The Supreme Court, John Roberts and the Rule of Law

I have been able to only hear some of the proceedings in the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have read a great deal of what the opposing and supporting sides are saying about him. There are a few basic points that have emerged from the debate and should be elaborated upon.

First - The attitude of many people regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court has shifted over the last 50 years. Rather than being a body that reviews laws to determine if they are consistent with the Constitution and existing law, the Court is seen as a body that should decide the morality of law. This would empower them with the authority to create or to strike down laws according to the beliefs and attitudes of the members of the Court. It would negate the power of the people through the Congress to create laws. There was a reason the founding fathers invested the power to make laws in the Congress. By doing so, this power remains in the hands of the people. When it is given to 5 of the 9 Justices that are appointed by the President, we no longer have a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy.

Second - Because too many special interests groups believe in the power of the Court to create law, they have adamantly stated that no person should be on the Court if the Justice does not hold the same moral values that they adhere to. We have seen repeated attacks on Judge Roberts as interrogators have tried to determine his personal beliefs and values on the principles they hold most dear. The most compelling reason to me that Judge Roberts in a perfect person for the job rests in his repeated declarations that his passion is preserving the Rule of Law, not in furthering any particular personal agenda. Any Justice on the Supreme Court should hold this standard in the decisions they address.

Finally - There are many legal activities that I personally feel are damaging to either individuals or society, but because they are currently legal, I must allow those who choose to do these acts the same freedom I expect them to allow me. If a law or activity is dangerous, destructive or harmful, it is the responsibility of the people through the Congress, not the Courts, to create or change the law. By following this path, we will find the true intent of the Founding Fathers when they stated that the purpose of the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."