POLITICS - Supreme Court Justices

I have watched some of the Senate hearings on the nominations on both Roberts and Alito and have the following observations.

1. Republicans seem to want to treat Supreme Court nominations as if they are the same as Cabinet nominations. That is, we should defer to the President's choice unless the nominee is not qualified.
2. Regardless of what they say, their actions speak of not believing the Supreme Court has the function of acting as a check on the legislature or the President making unconstitutional laws or policies. That is, the Congress passes the laws and the Supreme Court should always defer to what they pass as law.

I was surprised to here Alito tell the committee that neither Congress nor the President is above the law, but did he actually mean that he believes that the Supreme Court acts as a check against unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and unconstitutional polices of a President? I do believe that the Supreme Court should act as such a check, it is one of the legs of the three-legged protection of our rights and form of government.

As to the Republican attitude toward Supreme Court nominations, they of course want their political ideology supported in the land. Also, the President does have a right to have people he can work with on his Cabinet and other Senate approved appointments, but this should not apply to Supreme Court nominations.

Supreme Court judges should never be political hacks with a political agenda. They are there to protect Constitutional Law and therefore, our rights. They are not suppose to be supporting anyone's point of view or agenda, conservative nor liberal. This is why they are appointed for life, so they are not beholding to being renominated because the sitting President or Congress don't like their decisions. One has only to pay attention to history, and not too long ago, to see totalitarian governments disbanding their version of the Supreme Court when displeased with their decisions. Shutting down people and organizations that disagree with government policy is the attitude of dictators.

As to "activist judges," this is a code-phrase that actually means a judge that makes decisions you don't like. A judge can make a decision for a specific constitutional reason and the judge get labeled "activist" from the side that does not like the decision and "fine decision, great judge" from the side that does like the decision.

Looking back, we do need to remember that the majority of Supreme Court Justices have turned out not to be what the President who nominated them expected. The justices seem to have performed the function our Founding Fathers intended, a check against unconstitutionality by anyone including the President, Congress, or "the people."

I can hear the steaming-ears shouts on that last restriction on "the people." Well, like it or not, in a constitutional democracy "the people" do not get to have just any law they wish, no matter how much the wish it. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional, period, and it's the Supreme Court's job to say so.

Of course there is a way to get a law that the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional, that is what the Constitutional Amendment process is for.