Doing Something Wrong - Eroding the Constitution.

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is a constitutionalist. He believes that the Founding Fathers meant what they said and said what they meant. They laid down basic truths that serve a vital role in sustaining the republic, a nation established on the idea that the government exists to serve the people—not the other way around. He believes that our founders chose to believe that the people could govern themselves prudently, without destroying the civil liberties their ancestors had won, and without subjecting political minorities to arbitrary power.

      Today, as he sits on the nation’s highest court, he is troubled by what he sees as an attack on the country and the constitution by Leftist forces that would like to see that constitution replaced or modified of it’s original intent. He sees the lower courts filled with “activist” judges that do not interpret the Founders meaning in the constitution, as they should, but rather how they would “like” it to be. He wrote, “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”

      Justice Gorsuch, who is proponent of originalism which means that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written, says the only thing a judge should consider, “Is this law true to the Constitution?” The rejection of this line of thinking permits jurists to interpret the Constitution in novel and creative or even destructive ways, according to their own ideologies. It permits them to adapt a meaning in the text that they wish had been there to fortify contemporary societal attitudes. They are not there to wish and this “we are above the mere words on the paper" attitude is a violation of their duty as jurists’ There is a deeper and more long lasting impact of their decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where "we the people" are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, NOT have our betters impose their notions on us. He wrote. “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.” Many of the lower court justices ARE doing something wrong.