A Matter of Supreme Importance

Christopher Merola
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2012 12:01 AM
A Matter of Supreme Importance

In this year’s election, the economy has certainly taken center stage. This is for good reason, of course. The real unemployment numbers for our nation show a figure between 15-20% when all factors are considered, including the underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work.

Under the leadership of Barack Obama, along with the help of a Democrat controlled Congress for the first two years of the Obama administration, more money has been spent and added to our national debt than ever before. In fact, Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, has increased our nation’s debt more than the first 43 presidential administrations combined. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently stated that our nation’s debt is now about 70% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

While it is safe to say that the economy and the staggering debt we face as a nation will continue to be a major issue in this year’s election cycle, the “supreme” issue in this election is now the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court.

Looking at the mixed rulings of the Supreme Court in recent weeks -- the split decisions on many important cases -- we can see how a group of nine unelected officials can have so much power and control over all of our lives.

The convoluted ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, highlights just how important it is to have constitutionally minded Supreme Court judges on the high court. It appeared that Chief Justice John Roberts was going to side with the other four right-leaning justices who wanted to strike down the Obamacare law, but then sided with the four left-leaning judges and upheld the Obamacare law by stating that it can stand as a tax.

Think about how misguided this ruling truly is: Roberts sided with the four right-leaning judges on the Supreme Court by ruling that the Obamacare law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and the Proper Clause -- as Congress cannot have that kind of sweeping power -- but then ruled Congress can have that kind of sweeping power to tax. How can Congress be limited in some areas but not others? The Constitution was written specifically to limit the role of the federal government.

Roberts also stated in his opinion that the Obamacare law is in part unconstitutional and in part constitutional. This sounds like a man trying to please both the conservative and the liberal wings of the court, instead of ruling on what is truly constitutional.

What this means for America is that the Supreme Court is still not a constitutionally conservative court. The last time we had a constitutionally conservative Supreme Court was in the 1930’s. It was then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) who stacked the Supreme Court with eight liberal activist judges, leading to decades of decisions that went far beyond the original intent of the founding fathers, and the parameters of the Constitution. FDR’s first Supreme Court appointment was Hugo Black, a man who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican president had placed a member of the KKK on the Supreme Court?

This radical trend of judicial activism has stayed with us all these decades. It was only a few years ago that the Supreme Court barely upheld the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution by a 5-4 decision. Let’s think about this for a second or two. All Americans should be concerned about this ruling. We actually came within one vote from having our constitutional right to defend ourselves stolen from us. This is truly shocking.

The Supreme Court should have ruled unanimously by a 9-0 decision in favor of the right to self-defense. Yet, four liberal activist Supreme Court justices could not determine what the Second Amendment in our Constitution was designed to do. These same four liberal activist judges actually ruled that banning the practice of partial-birth abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If Barack Obama is re-elected as President of the United States, he will no doubt have a few more chances to nominate several Supreme Court justices.

It has been a difficult row to hoe for those of us who believe in the original intent of the founding fathers. We are maligned, marginalized, and demonized on a daily basis by the media elites, the academic elites, and the institutionalized policies of political correctness. Our belief in a Constitutional Republic is hanging by a thread. If Obama is re-elected, he will no doubt place more activist judges on the Supreme Court who will only end up cutting that thread.

This election is vital to our nation’s future. If we are to ever restore the principles of our founders and the God-given freedoms written into our Constitution, we must consider which candidate will nominate sound minded judges to the Supreme Court. In some ways, this issue is actually more important than the economy itself. We simply cannot allow more activist judges on the Supreme Court.

Currently, there are four Supreme Court justices over the age of 70. One, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, is in her early eighties and has battled health problems for some time. Just who will nominate the next several Supreme Court justices is a crucial matter that must be considered by all voters.

A Supreme Court made up of justices who interpret law, and not justices who write law from the bench, is the only hope we have to undo many bad rulings -- including the one John Roberts helped to create. We must secure a prudent Supreme Court, and in so doing, save our nation from more activist judges hell-bent on sending our Constitutional Republic over the proverbial cliff.

With the Supreme Court creating law out of thin air, it’s no telling how many of our freedoms and liberties are at risk. Even if we elect a conservative Congress this November, one that passes good legislation, it can all be struck down by a runaway Supreme Court. Reining in the Supreme Court’s tendency to write law from the bench is an absolute must.

No matter how the economy may perform between now and November, the concern for the Supreme Court will still be of vital importance in this year’s election. In some ways, the nomination of Supreme Court judges is the most crucial issue. In fact, it is “A Matter of Supreme Importance.”