Actually, I do not feel we should change the Supreme Court. It was just fine. I feel we should keep it balanced. The court should not be political. I feel it is wrong for either party to try to pack it with justices who are minded to fit their parties political interests. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, in my judgement, Obama needs to recuse himself since he is an interested party in one of the courts current cases. As a result, in this instance, he should not pick a replacement. I am well aware of his Presidential duties but he has a clear conflict of interest.
So why is this issue about the Supreme Court so vital?
Some people feel our Constitution should be strictly interpreted, others feel it should be loosely interpreted. I addressed my thoughts on whether we should change our Constitution in a previous article.
Let me address what happens with strict vs. loose interpretation of laws:
In 1970 Congress passed RICO,
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Its intention was to enable the arrest and successful prosecution of members involved in organized crime – the Mafia. That sounds fairly basic. But prosecutors have stretched and stretched and stretched the use of the wording in the statute to apply it in ways that were never intended by the men and women who wrote the statute in the first place. Some who have nothing to do with organized crime have had their personal property seized as well as other things. If you unknowingly loan something to a friend who is also a crook, they (the government) can take and keep your property. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Personally, I think it’s terrible. I believe laws should be applied narrowly. If Congress wants a more broad interpretation of a law, that is how it should be written into a statute originally.
I am not a proponent for the guilty, I am an advocate for the innocent who are wrongly accused, and caught up in this nonsense. It is too difficult to extricate yourself without going bankrupt in the process. If you have an interest read “Law as a Weapon- How RICO Subverts Liberty and the True Purpose of the Law” at www.Independant.org I cannot tell you that I entirely agree with this article, but you’ll get the gist of my beef.
I again emphasize, draft the law the way it is intended and leave it that way.
I was already kicked off of a jury because I refused to apply a law in a way that was unforeseen by its drafters. The Prosecutor didn’t want my opinion. He said courts have already sustained his version. That didn’t matter to me. That is legislation from the bench.
THAT is why you need some justices on the Supreme Court that believe laws should be interpreted narrowly. They are strict constructionists.
But you also need those with opposing views who can tell us why a law needs broad application and inclusion for example on the issue of same sex marriage or if an injustice results as a consequence of some application of the law and if it needs to either be altered (such as a part invalidated) or entirely nullified if it is in violation of our constitution.
The water in Washington appears muddy to me at this time. I only hope wise decisions are made because we all have to live with them a very, very long time.
What are your thoughts about our Supreme Court and who should be appointed to replace Justice Scalia?
or check out our most recent articles:
Originally posted 2016-02-18 05:45:22. Republished by Blog Post Promoter