What is the significance of nominating proper judges to the Supreme Court
President Donald J. Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Judge Barrett is reported to be a Conservative. (One who will adhere to and interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended to mean by those who wrote it).
Barrett is a self-described constitutional “originalist,” arguing that a judge should not depart from the meaning of the language used by the Founders in the Constitution.
“We agreed to live by the Constitution until it’s lawfully changed,” she said at a Hillsdale College event in 2019. “And judges can’t change it. That’s not Democratic.”
“A faithful judge resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge’s own political preference; judges who give in to that temptation exceed the limits of their power by holding a statute unconstitutional when it is not,” she wrote.
But what is the real significance and the possible implications to selecting a Judge to sit on the supreme Court?
It is said that America is a Nation of Laws, and not of men. And that the Constitution of these United States is the Supreme law of the land.
The significance of having justices on the Supreme Court who will Obey and adhere to the textual meanings of the writings of that Constitution is critical to the survival of that Document, and to the United States as a free and sovereign Nation.
The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of whether or not laws which are passed are valid and Constitutional. Laws which may be passed by Congress or by the States must adhere and obey the definitions of that Constitution. Laws which do not conform to the Constitution must be thrown out and denied. That is the job of the justices of the Supreme Court, to determine whether or not such laws do or do NOT conform and adhere to the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document which outlines or grants the rights of the people, it is rather a document which outlines and describes in details the restrictions and limitations place upon the Government by the people.
A prime example, and the one which is most often attacked, is the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That Second Amendment to our Constitution does NOT grant the people the rights to keep and bear arms, rather it is intended to specifically and deliberately limit and restrict the Federal and any States Governments from infringing upon those rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Any infringements upon those rights is Unconstitutional.
The difference here is significant. These differences in how this Second Amendment (and others), is interpreted are critical to the survival of this Nation.
Too often States and our own Federal Government officials are willing to impose laws and restrictions upon the people through the use of their own biased interpretations of what is or what is NOT a right of the people or what is an infringement upon that Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is clear, “ The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be Infringed”.
Federal, State, local, officials, and courts and Judges, who apply their own politically biased interpretations to laws intended to restrict the rights of the people must never be permitted to hold office, much less to hold the seat on the Supreme Court; The final arbiter of those laws. The laws, and the Constitution, must be interpreted as they were written and intended by those who wrote them.
THAT is the significance of selecting and confirming a justice to the Supreme Court.
Replies