THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 171, August 9, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY: GUARDIANS OF THE CONTRACT
By Christopher G. Adamo
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT & CONSERVATISM VERSUS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM & LIBERALISM: THE RAPIDLY INTENSIFYING
CONTROVERSY OVER THE PROPER MAKEUP OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN GENERAL & THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN
PARTICULAR -- THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ROLE OF THE U.S. COURTS: INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION OF
EXISTING U.S. LAW IN LEGAL CASES & CONTROVERSIES COMING BEFORE THE COURTS -- JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING &
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AS A USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS & THE STATES & A
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -- ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME
COURT: PERSONAL HONESTY & INTEGRITY, KNOWLEDGE OF & ADHERENCE TO THE LAW, & DETERMINATION TO
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED & WRITTEN
FULL STORY:
The rapidly intensifying dispute over the proper makeup of the United States Supreme Court, and in particular, the possible U.S.
Senate confirmation of John Roberts to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra O’Connor, has, by its very nature, highlighted
the recently metastasizing role of the courts in American law. To understand the framework of the present debate, a review of the
United States Constitution’s significance to the structure of American government must be undertaken.
Much controversy has erupted over the rampant judicial activism recently occurring in America’s federal courts. And people are
right to be concerned. The constitutionally mandated role of federal judges -- particularly justices of the U.S. Supreme Court -- is
simply to interpret and apply existing U.S. law, including, most importantly, the fundamental and supreme law of the land in
the U.S.A., namely the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. An important and essential function of Supreme Court justices is to
interpret (decide, or rule, on the meaning of) the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, and to decide whether or not a particular case being
tried involves a violation of those tenets. It is no less than the sworn oath of each member of the Supreme Court to abide by the
Constitution as the ultimate guide in such decision-making.
Disdaining any restriction on their ability to issue edicts from the bench, judicial activists, instead, invoke a multitude of techniques
in order to sidestep genuine constitutional law. Some manufacture “emanations” and “umbras” of the document’s original intent,
whereby they might stretch and contort it to buttress their political and social agenda, usurping the legislative power and adopting
public policies designed to advance their political and social agenda.
Certain justices on the nation’s high court, such as Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsberg, have deferred to “judicial precedent” or
even the laws of other nations as a basis on which to form their opinions. And from these, immutable and binding “constitutional
principle” is ostensibly ordained.
Judicial precedents are, at best, clarifying interpretations of established law. At worst, they can be the means by which formerly bad
judicial decisions ensure that continually worse decisions ensue. Clearly the Framers and Ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution aspired to
something far more noble, coherent, and concrete as the source of true justice and law in the U.S.A.. And that was what they
intended to codify in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Moreover, they clearly recognized the hideously flawed nature of the laws and social fabric of other nation-states. Having risen
beyond the tragedy and oppression generated within those societies, why should Americans now allow themselves to be dragged
back down to them?
But, if adherence to the American Constitution has nonetheless become optional, then America, in effect, no longer has a
Constitution. The document so thoughtfully crafted by the Founders and ratified by the American states is henceforth reduced to
nothing more than a venerated piece of parchment, sitting in all of its irrelevant glory behind a protective piece of glass.
In truth, it is much more than that. It is the original and foundational “Contract with America.” The result of great deliberation and
consideration in both its construction and ratification, it allowed the states to establish a federation -- a federal union, or federated
central government -- to arbitrate between or among the states and collectively represent them among foreign powers.
As such, the Constitution's premises must remain intact to whatever degree America, as we know it, is to be preserved. This, above
any other consideration, is the utmost responsibility of justices on the nation’s highest court.
Therefore, achieving “balance” between those who would properly uphold it and those who would desecrate it in service to their
policy preferences and their political and social agenda is in no way a worthwhile goal. Whether religious and Conservative, or
humanistic and Liberal, the only rightful purpose of members of the federal judiciary is to maintain the integrity of America's
constitutional document as it was originally intended and written.
At issue is neither John Roberts’ party affiliation nor his Conservative political inclinations, but rather his honesty and principle
when considering constitutional precepts, and his integrity to defend them as such. If Liberals want to make the case that these
qualities are exclusive to Conservative nominees, perhaps it is time to concede their point.
Moreover, Liberals, historically, have had no inherent problem with judges who make law and public policy, just so long as they do
so according to the perversities of Liberalism and “political correctness.”
Certain key U.S. Senate Democrats regularly display their abhorrence of the religious views of such individuals as Justice Antonin
Scalia, and openly voice their intent to engage in “religious profiling” of all potential nominees. But the rulings of Scalia and other
like-minded jurists reveal no cause for fear that their religious beliefs might somehow be translated into law.
It is not the specific tenets of their religion, but the fact that, by their spiritual condition, they are diligent to honorably uphold the
precepts of the Constitution, which makes them a threat to the enormous power of an unbridled government to injuriously
transform America.
Conversely, limitation of such power is crucial to preservation of the U.S. Constitution and America's constitutional democratic
federal republic.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
Legal Issues, Lawyers, & America's Judiciary
Appointment of U.S. Federal Judges
The Constitution of the United States of America
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming and works in the field of industrial instrumentation.
He is actively involved in Wyoming's political process, serving as a delegate to successive Wyoming State Republican Conventions
and as a member of the Wyoming State Republican Central Committee. He has assisted Republican candidates for local and state
legislatures and for the United States Congress. His articles, which appear regularly in The Progressive Conservative, U.S.A.,
and on a number of other websites, reflect a major concern with the damage being done to Conservatism and Conservative causes by
the Liberal Leftist faction in the Republican Party as well as by the much larger and more powerful Liberal Leftist faction in the
Democratic Party. During the early and middle 1990s, Adamo was Editor of the Wyoming Christian Coalition's official news organ,
The Wyoming Christian.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues