Blog rerun

Like in TV and sometimes radio, this post is a rerun of sorts because I really don't have anything new to say other than I meet with the surgeon tomorrow and have that Halloween party to go to.
Here is a opinion piece I wrote in the BG News concerning the Robert's confirmation process

Nomination fits with Constitution
By: Jordan Grant
Issue date: 9/11/05 Section: Opinion
Last Friday's column "Roberts unfit to represent nation" by Erin Bzymek highlights a popular misconception that most Americans have with the Supreme Court.

Miss Bzymek's main point in her column was that, "Our new Supreme Court justice should reflect the ideology of the majority of the country."

This sort of thinking promoted by Miss Bzymek would undoubtedly create a very dangerous precedent in this country, due to our country's ever changing opinion at any given moment in time.

To have our Supreme Court rule on the basis that if the majority is for something it is okay with the Supreme Court will create a disaster in both human rights and liberties, something that Miss Bzymek is passionate about.

Let's apply Miss Bzymek's proposed logic for how the new Supreme Court justice should reflect the majority opinion of the country to a famous Supreme Court case.

Back in 1954 segregation was a popular practice through out the United States, not just the South. In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (located in a state that fought on the Union side during the Civil War) Chief Justice Warren wrote that segregation was a violation of our very rights as human beings.

However, to use the argument that Miss Bzymek has that the Supreme Court should represent the nation's opinion.

The case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was wrongly decided since the majority of people at the time when the case was heard supported the policies of segregation in our school systems and other public institutions.

Can you see now just how dangerous a precedent this logic would lead to in our nation's highest court and the nation?

The headline alone of Miss Bzymek's editorial suggests that she needs to reread the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court should never represent the nation's opinion on controversial issues, because we would get into problems such as those I mentioned earlier.

It is up to the United States Congress, and to some degree the President to represent the views and wishes of the country.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court, through Article III, represents the Constitution to determine if any acts by Congress or the President cohere to the limitations set up by the Constitution itself (i.e. judicial review).

To have the court rule on the basis that the Justices sitting on the bench agree with majority opinion (and thus Congress), would cripple the power of the independent Court rendering any decision the Court hands down as a rubber stamp seal of approval for the Congress or President.

I have no problem with many special interest groups taking interest in who should sit on the Supreme Court. After all, like Miss Bzymek says, this appointment will give Judge Roberts a place on the Court for the rest of his life.

However, for some groups to say that Judge Roberts should not be appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis that he might overturn Roe v. Wade is to say the least, unfounded and weak.

It is up to the Senate to decide if Roberts is capable of handling his position of power, or whether he can interpret the Constitution with professionalism and wisdom as past justices on the Court have. The Senate should never vote yes or no on whether a potential Justice's politics go along with the majority's opinion.

If we, as a nation, want a Justice who will rule along with the majority of this country's opinion then we lose the last resort to protect the rights and liberties of citizens in this nation. May God help us all if this ever happens.



Send comments to Jordan at jgrant@bgsu.edu
It appeared on September 11th, 2005 and received wide praise from CRU, ACLU, College Republicans and Democrats. The Asst. Opinion Editor called it "one of the best in years." Although I thought it wasn't my best work.

here is the link to BG News mainframe


The next day someone responded to my article claiming
My response to his "comments" are in italics.

In response to Jordan Grant's guest column concerning the legality of Mr. Roberts being named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I have a few comments.

It may be constitutionally allowable for this man to be nominated, however I am not sure it is appropriate for Bush to do so, for several reasons.

First, why would he not want an already established ustice (sic) to be promoted into this commendable position, instead of someone with no voting record on our nation's most serious issues?
One reason why Bush appointed someone new was for efficiency my friend. There were two spots on the Court, to appoint a current associate justice would require three senate hearings. One for the Chief Justice promotion, and two for the new associates. Clearly President Bush made the smart choice but limiting the amount of being forced to hear Senator Kennedy's alcohol soaked devilish tongue talking about issue that rarely come before the court.
Second, Roberts is on record as being very right-wing and conservative politically, so the fear about the overturn of Roe vs. Wade is quite possible and a legitimate fear for all American's civil rights.
On record for being very right-wing and conservative politically? Really? I thought Bush would appoint the head of the ACLU to be the next chief justice. The result of the Robert's appointment sent the media in a research frenzy looking for things to bring up. The Democrats did this as well, and very little was found that Roberts as being "very right-wing and conservative politically."
Secondly, how does Roberts go from no record to one which is "right-wing and conservative politically" (personally you should have used the phrase politically conservative, but that is just me.) which were the two points in your argument. The only record Robert's has is the one where he was Counsel for the President and as Deputy solicitor General back in the early 90s. As a lawyer you must represent your client's interest above your own even if they conflict. Robert's role at those two positions held him professionally to take his client's side no matter what.
Third point for this phrase. Overturning Roe v. Wade wont eliminate abortion in the US, but would give the people of the states the option of having in their jurisdiction or not. Current polls show that 60% of Americans favor abortion so the fears of not having abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned seems to be premature, just like your sex life
Does this mean that the proposed amendment banning gay marriage will surface as well?
If there is an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage the Supreme Court, regardless of who is on the court, would be powerless of overturning it. Imagine SCOTUS over turning the 5th Amendment. Doesn't make sense huh? That's because the Constitution can not be changed by the SCOTUS.
And does this mean that by Bush nominating Roberts as Chief Justice that his Republican agenda will be the driving force in the main decision making process of the nation's highest court for the next several decades?
Your assumption only works on the ground that a justice appointed by a Republican or Democrat will ALWAYS vote on the conservative or liberal side of the argument. Cleary history is full of Justices that go against the party grain of the President who appointed them. Case in point, David Souter. So its too early to think that Roberts will always vote "conservative".
To me, this seems even more gutsy and arrogant than his many other decisions during the last several years. We must question leaders' decisions in order to protect our civil liberties. Is that not why this country was formed?
Did you even read my fucking article? My article was against the point of appointing a justice who sides with a majority of Americans on a civil rights issue. The original article that I responded to was to vote against Roberts because he might not agree with a majority of Americans on abortion. Appointing a justice on the view of that they have to agree with the majority of Americans totally destroys any chance of civil rights in this country.

I agree with Erin Bzymek's sentiment in her column last Friday when she said that we need to be alert citizens, ever watchful for the elite's obvious tactics to keep their agendas in power.
I actually agree with you on this point
We need a Supreme Court Chief Justice who represents multicultural America's best interests, not just the wealthy conservative agenda.
Represent the "multicultural America's best interests"? Did you even attend English 111? Reading the fucking Constitution which states that America's interests lie in the power of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court is there to prevent them from acting outside the scope of the Constitution.