LETTER: Philosophy main concern with new Supreme Court justice
To the Editor: U.S. Senators who stand firmly against rushing to confirm President Barack Obama's latest Supreme Court nominee, favoring the will of the citizens as they select a new president in just a few short months, are actually living up to...
To the Editor:
U.S. Senators who stand firmly against rushing to confirm President Barack Obama's latest Supreme Court nominee, favoring the will of the citizens as they select a new president in just a few short months, are actually living up to the highest standard of that sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Judicial philosophy is the main issue here. Justice Antonin Scalia was a strong proponent of adherence to the text of the Constitution, and was willing to apply the sort of judicial restraint envisioned by our Founding Fathers on matters that fall outside the scope of the U.S. Constitution.
But the dangerous judicial philosophy of the liberal side of the court, which believes the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" written on an etch-a-sketch, allows judges to manipulate the Constitution to accommodate the flimsy whims of our rapidly changing culture. These sorts of justices see themselves as the agents of cultural change and not as officers of the law.
Senators have the responsibility to represent the will of their constituents; therefore, as a citizen of South Dakota, we will have a significant ability to affect the decision. I am pleased that Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds are standing firm in their decision to allow "We the people" to decide what type of justice is appointed to the Supreme Court by the people's vote for the next president.
Linda D. Schauer
Concerned Women for America of South Dakota