Why judges matter
October 3, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward
Chief Justice John Roberts with President Bush.
The cases now before the Supreme Court demonstrate why it is important that America have judges who understand the rule of law and who give the Constitution and laws the meaning they were originally intended to have.
In the Supreme Court’s new term, which began yesterday, justices will hear several important cases. Among the cases the high court will consider:
- Affirmative action. Parents in Seattle, WA, and Louisville, KY, have sued to overturn rules that can bar students from attending the nearest school because of their race. Louisville requires that black students comprise between 15 and 50 percent of a school’s student body; students were reassigned to meet these racial quotas. Justices will decide whether government officials can use race to assign students to schools in the name of “diversity” or whether this social engineering amounts to an unconstitutional racial quota.
- Immigration. A 1996 federal law says the government should deport immigrants, including legal residents, who commit felonies. The court will consider whether the federal government has the power to deport immigrants convicted of felonies under state law even if the crime is not considered a felony under federal law.
- Environment. A lawsuit by special interest groups and several states argues that the federal government is not sufficiently regulating greenhouse gases. They seek to require the federal government to impose tough new regulations on carbon dioxide. Even if this were good policy—and it’s not—it is not the role of courts to set policy.
- Big labor. Public-sector workers in Washington state who choose not to join the union can still be required to pay certain fees to the union. A divided state court ruled these unions are not required to ask permission of non-members before using these fees for political purposes. The Supreme Court will decide if unions must ask permission of non-members before using fees for political activity.
- Abortion. Justices will decide whether or not to override decisions by lower courts that blocked the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.
In these and other cases, the justices should remember that the Constitution and other laws, not their personal policy preferences, should serve as their guide. And they should remember—particularly in the environmental regulation case—that passage of laws is the province of Congress, not the courts.
Reading material for justices
Heritage members eager to learn more about why judges should be faithful to the Constitution are invited to order copies of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which spells out what the Founding document actually means. Painstakingly compiled by Ronald Reagan Fellow Ed Meese, who served as President Reagan’s Attorney General, and Matthew Spalding, the Guide includes a detailed analysis of every line of the Constitution from dozens of America’s top legal scholars.
The book’s publisher recently reported to us that more than 50,000 copies of the Guide are now in print and that sales continue to be brisk. This is a real testament to the power of the conservative ideas it embodies.
Following Jefferson’s guidance
Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-IL) took to the pages of the Washington Examiner yesterday to explain their new transparency bill, which provides taxpayers with unprecedented access to information on how the government spends their money. President Bush signed the bill into law last week.
Thomas Jefferson put it best in 1802, “We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”
Giving taxpayers the ability to track more than $1 trillion in government contract and grant spending — including earmarks — by congressional district and keyword search opens the federal budget to the scrutiny Jefferson had in mind.
Bad news in the war on terror
“The Pakistani government’s summer truce with the pro-Taliban tribesman in northern Waziristan, on the Afghan border, may be good for President Pervez Musharraf's political health,” writes Heritage national security expert Peter Brookes in The New York Post, “but it’s sure hurting Afghanistan—where the Coalition fight with the Taliban is definitely on.”
Brookes explains that since the peace agreement between Pakistan and Pashtun tribes friendly with al Qaeda and the Taliban, the number of attacks on Coalition forces in Afghanistan has increased 300 percent. “Sheer coincidence? Not a chance.”
The deal gives the Taliban a refuge where they can escape attack from both Coalition troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s own security forces, Brookes continues. “Taliban fighters can head for Pakistan to rest and regroup over the harsh winter, before coming back in a spring offensive.”
“It’s a perfect safe haven—Pakistan’s government won’t go in, and the U.S., NATO and Afghan military forces across the border can’t do so, either—it’s politically off-limits.”
Unfortunately, he concludes, we can’t do much about it. “Pakistan’s truce stinks, but we’re just going to have to hold our nose for the moment, while we try to persuade Musharraf to change course. He’s no perfect partner, but he’s been an ally against terrorism nonetheless. Fact is, in war, sometimes the only bad ally is the ally you don’t have.”
In other news
- North Korea has announced that it will conduct a nuclear test, though it did not say when.
- Last week, Congress approved the construction of 700 miles of fence between the United States and Mexico. The Mexican government has asked President Bush to veto the legislation, though President Bush has indicated his willingness to sign it.
- A Turkish airliner was hijacked and forced to land in Italy today. Early reports indicate that the hijackers, two Turkish men, were upset about Pope Benedict’s plans to visit their country later this year.
- The Census Bureau reports that the nation’s population will reach 300 million people this month. Environmental activists, in a return to the discredited 18th-century ideas of doomsayer Thomas Malthus, are complaining about the alleged environmental impact of this growth.
- If the Spring Valley, NY, chapter of the NAACP has its way, a medical clinic run by observant Jews would be prohibited from closing on Saturdays in observance of the Sabbath. The NAACP maintains, bizarrely enough, that closing on Saturdays violates the religious freedoms of non-Jews. Now which of these would be a violation of religious freedom: inconvenience to some in a neighborhood who cannot go to a particular health clinic one day a week; or a government ruling barring adherence to one’s religion?
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.
- On Wednesday, October 4 at noon, Heritage hosts a blogger conference to discuss the success of efforts to increase federal government transparency.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
