The Supreme Court constantly ignores the Constitution and makes up “constitutional law” by edict. The fact anybody puts any faith in this panel of politically connected lawyers in black dresses receiving federal paychecks to limit the power of the federal government strikes me as absurd on its face.
But conservatives constantly tell me the problem isn’t the Court. No, the problem lies in the fact that we just don’t have the right judges. Therefore, I must vote for Republican presidential candidates. The thinking goes that no matter how sketchy he or she may seem when it comes to any given policy, the Republican will at least nominate “good” Supreme Court justices.
Well, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner simultaneously reveals exactly how federal judges view the Constitution and blows this stupid “we need Republicans to get good people on the Court” silliness out of the water.
Here’s what Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, thinks of the document he swore an oath to defend and uphold.
And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
Did I mention Ronald Reagan nominated this guy?
So, here we have a federal judge, appointed by the gold-standard Republican president, telling the world judges should not even spend mere seconds studying the Constitution – also known as the supreme law of the land. It might be worth mentioning again that this is the document he swore an oath to uphold.
This takes the so-called “living-breathing Constitution” to a whole new level.
It remains unclear what exactly judges should base their opinions on, if not the Constitution. I mean, when you throw out the fundamental law of the land, it doesn’t leave a whole lot. I suppose that it all boils down to the whims, wit and wisdom of the judges themselves.
Good luck with that.
