Good Riddance

While much of the nation was paying tribute to retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I was breathing a sigh of relief. In my estimation, O'Connor had been on the bench far too long. I suppose the arrogance she displayed both while on the bench and afterward is the predictable consequence of holding a lifetime appointment without accountability, but it is by no means a healthy one. While, if you'll pardon the phrase, the jury is still out on the two recent Supreme Court appointments, Roberts and Alito, one has to believe that they'll be better than O'Connor in carrying out their duty to preserve and protect the Constitution.

First, let us dispense with the obvious. The judiciary in the United States would have no power at all save for that which the legislature has granted it through its laws and Constitution. The court's job is to apply the law in individual cases as long as the law conforms to the Constitution. Justices are never authorized to substitute their own personal preference for the law or the Constitution, for as stated earlier, they would have no power at all save for that which the legislature granted it. On that account, it is a metaphysical impossibility that judges created by the law should be greater than the law.

As an interested observer of the courts and as a student of history, I discovered one of the phrases O'Connor often used to disregard the restrictions and willful ommissions of the Constitution was "compelling state interest." This is to say that the Constitution's specific requirements could be suspended for reasons the Supreme Court deemed "compelling," federal law notwithstanding. This doctrine effectively subtitutes the will of unelected judges for the law, and is what honest conservatives and liberals refer to when they describe "legislating from the bench."

This should not be confused with simple misinterpretation, and its importance should not be underestimated, for acquiescing to this judicial activity means we do not submit to the rule of law, but to the rule of judges. This, in fact, means that we do not live in a constitutional republic, but in judicial tyranny.

I bring this all up because of some recent comments O'Connor made at a recent speech at Georgetown University. Speaking of those who hold the court accountable by restricting them through legislation, O'Connor claimed, her words dripping with judicial arrogance, "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

By making this statement, O'Connor seems to believe that laws just get in the way of what judges ought to be doing, which is arbitrarily rule this nation without any fear of losing their positions. It is long-past time for America to sieze control of this issue and impeach judges who so recklessly substitute their will for either the law or the Constitution. While I have little hope the legislature would find the courage do such a thing, recent rulings by the Roberts Court have renewed my hope that perhaps some progress can be made while we educate and grow leaders with the spines to stand up to their coequal branch of government.