The single most extraordinary institution within our Great Republic, the only backstop We The People genuinely have against the excesses of Politics and Politicians and the Politically Motivated – Are our Courts. To be appointed or elected to the position of Judge is not a position that should ever truly be sought. It should never be a position that is simply filled. It is never an occupation that should be coveted with desire. It is, fundamentally, the greatest form of Public Service, titled with the highest Honor we can bestow upon any individual.
Your Honor.
Not "My" Honor. Not "His Honor."
With our respect, it is upon Your Honor that our men and women Judges serve as pillars of the Community; they used to be considered.
Above reproach, men and women of moral character and judgment.
Of course, history has its lessons - the tales and cases of malpractice and injurious proceedings from some of these Black Robes of Justice ring as true as I write this, and just as fresh to the mind. Such as the recent case of a Judge who suffered from Narcolepsy and still served for decades upon the Bench – or, should I say, slept – until eventually enough people said something, and he was forcibly retired. Or the many less recent cases of Judges who presented bad takes in defense of some heinous crimes of our past. It isn't those Judges I'm speaking to, as I have no words for them, none that I'd like to write in print, at least.
It is the other Judges I'd like to speak with, the ones that used to represent our Pillars. The ones who believe in the meaning of 'Public Service', or did, whatever that means anymore.
If I could speak just one word to the tens of thousands of you that currently serve, have served, or seek to serve, it would be this – Stop.
I'm not telling you to stop serving your communities. I wouldn't even try.
I'm not telling you to stop serving the Law of these Lands. I wouldn't dare.
I'm telling you, we need you to stop.
We, the People, need you to stop this endless onslaught of madness.
And that, perhaps the greatest and most futile of requests I could make of you, is the most respectful thing I can say at this time.
When I initially sat down and wrote this article, I spit absolute fire upon your institutions. I utilized every word I could conjure. I aimed low, I saw red, and I went for blood. Not all of it was well written, but much of it was strikingly accurate.
My words, written in mere hours, were not balanced, fair, or carefully considered – They were brutal. They were a final war cry of frustration and absolute loathing for what our institutions were becoming and, in many cases, had become.
This country is crumbling, slowly, from the bottom up. Our most significant institutions are relics of bygone eras. Our Constitution is under assault by enemies of weak power and mind but undoubtedly cunning.
Slowly. Steadily. Covertly.
Case by case. Act by act.
Our Supreme Court hasn't been so politicized in recent memory. If I asked my father who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was when he was my age, he would be hard-pressed to remember.
If I asked his father, he would never forget Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969).
The same Justice of the Warren Commission's Presidential Investigation of the JFK Assassination. The same Warren writing Brown v Board of Education (1954). The same Warren presiding over Miranda v Arizona (1966) establishing Miranda rights as the due course for Law Enforcement. The very same Warren who presided over Loving v Virginia (1967) – a case involving an interracial couple jailed because they dared marry each other - a crime at the time.
And now, like my Grandfather, I too know who my Chief Justice is – John Roberts.
Under the previous administration, our elected Senate appointed Judges to the Bench, so under-qualified the bar association voiced a loud objection. Our politicians run amuck and make a mockery where they have no place, which is ultimately the fault of us, the electorate. Yet, none of that removes your functional responsibility to this Union as the ultimate judicial pulse of the nation.
As per the New York Times, September 25th 2019:
"Chief Justice Roberts added that people should not expect too much of the Supreme Court.
"The court's job is to decide legal disputes under the Constitution and laws, not to cure the ills of society," he said.
"To the extent people are looking to the court they ought to be looking elsewhere."
"It's not our job to express support for particular policy initiatives," he said.
"So we do sit there like mannequins.""
In counter, written by the Washington Post, September 29th, 2020:
"Princeton historian Matt Karp called for leftists to take inspiration from Abraham Lincoln's aggressive confrontation of a hostile Supreme Court and its infamous Dred Scott decision, which held that Black Americans could not be citizens. "It is not enough," Karp argued, "to question the decisions, the justices, or even the structure of the current court — we need to challenge, as Lincoln did, the foundation of its power to determine the law.""
I am afraid I have to disagree with both of these opinions vehemently.
When the Supreme Court is wrong, it is never wrong – it has inappropriately misapplied.
When the Supreme Court is right, it is never right – it has properly applied.
It is not the job of the Supreme Court to sit like mannequins, much as it isn't the job of citizens, historians, or even Princeton University Professors to threaten to topple the court in the act of seeking better favor through threat or worse.
Yet, our courts often fail on at least one issue, which is it's fundamental and core power – To deliberate and deliver – and, where the case so arises, to rescind.
Rescind misapplied judgments of the lower courts.
Rescind misapplied judgments of previous higher courts.
And, most importantly though rarely applied – rescind Acts of Congress (in whole or part) and these many State Legislatures, where those Acts are without reasonable understanding or enlist exotic interpretation.
We live in an era that didn't start recently and won't end soon, where interpretation is the Law of the Land, not the Acts of Congress or the Constitution, where Judges across all parties and politics engage in endless interpretation and re-interpretation of intent, meaning, and purpose.
Many of these cases are quite justified. Many of them are difficult but cut clearly by the Judiciary. Yet, many and growing are not so clear, cut, or apolitical in rendering.
As the Constitution sets forth under Article lll, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
Therein, where Congress or the Legislatures make any law, which is otherwise unclear, misunderstood, or lacking in clarity, it is the duty and responsibility of our highest courts to rescind that law back to Congress or the Legislature for reconsideration and clarification or nullify with prejudice.
I am no proponent of an Active Judiciary nor Activist Judges. These are the works of ideology and corruption, not jurisprudence. In contrast, we live in an era of endless opinions and unending interpretations. New forms of these devices arrive in our communities and rise through our courts across all States and jurisdictions.
Legal Interpretation of the likes of:
Textual. Original Meaning. Pragmatism. Moral Reasoning. Ethos. Structuralism. Strict Constructionism. Living Constitutionalism. Purposive Approach. Studious Consideration. And now, the most recent, Common Good Constitutionalism.
From my understanding, the power of Judicial Deliberation bestowed by the Constitution to the Judiciary is not one of endless, and indeed radical, interpretation but one of careful, concise, and measured deliberation.
To deliberate Ye or Nay far more than maybe, or not so much. And where the laws passed by any House so capable arrive upon the benches of our courts – they must rescind and send back those laws that are unclear more than to decide any 'common good' or 'moral reasoning.’
Deliberate, make your decisions, and make your opinions known if you feel it essential to establish due course – but I sincerely encourage you to rescind before recess or refinement.
My father may not have known who his Chief Justice was. But nevertheless, I will probably never live a day when I'm not concerned about who presides over my court and his interpretations and opinions through action over words.
Like my Grandfather, I have suddenly vested a direct interest in our Highest Courts, if for no other reason than to assume them a worthy dignitary and a potent foe.
If the custom extended here means anything, where I am attempting to embody the principles I believe our Judges should embody – Balanced, Fair and Carefully Considered – I ask only that you read these words and make no other assumptions or interpretations.
Please deliberate, as you do, and deliver to us, The People, a government of laws better understood than we have elected or earned.
Not for me. I don't deserve it.
Please do it for our children so that they may have a chance to grow up one day not needing to know the name of their Chief Justice, only to learn that whoever they are, they applied the law as best they could, and no one could have asked for any better measure.
Thank you, Your Honor(s).
As always,
Farewell and Good Luck.
-Dark Philosopher
November 16th, 2023 - Fixed Layout, Format, Signature
Resources
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-interview.html