Blayne Sucks

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner is retiring from the United States Supreme Court. This is easily the story of the summer as far as politics is concerned.

I remember writing a paper about the United States Supreme Court when I was in high school. It was probably the first time I had ever really thought about who the people were that presided over the SCOTUS. Since then I have kinda always had this curiousity about the least well known third branch of the United States government.

Personally, I believe strongly in finding someone believes in the original wording and the original intent of the authors of the Constitution. I would not consider myself an expantionist, but I do think that there have been some new technologies that require more careful consideration of the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

There are a few hot button topics that are always mentioned when people talk about potential nominations. One of those is separation of church and state. I recently read George F. Will’s thoughts on this issue and I have to say that I really like his phrasing at the end of the article when he says, ‘Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: “Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent — does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects — the display is constitutional.”‘

Another hot topic is Abortion. I am pro-life. I am against the death penalty. IMHO, we shouldn’t kill anyone, including babies and convicts. Now, is this the be all and end all topic for me? No, there’s a lot more to being a good Supreme Court Justice than simply having a good idea on one or two topics. I wouldn’t eliminate anyone simply off of one opinion. (Incidentally, I would like the courts to at least be consistent. If women have the right to abort their children without consent from the father, then men should never have to pay child support for children they didn’t consent to having.)

Environmental protection and property rights are also another issues that seems to come up a lot in these discussions. Personally, I am rather protective of the environment. But I think there are a lot of rediculous laws out there. Mostly, I think this sort of thing should be handled as much as possible at the state level since they all have varied environments of their own and it should be up to the citizens of those states how they want to treat their diverse environments.

As for property rights, I believe that people shouldn’t be able to have their land taken from them if they don’t consent unless it’s deemed vital to the Federal government or national security. It’s rediculous for people to lose their homes so that the state can build a strip mall or something similarly stupid.

Civil rights and civil liberties are of course and important topic here. I think that things like Affirmative Action have gone too far and out lived their usefullness. It only perpetuates discrimination to have laws and policies that require specifically looking at those things. I would hate to see someone who is an ethnic minority added to the court purely or even mostly because of their race. Race shouldn’t be a factor at all in things like this. Gender shouldn’t either.

Anyhow, I’m sure this won’t be my only post on the Supreme Court seat that just opened up. Thanks Justice O’Conner for your years of dedicated service!