The Nomination process for the opening created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens is now upon us. I am of the wonder if Americans truly realize the importance of this process and how sadly the event and ultimate selection is nothing but an amalgamation of political extremes. That is to say, “extremes” which are, by their very nature, in conflict with the truer sense of Justice this Court is charged to preserve – the very mandate evidentiary of your Freedom & Liberty.
The following comments express quite nicely what I would suggest be resident in your thoughts as you observe the process now underway. They are excerpts from Volume I of the Blind Vision Series: “We Hold These Truths” and they are each precisely relevant and I trust you will arm yourself with their message as you monitory the Mockery of Silence otherwise know as Supreme Court Nomination Process.
“True, the Supreme Court itself was intended to take up the mantle of constitutional preservation; however the Court has largely and effectively been cornered by congressional and presidential derelictions. I believe, if only to this comment alone, this to be the single greatest and most lasting failure of the Supreme Court!”
“Representative government does not resolve to good governance in the absence of a moral and just cause, it resolves only then to the impulse of a select group!”
“What becomes further proof of the impulse approach to mob rule is the application of judicial and/or legislative coercion, now absent the banner or common ideal of a moral and just people, that effectively vacate an Individuals values by imposing the bastard view of the new ideal!”
“It is not the place or purview of the judiciary, the legislature, or the president to redefine the will and the identity of the very people they are charged to serve. It is only their place to protect and to be an extension of it!”
“Who then speaks for the majority will when the minority wills the outcome?”
“Clearly, bias penetrates legislative and judicial discourse! Can we really accept the notion that a person is not defined by the ideals that are evident by his/her actions? That somehow one can separate who they are and what their belief system is, suddenly, and if only due to the random action of fitting themselves with the judicial robe or carrying the banner of elected official or civil servant? The point being: there is bias in thought as it is the nature of man and his processes much as “wet is to water.” With the frequency that “wet” is the property associated with “water,” the bias must also be the associate will of the people and not the bias of the few!”
“The ultimate perfection then, of the ideal, would be for a Jurist to resolve his personal bias toward a view that may very well not be his/her own but instead the representative will of the people as defined by the very document that binds their common will. Or, to extend the point to the legislative process, the rare occasion that a politician would reject the bias of a special interest group, or his/her own, on the same grounds! A novel thought!”
“It is for these reasons that I believe government must never adjudicate and/or legislate issues of conscience, but only those issues that enhance the ability of the people to ascend to their common ideal! To do anything other than this is only to enforce the divisive will of the mob over the common ideal of the people! Absent this, the persistence of the contemporary notion of secularism will seal the pine box that contains the remains of a once truly fine People whose national bond was its shared values!”
“For some reason we seek to reason the unexplainable and justify the inexcusable.”
“Yes, even in the judicial selection process the two-party system of Conflict and Selective Ideal policy adversely penetrated the process! Judgeships are controlled by political intention which splinters the interests of the Constitution and thereby the interests of the people. The system selects justices it believes reflect its biased perspective and not the underlying principle that a judge should be entirely unbiased with regard to his personal ambitions and completely biased only toward the Constitution.”
“I’m reminded of the confirmation process for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts. I marveled at the time consumed by one senator in particular who repeatedly queried the nominee on the issue of “stare decisis” and their disposition, most notably, regarding the senator’s personal preference towards the Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade. Whatever the intentions, ultimately this senator’s contribution to the confirmation process revealed to me the near-uniform preference for preserving errors in judgment over assuring and insuring systemic deference to the Constitution. After all, compromise is justice too! No?”
“I believe the process has drawn itself, deliberately, into the realm of the vague and obscure and these, my friends, have only one known cure —the restoration of clarity. The focal point of restoration must center about the fundament principles whose focus is secured only upon the legitimate interests of the people as expressed in the Constitution and most certainly not those expressed through the lens of unopposed social, political, economic or legislative bias.”
“When the political system shifts the balance away from the constitutional principles, who then is left to assert your constitutional rights? Correct, not a one!”
This last statement is the very essence of the notion of “Silence.” The absence of conscience is expressed by the words of objection confined to the artificial reverence of political vice and mind!
Shame should be the iconic reference for the Senate Judiciary Committee! It is, after all, distinctly the image their hubris provokes! Senator Feinstein, Leahy and Graham are in a three-way tie for the supreme title of “Shameless!”
Curtis C. Greco, Founder