Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Judicial Righteousness

What is an independent judiciary? Is it a judge that is completely autonomous, influenced by no outside forces? Or this judge wholly dependant upon the free market of ideas yet not dependant upon the other branches of government? I don’t believe that there is such a judge nor does it seem our Constitution has instituted a branch of government as such.

Judges are most certainly dependant upon the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III, Section 2). This would certainly seem to not only suggest, but clearly define that rulings from judges should be based on no other government but our own. This inherently makes them dependant upon the Constitution, the elected law makers of this country and the executive branch that enforces the laws.

Robert Bork has recently said, “America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths” (Their Will Be Done). This is the very sandy foundation of postmodernism or the idea that there is no absolute moral truth. If this is the case, and a judge’s ruling is to determine truth then one would certainly be led to believe that judges are dependant upon a very fluid (to say the least) definition of truth. Here we see arguments for the Constitution being a living/breathing document constantly open to change based upon one’s own desire for truth. There doesn’t seem to be much independence or objectivity available there.

Looking back at the institution of judges in Israel we see them calling for the selection of, “capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials” (Exodus 18:21). This shows a clear dependence on God and on righteousness. There must be a clear passion in the heart of one to serve in this position for truth, for what is right and against what is wrong.

Clearly the idea of an independent judiciary is a farce. They are wholly dependant upon this nation that they serve and the author of the righteousness they are to dispense. A deep passion for truth does not come from one that believes truth doesn’t even exist.As an umpire should have a passion for baseball and rules which govern the game, so too should a judge have a passion for righteousness to fairly govern the people.

Judge Robert’s confirmation today in a 78-22 vote splitting Senate Democrats right down the middle (22 for – 22 against), as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should give an indication of which party sees absolute truth and which party struggles with making these types of assertions. “If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me,” Roberts told senators. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.” I trust that President Bush’s adherence to an understanding of what is right and wrong and his deep passion for righteousness would be evident in his selection of “capable men, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain”.

SOURCES:

Constitution, Article III

SECTION. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

Their Will Be Done by Robert H. Bork

In Federalist 2, John Jay wrote of America that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ." Such a people enjoy the same moral assumptions, the cement that forms a society rather than a cluster of groups. Though Jay's conditions have long been obsolete, until recently Americans did possess a large body of common moral assumptions rooted in our original Anglo-Protestant culture, and expressed in law. Now, however, a variety of disintegrating influences are undermining that unanimity, not least among them is the capture of constitutional law by an extreme liberationist philosophy. America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths.

Exodus 18:21-23

But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied."

Roberts Confirmed to be Supreme Court Justice

During four days of sometimes testy questioning by Democrats, Roberts refused to answer questions that would hint how he'd rule on cases, a position that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called "unquestionably right" at a speech at Wake Forest University on Wednesday.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views. "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role," said Roberts, who is Catholic.

Posted by price at September 29, 2005 12:40 PM | TrackBack