What’s the Big Deal About Liberal v.s. Conservative Supreme Court Justices?

chris-wallace-moderating-third-presidential-debateThe first volley over the net from Chris Wallace to Clinton and Trump during the final presidential debate concerned their position on how to interpret our constitution and what type of justices they will recommend for our Supreme Court. Whoever becomes our next president will appoint one and possibly three or four justices during their term, and whom they appoint will tip the balance of power in the Supreme Court. What difference does that make?

hillary-clinton-third-presidential-debateClinton’s response? She began by pointing out how central this issue to the 2016 election, and I totally agree.  She will recommend liberal justices who believe in reinterpreting the constitution to suit the current cultural landscape, and she made specific statements about backing legislation to protect Planned Parenthood, the privilege of women to have abortions (even partial-birth abortions) and the privileges of the LGBT community. She also said she plans to stop the privileges of free speech for non-profit organizations like Citizens United, whose documentary, Hillary The Movie, exposed details of some of her better known scandals. Funny how that works, isn’t it?  Of course, like the well practiced politician she is, Hillary didn’t say she was in support of reinterpreting the constitution. She couched her stance in saying we need to be  “standing up to the powerful,” and in America, I think there’s no one more powerful than Hillary Clinton at the moment. In fact, she’s so powerful that she can keep the F.B.I. from prosecuting her. Now, that’s power…scary power.

donald-trump-third-presidential-debateBut I digress. Trump was clearly at the opposite end: “We need a Supreme Court that is going to uphold the second amendment…they will be pro-life” and have a conservative bent to uphold the constitution “the way it was meant to be.” As a history major in college who is a conservative in my view of constitutional law, I agree with Trump’s position. I want conservative justices on the bench who will uphold the law as written. I believe text trumps intention, and for me personally, Donald Trumps Hillary in this area.

Why? Because if justices can just reinterpret the meaning of the constitution to mean whatever they want, they’re basically doing an end-run around the law to change the law, but that’s illegal! It would destroy the foundation of our country’s laws…and eventually (I believe) our country. As Michael Stokes Paulsen (Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis) points out in his newly published book, The Constitution: An Introduction:  “Legitimate constitutional interpretation consists of attending to the original, natural linguistic meaning of the text, in context, including the architecture of the Constitution as a whole.” If we allow reinterpretation of the text, we’ve lost the meaning of our Constitution, which is meant to be “the supreme law of the land” (Article Six).

If any of you are Christians but have only fuzzy memories of constitutional law from your studies of government in high school X number of years ago, perhaps it would be easier to think of “liberal” v.s. “conservative” judges in terms of “liberal” v.s. “conservative” interpretation of the Bible. Do you believe that “legitimate biblical interpretation consists of attending to the original, natural linguistic meaning of the text, in context, including the architecture of the Bible as a whole,” or do you think the Bible needs to be reinterpreted to suit the current cultural landscape? Should we re-interpret what the Ten Commandments mean by idolatry, lying, stealing, adultery and coveting? Or, do we need to acknowledge where we’re failing and return to the “royal law” (which defines what true love really looks like) so that we can conform our personal ideas to God’s “Golden Rule.”

If you recognize the supreme importance of continuing to interpret the Bible as it was originally intended by its Author, then hopefully you’ll also appreciate the importance of our country continuing to uphold our brilliantly craved constitution as it was written and intended. This foundation has had an essential part in making America the world’s #1 destination and favorite place to live. Why? Because up until now, America’s constitution has guaranteed her citizens the unprecedented freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not the promise of happiness being handed to us on a silver platter, but the freedom to work toward happiness as an attainable goal). These freedoms are on the chopping block, and unless we vigorously protect them by securing a continued literal interpretation of our Constitution, we’ll lose them.

Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:7-9, ESV).

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

 

6 responses to “What’s the Big Deal About Liberal v.s. Conservative Supreme Court Justices?

  1. If we are a Republic we cannot change the constitution. If we are a democracy we are not bound by it. So…. which are we. Officially a Republic but you hear a lot these days about America being a democracy. The pledge says I am giving my allegiance to a Republic. Does this jibe with your constitutional law class?

    • Yes, technically! We are a republic, and I hope we continue to respect our constitution! I think the founding fathers understood that a straight democracy would be our undoing once people got the idea that they could vote for the government to support them rather than the people supporting the government.

  2. Thank you Kathi! This is not a vote for a person this year. It’s a vote for principles. I wish people could understand that, but sadly from the beginning we have had the people held up as the candidates instead of the principles.

    • Yes, if we had candidates with widely differing moralities, then I think character would play an important role, but we have two very checkered candidates, so it seems we can only rely on what principles they espouse and hope they believe their party platforms enough to head in that direction after they’re in office. Obviously, from Hillary’s emails that have been recovered, most of what she says is simply carefully calculated rhetoric to win the liberal vote. Doubtless, Trump is also catering, but to the conservatives.

  3. Kathi, Do you really think that Trump will keep his word? That man frightens me.

    • I do not know, but I know Clinton is professional at deception, and according to her found emails she is simply strategizing her campaign rhetoric to appeal to people without regard to what she really believes (whatever that is). If both of them would keep their word, I’d rather have Trump, who is pro-life and defending freedom of religion, traditional views of marriage, and a conservative read on the constitution to Clinton’s promises to uphold partial birth abortion, etc. etc.

Please share your thoughts too!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s