the legislative body (House of Commons) has shirked it's responsibility in this area. In fact, I think in Canada, our Supreme Court, when it makes such proactive decisions, is really only doing so because it finds concordance with other equally powerful or important legislation. You'll notice that the Supreme Court of Canada leapt into the same-sex marriage debate in the absence of leadership from the PM. And aside from the fact that they were given that reference question, they really, in my humble opinion, had such authority to rule of this issue because it is a matter directly related to the interpretation of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for the US, admittedly, I know less, and what I know only comes from that hottie Anderson Cooper (mwah!), but I think the issue is the same. If you believe in the constitution of the US, that document that begins with the powerful phrase "We the people...", if you believe in the fundamental separation of church and state as is supposed to be the case in that godly (and godawful) America, if you believe in the system of checks and balances mapped out by the founding fathers, why on earth would you revisit Roe v. Wade?
So to all you politicians, don't slam the court for doing what you don't have the courage to do. The point of the Supreme Court is to LIFT up the fundamental laws of the country for inspection and introspection and SEPARATE the beliefs of a church from human rights and civil liberties. Yep, lift and separate. And without Sandra Day O'Connor on the US bench, I think they will be sadly lacking in this department. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment