The Supreme Court is the most demographically varied presently than it has ever been in our history. Three women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, make up the largest group of women to be on the Supreme court at the same time. Every one of the justices have attended either Yale or Harvard to get their degrees. One of the justices, Clarence Thomas had one of the most interesting confirmation hearings. As the child of a politically minded father, I remember watching his confirmation hearings, where he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. Since his confirmation, he has consistently been the most conservative justice on the court. His views are considered textualist, which means that he has a view that the Constitution is to be considered not for its intent, but rather by the words it specifically says. This is kind of ironic, in that Clarence Thomas is a black man, whose value, according to the original, unchanged Constitution, was only 3/5 of that of a white man, and he would have no power in society under the original document. But I digress. He has mostly written in dissent on cases wherein the federal government’s power is expanded, and has supported federalist notions of state’s rights. I am not fond of the “state’s right” argument, as it has a clear flaw. If a state is a better judge of the will of the people, as goes the argument, than the federal government, due to it’s size, then why stop at the arbitrary point of state? Why aren’t counties more representative of that which is best for the people? Why aren’t cities even more so? Ultimately, why isn’t the individual best suited to determine what works best for his or herself? While I agree with the last notion, that the individual trumps all, I acknowledge that society can’t function that way. As such, we must have a government removed from the people, to protect the individual from the mass of people.
Judicial Review is an important and necessary element of government. As stated in the previous paragraph, sometimes it is necessary for an independent body to review things in hopes of best representing the individual. Often, the mass of people become shortsighted, incapable of seeing when they are imposing their own values onto others. This is why it is necessary for judicial review of legislation which originates with the purpose of doing harm to a certain group’s interests, particularly when those people are in the minority.Today, critics refer to judicial review as “legislating from the bench”, but it is a necessary restriction on over active legislatures and people.
The Constitution has to be viewed as a living document in my opinion. The document was written at a time when black people were slaves, women were property, and technology was significantly less advanced. Considering this, how could the framers have understood where our society would go? Our moral standards evolve over time,and thus, so should our understanding of the role of the Constitution. If the strict view of the Constitution were to hold, many of the advances characteristic of western development would have never came about.
I commented on Dara Cates, Meagan Zientara and Jeremy Weaver