The Debate About Supreme Court Nominees

In watching the debate about Supreme Court nominees I feel that, as is so often the case, the Right is defining both the language and the terms of the debate. They are arguing that they want someone on the court who merely interprets the Constitution and does not "legislate" from the bench, and that any decisions that break new ground in the interpretation of the Constitution is "legislating'. They further argue that the only true method of interpretation is "strict interpretation of the text" or following the "original intent" of the Constitution.

Liberals, on the other hand argue that they want a Court that will uphold "freedom of choice", that will keep religious based doctrines such as "Intelligent Design" and prayer out of the classroom and that they want a Court that will protect the Civil Liberties of it's citizens. This, in my view, plays right into the hands of Right because it is totally result oriented, and makes no reference to the Constitution, thus lending credence to the argument that what liberals want is a court that legislates. There is, in fact, not a single Supreme Court Justice, now or ever, who would agree that he/she starts out with the result he/she has in mind, but rather would maintain that through a careful analysis of all the facts and law before the court, he/she arrives at whatever conclusion is the necessary end of this reasoning process. In my view, however, the Justice who follows the concept of evolving standards is far more true to the original intent of the framers than the Justice who tries to freeze the Constitution in a time warp, i.e. in the concepts that were in vogue at the time the document was written.

With that in mind, I wrote my dissertation, entitled, "The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift its Balance" which I posted on October 23, 2005 to show that "Original Intent" or for that matter "Strict Interpretation" are not concepts that have any validity, and that in fact, as early as President Washington's day they were already rejected as unworkable and inappropriate; that pushing these concepts now it is an insincere attempt to arrive at the outcomes which the radical Right favors and not an appropriate method of Constitutional interpretation. I also seek to counter the denigration of the term "liberal" and try to deny to the radical Right the label of "conservative".