We may elect our presidents and members of Congress with consideration of the issues that they favor or oppose, what they promise they will do or will not do, and with a view of their party and philosophy.
But when it comes to selecting our judges, don’t most of us really want impartial judges, who will dispense justice according to the Constitution, the law and the facts in each case, with no personal partisanship or ax to grind?
Unfortunately, when it comes to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, that desirable standard does not prevail.
Too many presidents have appointed too many justices because of their partisan views — not because they will rule objectively in pursuit of impartial justice.
With Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens departing the Supreme Court of the United States, President Barack Obama will have the opportunity to nominate a new justice. The Senate then will have the responsibility to examine the nominee and confirm or reject the president’s choice.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the president nominated a man or woman for the Supreme Court who would surely be of good moral character and great intellectual ability, and would address cases before the court with total impartiality — with no reference to philosophy, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative?
Wouldn’t you like the next member of the Supreme Court to be so properly “judicial” that you would never have the slightest reason to think about what party he or she preferred, or what personal philosophy the nominee entertained?
Unfortunately, our present Supreme Court justices do not meet that standard. And unfortunately, President Obama’s nominee to succeed Justice Stevens is not likely to fit the desirable, fully impartial, model, with no personal preference coloring decisions involving the law.
We elect partisan presidents, partisan senators and partisan representatives. That is not improper. They, after all, are supposed to reflect the varied views of the people who elect them.
But justices? They are not supposed to represent anything but the Constitution of the United States, the laws enacted under the Constitution, and impartial justice for all of us.
When President Obama chooses his Supreme Court nominee, wouldn’t it be wonderful if he or she were intelligent and able, and would be a really impartial justice?
And while we are wishing, wouldn’t it be wonderful if all nine justices fit that simple standard?
Isn’t that something we should call on our presidents to seek?