Let's Fire the "Supremes"
Let's fire the Supreme Court. Radical, huh.
Let us use a little Socratic dialectic. Not being a scholar or academic ( the two are not one and the same, unfortunately), please humor my simplistic lay definitions.
What is the Supreme Court?
It is the judicial branch of the government.
What is its purpose within the original framework of our nation's founding?
It was included as an arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution.
Would it be true to assume that by these definitions it depends on there being a Consititution. Obviously, if there was no Constitution they would not be needed.
Is the Constitution a written document?
Of course - written in very good English.
Are the Justices of the Supreme Court literate?
Certainly, they're well educated.
If a document is written and we read it what does it mean?
It means what the author or authors of the document who wrote it purported it to mean.
How do we understand what the author(s) meant?
We look at the biography and the writings of the authors
within the historical context of the times.
Has the text of the Constituion changed, except for amendments thus provided for by the document itself?
No, its still the same document
If one reads the document today and substitutes his meaning for the authors, based on the definition just given, is it then the same document?
Well, no, its now the reader's document.
If the document is no longer the "founding fathers's" do you continue to need the Supreme Court which was established to arbiter and interpret their document ?
Well, I don't guess so.
Since the "supremes" are more or less trashing the Constitution, lets legislatively abolish the court as established by the Constitution. Assuming we do need a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches, let's elect the judges for a limited, but adequate length of time, by popular vote. Since we can keep a President no more than eight years, lets arbitrarily start with an equal time frame for the court.
Then if they want to make "judicial" decisions based on international opinion, foreign court interpretations or the desire to assure a certain outcome, they will at least have to answer to the people who put them there and who can also remove them.
Let us use a little Socratic dialectic. Not being a scholar or academic ( the two are not one and the same, unfortunately), please humor my simplistic lay definitions.
What is the Supreme Court?
It is the judicial branch of the government.
What is its purpose within the original framework of our nation's founding?
It was included as an arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution.
Would it be true to assume that by these definitions it depends on there being a Consititution. Obviously, if there was no Constitution they would not be needed.
Is the Constitution a written document?
Of course - written in very good English.
Are the Justices of the Supreme Court literate?
Certainly, they're well educated.
If a document is written and we read it what does it mean?
It means what the author or authors of the document who wrote it purported it to mean.
How do we understand what the author(s) meant?
We look at the biography and the writings of the authors
within the historical context of the times.
Has the text of the Constituion changed, except for amendments thus provided for by the document itself?
No, its still the same document
If one reads the document today and substitutes his meaning for the authors, based on the definition just given, is it then the same document?
Well, no, its now the reader's document.
If the document is no longer the "founding fathers's" do you continue to need the Supreme Court which was established to arbiter and interpret their document ?
Well, I don't guess so.
Since the "supremes" are more or less trashing the Constitution, lets legislatively abolish the court as established by the Constitution. Assuming we do need a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches, let's elect the judges for a limited, but adequate length of time, by popular vote. Since we can keep a President no more than eight years, lets arbitrarily start with an equal time frame for the court.
Then if they want to make "judicial" decisions based on international opinion, foreign court interpretations or the desire to assure a certain outcome, they will at least have to answer to the people who put them there and who can also remove them.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home