Debating about the nominees to the Supreme Court takes up tons of printer's ink and hours of talking head time on television, but a careful reflection on the root problem tells us that perhaps America needs to take a close look at what the Supreme Court actually is and where it fits in. I have always contended that when the Surpeme Court handed down Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, they usurped the lawmaking powers of all 50 states and in fact struck down state laws across the board. Over the past 32 years the court has persisted in that effort, and to a large degree, it has been extremely successful. Pandering to the culture of death seems to be the job description of the court. But does it need to be that way?
Ambassador Alan Keyes, who is no stranger to controversy, recently wrote, "the rise of judicial tyranny represents a failure elsewhere in the government."
Columnist Daniel Ruddy agrees: "Amidst the sound and fury over President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court, we have lost sight of the real issue. The most important issue revolving around these nominations is not the political ideology and judicial philosophy of justices appointed to the court, but rather the anomalous and undemocratic power of the court itself. The American people need to rise up and end judicial tyranny. While it is unlikely they will do so, they should."
So while the games continue as various pundits argue over current nominee Samuel Alito and what he really thinks, really believes or really understands, perhaps we should be focused more on what the American public really wants. Currently, at least from where I sit, it would appear that business as usual is just fine … and it really isn't.
It appears that we have three branches of government attached to a rotting tree.
