QUOTE:
* FOURTEEN: My Supreme Court Nominations: I will demand the resignations of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but will renominate them for five year terms under the conditions stated below. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.
I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:
- I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years, after which I will resign from that office. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the "good behavior" rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.
:UNQUOTE.
* FOURTEEN: Some background
The "FOURTEEN" I'm referring to is, promise #14 of 31 listed in "The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President," posted here:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
I had run for the presidency in 2012 under the terms of this contract. I am proud to boast that I was the only candidate in this nation's history to have offered a written contract in exchange for votes. Violating this contract would have forced me out of office. I suggest you consider offering your own contract listing at least the SCOTUS reform quoted above.
A lot of people in your party have been grumbling for decades about activist judges. So here's your chance to introduce some accountability in the High Court. And voters - at least those in your party's base - will applaud your courage in trying to rein in the excesses of that Court. These two links provide details concerning the legality of my proposed reform:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/10/questions-concerning-supreme-court.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-creative-way-to-reform-us-court-system.html
Two hot button issues
The Supreme Court most recently angered social conservatives by ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and Obama Care's current method of determining eligibility for subsidies.
Same-Sex Marriage
QUOTE [Footnote 1]:
The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
:UNQUOTE.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, there wasn't any intention that it would allow same-sex marriages. If a gay couple had tried to invoke such an argument at that time, they would have been laughed out of town. What Kennedy seems to be saying is, "We will interpret the Constitution by determining what opinion polls show what the public will favor - in this day and age."
The proper way to have proceeded would have been to insist, "If gays are to be allowed to get married, we refuse to rule that the 14th amendment was meant to allow this. If you support same-sex marriage, then amend the Constitution to specifically allow this." This is too important a change in our fundamental and long-standing culture to allow simply because the High Court decided to bow to public opinion polls.
What next? Will polygamous couples claim the right to marry by invoking the 14th? Why not? Don't they have the same fundamental right to marry as couples do?
This link connects you to an essay I'd written on gay marriage that provides some useful perspective:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
Saving Obama Care
I now offer two quotes concerning the High Court deciding it had to save Obama Care:
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
:UNQUOTE.
I yellowed the words "seems to say." The text of the law doesn't "seem" to say anything about these subsidies being "available only to people buying insurance on [state established exchanges]." The text clearly states that only people of low income buying insurance on state run exchanges are entitled to subsidies.
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
:UNQUOTE.
I emphatically disagree with Roberts here. When it became obvious that most of the states were not going to establish exchanges, then it was up to Congress to amend the law to allow all low-income citizens to obtain subsidies regardless of whether their state had established an exchange. Of course, Congress would not have agreed to such a change, due to the increased number of Republicans in the House.
However, it is not the job of the Court to worry about how many Pubbers are in the House. It is the Court's job to interpret the law, and not to weave any fantasies about Congress not meaning what it had written in plain English when Obama Care was passed.
Final Note to GOP Presidential Contenders
My suggestion on how to reform the Supreme Court is long overdue. And it will resonate with commonsense Americans. I hope you don't decide against it simply because it was my idea. If an idea has merit, its source should be irrelevant. You decide.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, Just another member ofthe Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Footnote 1:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages
Footnote 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment