Ms. Snip: I’m confused. I know that Supreme Court Justices are in it for life if they wish. My confusion is in how and why they are picked. I always thought they were supposed to be impartial to the “powers-that-be”. When deliberating a question aren’t they supposed to simply interpret according to the Constitution? I see why they must be intelligent people but their own personal feelings shouldn’t be included in their work.
Ms. Snipe: I believe that is what the founding fathers had in mind but the political process has become so ugly and partisan that suddenly everyone elected or appointed to any public office has decided they alone are the smartest, wisest, and most capable of using their own feelings as a filter. This is becoming more and more the norm when studying a question that should be looked at only in light of the constitution.
Ms. Snip: Why isn’t that clear to them and to those who appoint them?
Ms. Snipe: It’s very clear to anyone who nominates a Supreme Court Judge. But the often the person who nominates and those in the Senate who vote to confirm the nominee really don’t want the nominee to rely on the constitution as a basis for decisions. Support for the nominee is based solely on the belief that decisions will be made based on the preferences of whomever has the most political power at the time.
It’s similar to the way people misuse statistics or bible quotes. You can wrangle statistics to support almost any conclusion you wish to support. Similarly, you can manipulate and choose sections of the bible that support almost any premise. In each case people using those techniques don’t bother to point out how other statistics or bible passages can be used to undermine the same argument.
Ms. Snip: So, it sounds as if the Supreme Court is really a Kangaroo Court and the Constitution is only used (and often abused) to do whatever the most judges want.
Ms. Snipe: You are learning fast.