The Stakes: The United States Supreme Court (USSC)

As regular readers here know, I’ve been harping on the second most important responsibility of the President of the United States (nominating United States Supreme Court Justices) since the inception of my blog; my inaugural post of August 2, 2005 speaks directly to this.

I’ve written “Elections matter” too many times to count.

And, I’ve written that President Bush will ultimately be regarded by history as a great President in part to fulfilling his campaign promises of 2000 and 2004 that he’d appoint USSC Justices exactly like Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

In the last week or so, the USSC has handed down opinions in three landmark cases that highlight the importance of the 2008 Presidential election.

First, in Boumediene v. Bush, a 5 – 4 Court said that non-citizen terrorists have protections under the U.S. Constitution, the Global Constitution as I think I referred to it (can we collect income taxes from non-citizens?).

In Louisiana v. Kennedy, another 5 – 4 Court said that the People cannot decide for themselves what crimes can be punished by capital punishment. Just as the People can pass laws protecting innocent, unborn, human life, I think the People should be allowed to define punishments for certain heinous crimes.

Finally, in District of Columbia v. Heller, yet another 5 – 4 Court said the 2nd Amendment says exactly what the 2nd Amendment says.

A brief word on how each of these cases relate to the 2008 Presidential election:

In the first case, Sen. Barack Obama hailed the victory for the terrorists. As I noted when I first wrote about Boumediene, this case had extremely relevant precedent; a prior Court, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, said enemy combatants have no such Constitutional rights. This is important because Sen. Obama has steadfastly argued stare decisis to support his extreme pro-abortion beliefs. That is, the Court has already spoken on the matter (Roe v. Wade) and he’ll abide by the precedent. In Boumediene, Sen. Obama applauds the rejection of precedent. And, there in lies the liberal judicial philosophy, “the law says whatever I want it to say.” I’m not going to rely on Eisentrager to support my belief that non-citizen terrorists are not covered by our Constitution; I can do that on the facts.

The facts in Louisiana v. Kennedy are that Mr. Kennedy beat and raped his 8 year-old step-daughter. The State of Louisiana had previously decided such a crime is punishable by death. Sen. Obama expressed a modest disagreement with the Court in that Sen. Obama recognized some deference to the People. But this is merely lip-service. Justices who a President Obama would nominate for the Supreme Court, those with radical pro-abortion beliefs, are precisely the kinds of justices who will not recognize the People’s right to decide what crimes are punishable by death.

Finally, in Heller, Reagan-disappointment Kennedy, sided with the People. This case essentially was to decide whether the 2nd Amendment offered a personal protection to “keep and bear arms”. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, goes through a tedious history of the dictionary to explain the right is a personal right.

Here’s how I would have proved the right was a personal right in four paragraphs (but then I’m not challenged by being unable to read or by being a constitutional law attorney or judge):

The 1st Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment reads, “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.

The 4th Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is undeniable that the 1st and 4th Amendments protect individual rights. It is not credible in any way to argue that the Founders would have used the exact same phrase in three of the first four Amendments and the meaning in the middle reference would be different than the meaning of the phrase prior AND subsequent.

The stakes in the 2008 Presidential election are high. Sen. McCain must make these three Supreme Court decisions campaign issues and he must highlight the harm that will come to our Country if Sen. Obama is elected. Call it “fear” politics, but it is also the truth. In an era of so many landmark 5 – 4 decisions, the direction of the Court will be set for years by the next President.