Archive for October 12, 2020

Hello, all. We are on the doorstep of arguably the most important elections in our nation’s history. Despite the normal party speak, political narratives pushed, and all too often doublespeak by folks on both sides, there is a clear ideological distinction between the dominant US political parties. I hope I am stating the obvious. Something tells me that might not be the case.

What we have before us is monumental. Not only the election but the potential confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

I am not going into the talking points being pushed by both sides. I will, however, clarify a term that has a become a political narrative being pushed because far too many in our country don’t understand.

Before my SCOTUS comments, I do want to comment on a statement made by the Democratic candidate for President as it is 100% Constitutional what is happening with regards to the filling of a Supreme Court Justice vacancy. I am not going to get into the muck about it. I must believe that he does have an understanding of the US Constitution, given his lengthy time in the US Senate and that he has raised his hand to support and defend it on more than one occasion. However, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the actions of an opposing party, it is concerning that a candidate for the highest office in the US and the most powerful office in the world would knowing attempt to mislead the American people and misrepresent the Constitutionality of an action. Both sides of the political isle like to stretch things. However, the Constitution is our governing document and thus should be known and followed. I will speak to this issue in subsequent posts.

What I will talk briefly about is the importance of Constitutional adherence and how anyone, if they do not support strict adherence to the Constitution in its judicial application of jurisprudence, it is wholly hypocritical and disingenuous to use it as a pass and/or misrepresenting it as a talking point in order to further an agenda.

Let me provide some definitions to terms that I think are incredibly important.

Court Packing: simply means to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. FDR tried it in the 1930’s but was unsuccessful. The Appointment of SCOTUS judges is a Constitutional power found in Art 2 Sect 2 – appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. It is much harder to confirm justices when the White House is controlled by one party and the Senate is controlled by another. It is much easier if they are the same party. Yes, elections do have consequences.

Judicial Philosophy: This is the underlying set of ideals or beliefs that shapes a Justice’s rulings on particular cases. This is ALWAYS the basis by which Justices are chosen. There are 2 distinct philosophies. One is a philosophy that means to go beyond the words of the Constitution or a statute to consider broader societal implications and influence public policy. This is known as Judicial Activism. Some may also refer to judicial activism as “legislating from the bench”. The other is Judicial Restraint, which is the judicial philosophy to not go outside the narrow scope created by the Constitution.

Why is this important? Well, if you will go back to a previous posting I made with regards to the correlation between the Bible and the US Constitution, The Constitutional argument: It’s all about choice. The direct correlation between the Bible and the Constitution, and the societal drift from both. Dismiss at your own risk, I stated that we, as a country and people in general – “don’t like absolutes. We don’t like to be told what to do. We like the rules of the game to change as we change…or as we want the rules of the game to change. The Bible, like the Constitution, provides absolutes and authority. The further we get away from its principles, its guidelines, its authority, the further away we get from allowing a single authoritative component, in this case: a document, to govern us.”

Again, why is this important? Here is why. The current judge who has been nominated for the United States Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, has been attacked for her strong Christian faith, her values as a mother and parent, and to her strict adherence to the Constitution and to the intent of the Original Framers, which of course includes the Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments. With so many in our country, to include elected officials screaming that the confirmation hearings and the confirmation itself is unconstitutional (which is categorically false – see again Art 2 Sect 2 in the US Constitution), love to scream about the Constitution, more importantly the rights protected by the US Constitution, should absolutely embrace and celebrate a potential US Supreme Court Justice to the highest Court in the land who would not read into or stretch the text or meaning of the Constitution in order to impact or influence social policy or either side of the political isle, but to adhere to what it states and what its Framers intended. Very similar to the Bible, adherence to its principles and to the intent of the Author, would be a very welcome stance for the longest standing governmental document and set of governing principles of any country in recorded history.

The United States Constitution, like the Bible, is NOT a living breathing document. “The Bible provides absolutism…clear right and wrong. The Bible gives a clear set of guidelines to live one’s life by. And just as the Bible provides guidelines on how we, as people, are to live, the Constitution provides guidelines on how to govern.”

Adherence to the Constitution and the guidelines set within it is the only way that we can ensure that “…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – A Lincoln.

Searcy, out.