Bert Dirschell
Centertown
Dear Editor:
The issue over the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is not one of conservative versus liberal political personal political stances. Justice is supposed to be "blind" when weighing issues of guilt or innocence. Personal political perspectives should not influence how a judge/justice rules in a case. Judges/justices are to apply the law not make it. I want justices who are originalists.
Originalism - A concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. (Wikipedia)
Shouldn't every citizen want originalist justices? If we vote to support an amendment to the Constitution should we not expect that in the future it will be interpreted to mean what it did to we who ratified it? The alternative is constant fear that some future political hack justice(s) will twist the Amendment to mean something totally different than our interpretation.
Either you want to live under our Constitution, while possibly working to amend it, or you want to overthrow the very form of government that has produced the greatest nation on the planet. Those elected to Congress take an oath stating, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" How could any person who takes such an oath not support an originalist?
Sadly, it seems that most, if not all, Democrats want justices who believe the Constitution is a "living Construction" to be twisted to mean whatever they perceive to be PC at the time.