Supreme Leadership?
I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV. However, upon reading some on the Supreme Court decision on throwing out the "under God" phrase from the pledge, I can see the legal case for the technicality they used to dismiss it.
Three justices, who disagreed with the ruling to dismiss, stated that they would have ruled it constitutional for the phrase to be in the pledge. Considering some of the remaining justices' past rulings one can expect that many, possibly a court majority would have voted the opposite way. Therefore, by using this technicality they avoided making a potentially very unpopular ruling.
So, is the court really that concerned about the technicality on which they chose to throw out this case? As a divorced father, I want to know, did the court just set a president reducing my rights as a father? Do you find it ironic that the court finds these technicalities in cases where the decision may be dramatically unpopular with the American public?
If the justices were simply avoiding a decision, why? They are not up for reelection. They are not elected. They are not up for reappointment. They are appointed for life. They cannot be fired, except through impeachment, and, though ruling to remove the phrase would be very unpopular in the public, an impeachment is highly unlikely.
Only two thoughts come to mind. No judge wants to be overturned on appeal. Is it possible that the justices thought that sentiment was so high that the people might start a grassroots effort to amend the constitution to allow the phrase? Would that not be the ultimate humiliation for a Supreme Court justice to be “overruled” in that manner?
Or, is it that democratic presidents appointed many of the justices who may have voted to remove the phrase? I would venture to guess that in the American public the overwhelming majority of republicans would be against the phrase being removed, while a lesser majority of democrats would be against it. We know where the president stands on the issue. I do not know what Senator Kerry’s view is. I’d bet that, had the court ruled to remove it, his position would have been something along the lines of “Though, I personally would have preferred the phrase to have been left in, we must respect the authority of the court, and not let our personal beliefs cloud our judgment.” Would a ruling to remove the phrase have energized any voters? With public sentiment as it is would a ruling have benefited the democratic candidate or the republican candidate? This kind of case will come up again. The court may not be able to find a loophole with which to avoid this controversial issue in the future. Was this just a tactic to move it past this presidential election?
Read up on this issue and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
Three justices, who disagreed with the ruling to dismiss, stated that they would have ruled it constitutional for the phrase to be in the pledge. Considering some of the remaining justices' past rulings one can expect that many, possibly a court majority would have voted the opposite way. Therefore, by using this technicality they avoided making a potentially very unpopular ruling.
So, is the court really that concerned about the technicality on which they chose to throw out this case? As a divorced father, I want to know, did the court just set a president reducing my rights as a father? Do you find it ironic that the court finds these technicalities in cases where the decision may be dramatically unpopular with the American public?
If the justices were simply avoiding a decision, why? They are not up for reelection. They are not elected. They are not up for reappointment. They are appointed for life. They cannot be fired, except through impeachment, and, though ruling to remove the phrase would be very unpopular in the public, an impeachment is highly unlikely.
Only two thoughts come to mind. No judge wants to be overturned on appeal. Is it possible that the justices thought that sentiment was so high that the people might start a grassroots effort to amend the constitution to allow the phrase? Would that not be the ultimate humiliation for a Supreme Court justice to be “overruled” in that manner?
Or, is it that democratic presidents appointed many of the justices who may have voted to remove the phrase? I would venture to guess that in the American public the overwhelming majority of republicans would be against the phrase being removed, while a lesser majority of democrats would be against it. We know where the president stands on the issue. I do not know what Senator Kerry’s view is. I’d bet that, had the court ruled to remove it, his position would have been something along the lines of “Though, I personally would have preferred the phrase to have been left in, we must respect the authority of the court, and not let our personal beliefs cloud our judgment.” Would a ruling to remove the phrase have energized any voters? With public sentiment as it is would a ruling have benefited the democratic candidate or the republican candidate? This kind of case will come up again. The court may not be able to find a loophole with which to avoid this controversial issue in the future. Was this just a tactic to move it past this presidential election?
Read up on this issue and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home