The Unethical Packing Of The Supreme Court

While I'm both personally prolife, and also voted twice against the assisted suicide measure on the Oregon ballot that is now at issue in the Supreme Court, I am nonetheless very concerned at the White House efforts to unethically make the Supreme Court an instrument of a narrow "conservative" ideology rather than an arena in which all cases are given a fair hearing.

With the court hearing on Oregon's assisted suicide issue, the questioning of John Roberts on the court took a sharp turn from the questioning of other justices, instead looking to identify with the same line of legal reasoning of Alberto Gonzales who is the plaintiff for the Justice Department's line on the assisted suicide issue. And this raises some ethical questions about the role of the court and the official policies of the Bush Administration. Roberts is a former corporate lobbyist attorney closely associated with other republican administrations, so must be considered a form of White House insider. He is hardly an idependent voice from the opinion's of the White House, or an independent judge on issues presented to the court by the administration. And with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acting as the chief plaintiff in the assisted suicide case, this entire case smacks of an inside deal to shape public policy of the state of Oregon, of which a majority of Oregonians approved on the ballot, first by a 51%, then by a 60% margin. One of my former doctors is even a spokesman on the issue. What should be an issue of a state setting it's own medical policy, is now under debate to be federally regulated. The 10th Amendment apparently does not apply to Oregon in this case.

Roberts line of questioning on the issue involved questioning about the role of federal law as having a the leading role over state law. Yet when issues of abortion will face the court, then any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, will not automaticly make all abortion illegal, but instead, will return the issue back to each state to decide. And that's the problem that I see. As Bush packs the Supreme Court with nominees such as Roberts, and Harriet Miers, someone who is even more directly associated with the White House, and was reportedly involved in help in suppression of questions about Bush's national guard service, then an inconsistent pattern of law will come from the Supreme Court in which some issues will be decided that are considered "states's rights" and other are decided as federal rights will be used merely to promote a conservative social policy line, rather than based on evidence found within the U.S. Constitution or Bill Of Rights used as the real master guide to decide all legal matters.

When Mr. Bush refers to the type of court nominee choices he intends to choose for the Supreme Court and for federal judgeships, he keeps echoing the same line of of choosing "conservative judges" and those who will "interpret the Constitution". Yet there appears to be little evidence that Roberts is actually "interpreting" the U.S. Constitution, as in regards to the 10th Amendment which gives some powers not specified as for the federal government to the states, rather it appears an attempt to find a line of reasoning to give the federal government power to regulate state medical policy is being reverse engineered to supress a state role in assisted suicide, another pet issue often associated with right to life organizations.

When other presidents have chosen other judicial nominees, the choice was based on finding those who were well qualified. But with Bush, shopping for an ideology, and only the "conservative" one seems the one, the only, and the most important qualification. Other past presidents, such as democrats didn't publicly state that only "liberal" justices would be considered to be nominated. And republican presidents such as Ford, Bush and Reagan all chose reasonably fair minded justices in many cases to fairly hear the cases that are presented before the Supreme Court. And conservative Websites constantly look for a purely ideological line to promote in the American court system, rather than a system based on a fair and impartial hearing of a case by all parties. In a case like the assisted suicide one from Oregon, in which the administration's own Attorney General is the plaintiff, and the new Chief Justice is a figure closely associated with republican administrations, the search for judges must be seen as one in which the conservative's goal for the American court system is to politicize it, and turn it into an ideological rubber stamp for more of their own personal opinions. This is a form of kangaroo court construction for the American justice system and highly unethical in my view. It is a classic American symbol that justice is often seen as carrying two scales, and blindfolded as well. The American justice system is supposed to be independent and fair. A fair arena where the least of American society can gain a fair hearing with the most powerful in an equal platform. It was never envisioned by the founding fathers that some political ideologues would seek to turn the american justice system into yet another political wing of government or a single ideology. I find this all deeply sad.

My personal opinions on abortion or assisted suicide don't matter as much, as my stronger feelings that the American court system is now being corrupted into yet another ideological tool by some who hold less than democratic views. This is now the greater moral evil.