One of the ideals of our United States of America is that every citizen, no matter how prominent or how unknown, how rich or how poor, whatever his or her other distinctions or lack of them, may be assured “equal justice under law.”
Fortunately, we believe that ideal prevails in most cases, in courts of all kinds and at all levels.
But ironically, the court on which many Americans are convinced there is the least assurance of real impartiality is our highest court, the Supreme Court of the United States.
We see many justices express their personal, “preconceived” points of view, not adhering strictly to the Constitution and the laws enacted under it and in accord with it.
We expect our presidents — heading the executive branch of our government — to have partisan views, and to express them, getting elected on that basis.
We expect members of Congress — our representatives and senators, the members of the legislative branch of government — to have specific and differing “points of view,” and to express them as the basis on which they are elected by the people.
But don’t we expect, or shouldn’t we be able to expect, that our judges, on every level, are totally impartial, upholding the law as it is written, and ruling according to the facts in each case — and are not prejudiced in any degree in their performance?
Do you consider it ironic, to say the least, and improper, to say the most, that many of our highest judges — the members of the Supreme Court of the United States — are not impartial, but use their exalted positions to impose their own points of view?
Members of Congress are empowered by our Constitution to “make the law.” The president is supposed to “execute the law.” Judges on all levels are supposed only to “apply the law.”
But now, as our nation is considering the most recent nominee for the Supreme Court, with the United States Senate charged with confirming or rejecting the nominee, we are reminded that the current subject — Elena Kagan — is obviously, on her record, not inclined to be an “impartial” judge if confirmed, as she is expected to be.
Judges are not supposed to act as “legislators” or “executives,” and certainly not as “dictators.”
Our current Supreme Court members are Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.
Many people have not “paid attention.” But those who have paid attention to Supreme Court rulings may be quite aware of the justices’ political and philosophical leanings — liberal or conservative. And citizens who are currently paying informed attention know where justice-nominee Kagan stands on the political spectrum. She’s a liberal.
But wouldn’t it be best if we all had reasons for confidence that every Supreme Court justice was of good character, had excellent knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution of the United States — and that we would never have any reason to know whether any justice was “conservative” or “liberal,” because each one delivered only “equal justice under law” in accord with our Constitution?