Spring Break
Topic: Should judges claim a party affliation?
Jennifer Menster
Issue date: 2/25/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
The next four years could be very important for the United States Supreme Court. With a few justices sick and getting older, the possibility of George W. Bush appointing new judges is very possible.
So the question raised and the concern of many democrats in congress is what kind of judge should Bush appoint?
Personally, I believe that the judges should not be appointed based on their political affiliation. The ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is to ensure that all laws of the United States of America are equal under the law of the Constitution. This is not republican versus democrats. When the constitution was written in 1776, there wasn't even a republican or democratic party. It was the federalists and anti federalists. So our judges should not base their interruption of the Constitution based on a party affiliation when the parties didn't even exists at the time our fore fathers wrote the document.
According to the Constitution in Article III, Section I, it says, "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour." This means that judges should be independent and nonpartisan.
Laws on abortion and gay marriages should not be made based on one's political beliefs. They should be made based on the Supreme Court justices' interpretation of the law of the Constitution.
Bush should not appoint a judge that boldly states his political beliefs in his court. Bush should look for a judge whom agrees with the Constitution on the separation of church and state. A judge should acknowledge Article X that reserves rights to the state. However, the Supreme Court should ensure that a law will not be created that goes against the Constitution. The constitution does not say that people must marry the opposite sex. The Constitution does not say an eye for an eye; nor does the constitution say only white men should hold all the jobs. The Constitution says all people are equal under the law.
So the question raised and the concern of many democrats in congress is what kind of judge should Bush appoint?
Personally, I believe that the judges should not be appointed based on their political affiliation. The ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is to ensure that all laws of the United States of America are equal under the law of the Constitution. This is not republican versus democrats. When the constitution was written in 1776, there wasn't even a republican or democratic party. It was the federalists and anti federalists. So our judges should not base their interruption of the Constitution based on a party affiliation when the parties didn't even exists at the time our fore fathers wrote the document.
According to the Constitution in Article III, Section I, it says, "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour." This means that judges should be independent and nonpartisan.
Laws on abortion and gay marriages should not be made based on one's political beliefs. They should be made based on the Supreme Court justices' interpretation of the law of the Constitution.
Bush should not appoint a judge that boldly states his political beliefs in his court. Bush should look for a judge whom agrees with the Constitution on the separation of church and state. A judge should acknowledge Article X that reserves rights to the state. However, the Supreme Court should ensure that a law will not be created that goes against the Constitution. The constitution does not say that people must marry the opposite sex. The Constitution does not say an eye for an eye; nor does the constitution say only white men should hold all the jobs. The Constitution says all people are equal under the law.