|
Constructing a
Supreme Court
The nomination of a United States
Supreme Court Justice strikes a note of awe and concern for many
people in our country today. In the early twentieth century, most
people probably did not lose sleep over such a nomination. Perhaps
at that time there were few national or moral issues that were
brought about because of conflicting ideologies or philosophies
between national leaders. It is true that the Great Depression,
world wars, and the presence of Communism became traumatic issues
in the lives of Americans and there were radically different opinions
among politicians regarding the handling of those matters. Despite
all of that, nominations to the highest court of our land appeared
to have little to do with such issues, and even if they did, Americans
typically felt that one qualified candidate for the Supreme Court
was as good as another regarding his ability to interpret the
United States Constitution in the face of the issues of that day.
However, nomination for Supreme Court in the early twenty-first
century promotes an altogether different set of responses.
The United States Supreme Court
is subject to the same rules of human dynamics as other social
institutions. Over time the personality of the court as a whole
changes, because new faces take their places behind the bench,
and even those persons who remain for a period of time will sometimes
show changes of thought or character in their rulings. As issues
are debated before the court, arguments will often arise reflecting
new or later opinions of lower courts, often reflecting similar
ideas of the American people. There can be no doubt that the changing
tides of pubic opinion will influence the court, especially when
such opinion is perceived as progressive, technological, or in
the best interests of America. Although we may disagree as to
why such philosophical changes have taken place, there can be
no doubt that the United States Supreme Court has changed over
the years, but how does one describe such a change?
An interesting term has been used
to describe a type of Supreme Court justice philosophy. President
Bush indicated that he would choose a nominee reflecting a “constructionist”
viewpoint in the interpretation of the Constitution. The President
was wise to use this term in order to avoid political entanglements,
but from another perspective, the President knew that a “deconstructionist”
judge would be a step in the wrong direction. Many understand
“constructionist” to mean that such a judge would more
“literally” interpret the Constitution, which is good.
Constructionism relates to an entire belief system by which a
US Supreme Court Justice may render his or her decisions from
a traditional viewpoint according to the original intent of our
national fathers who wrote the Constitution. However, if a judge
is not a constructionist, he or she may be postmodernist in his
or her viewpoints. A postmodernist viewpoint for a Supreme Court
justice can be very dangerous.
Postmodernism sounds like a viewpoint
by which ideas are based on recent modern knowledge. However,
that is not an accurate definition. Postmodernism is a way of
life that reflects a very strange worldview. A person who calls
himself “postmodernist” typically believes that there
is no absolute truth. This person believes that all truth is relative
to the words that one uses to express his own point of view at
the moment. In other words, truth is no more than the words or
the language that you use to make up your own ideas of the world.
Such language comprises your particular “story” which
becomes truth for you. For example, I may believe that the world
is made up of Decatur County, and only Decatur County. I might
live in Decaturville, and on rare occasions I may travel to the
other side of the world, which is Parsons. However, I will never
travel to Nashville, because Nashville doesn’t exist. Nashville
is just a figment of someone else’s imagination. Now, suppose
I should read a sentence written by someone that says, “The
sun rises and sets over the world”. I will insist that this
sentence means the sun rises and sets only over Decatur County.
I will come to this conclusion because I will deconstruct the
sentence. “Deconstruct” is a very popular term among
postmodernists. When I deconstruct the statement, I look at it
and determine that it is referring to the “world”. For
me the “world” is Decatur County. Therefore in my “deconstructive
analysis” I conclude that the sentence means that the sun
rises and sets over Decatur County only. We might publicly say
that when the original author wrote the sentence, he didn’t
mean that the world was Decatur County. I may even be aware that
the author didn’t mean that when he wrote it, but none of
that matters. The truth is what I make it to be. I choose to believe
the words “The sun rises and sets over the world” mean
the sun rises and sets only over Decatur County. That is my truth.
It becomes truth for me. Your truth may be different, but I will
choose my truth. This example is extreme, and there are probably
no postmodernists who believe that the world is nothing more than
Decatur County. However, postmodernists believe that a person
can “deconstruct” anything they read and make it mean
whatever they want it to mean, and it becomes truth for them.
It is possible for a judge to
be “deconstructionist” in his interpretation of the
law, or the Constitution. For example, it is possible for a judge
to say, “In my view of the world, I don’t believe there
is a God. I believe that mankind came into existence through the
random chance of evolution, and that mankind himself is the highest
intelligence we know in the universe. For practical purposes,
man is his own God. Therefore, when I read the word ‘God’
in the Constitution of the United States, I will understand this
to mean ‘Man’ in pre-eminence. When we talk about morals,
or about what is right or wrong, we will talk about what ‘Man’
creates for his morals, and what ‘Man’ decides is right
or wrong. Since I am a man and a leader for ‘Man’, I
will choose what is right or wrong for people. I will not let
any ideas about a Christian God sway me as I make my opinions
or render my decisions behind the bench.” Unfortunately,
this example is not an exaggeration but is more of a reality of
what is taking place in the minds of some of our Supreme Court
Justices today.
The grave danger of such an attitude
by a Supreme Court Justice may readily be seen. Such a belief
system allows judges to “deconstruct” the US Constitution
and make it mean anything they want it to mean. They would believe
they have a right to read the constitution, think it through from
their own perspective, and make it mean whatever they want it
to mean, and not what it originally meant. Although they would
detest the use of the phrase, such judges would believe they literally
have the right to “play God” in making up morality for
the American citizen, according to their own rules and belief
systems. These attitudes are widespread among judges of lower
courts all over America. This explains the rulings in favor of
abortions, gay marriages, pornography, and rulings against prayer
in schools and promotions for God in any kind of governmental
or political institution. There can be no doubt that such attitudes
are already demonstrated in some of the US Supreme Court Justices
currently serving on the bench. A tendency toward deconstructionism
seems to be the best way to describe the change that has taken
place in the Supreme Court over the last 100 years.
It seems doubtful the Senate would
ever confirm a nominee for the United States Supreme Court if
he or she were prominently known as a “conservative”.
(Strangely enough, this may not be true for a “liberal”
in light of the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided highly
liberal responses to senators’ questions in 1993 and had
few problems with confirmation.) President Bush has indicated
that Judge John Roberts is a “constructionist” in terms
of his viewpoints on the interpretation of the Constitution. Not
all politicians interpret this to mean that he is necessarily
conservative in his viewpoints, which is what Bush intended. If
Roberts is truly a strict constructionist in the way he reads
the Constitution, then he will truly be conservative. If that
is the case, and he is confirmed, then let us pray that God uses
him to help turn some of the decisions of the United States Supreme
Court back into alignment with the godly Christian heritage our
forefathers intended for this country. Blessed is the nation whose
God is the Lord. (Psalm 33:12)
James Sanders
Pastor,
August 4, 2005
|
