The Constitution
Article II, Section
II
Separation of Power
Although a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court
justice does not require the approval of Congress, it does seek the approval of the Senate.
With the recent filibuster of judicial nominee Goodwin Liu, this
appropriation of checks and balances in regards to the separation of power
among the three branches of the national government seems to be a clear example
of a misinterpreted constitutional article.
The constitution itself seems to consistently be in flux over the
definition of certain declarations. If
the system of checks and balances was initially put into place so that no one
branch had any more power than any other branch, then why does it appear that the Senate has
the final word on judicial nominees?
Isn’t this more indicative of a Parliamentary jurisdiction?
Watching the behavior of the human beings that wear the
title of Senator, it is clear to me that not one of them makes decisions based
solely on intellect. Individual interpretation
and emotion will always be a factor; the American English language is never
succinct.
Perhaps a specified term for a Supreme Court judge would be
more appropriate than the lifelong appointment.
The argument against the confirmation of Professor Liu seems to be
against the interpretation of previous testimony and personal philosophy;
albeit I have never met a human who did not change with age. Have we become a nation so deeply imbedded in
our labels of Republican vs. Democrat that we now will push aside our views of
what is best for all in lieu of what is best for our particular party?
No comments:
Post a Comment