LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Court should be interpreting the law

Michael K. Casler, Las Vegas

Sunday, June 7, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.

The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice will be accomplished amid partisan politics, as have many other confirmations.

Our symbol of justice is blindfolded to indicate that justice should be bound by the law and not influenced by prejudices or personal beliefs. That is the goal, but as human beings we will of course never reach that goal.

Many in the Democratic Party believe the Supreme Court should make law, as long as the law it makes is along ideological lines they agree with. Many in the Republican Party claim that the Supreme Court should not make law, but are OK when it does, as long as the law it makes is along ideological lines they agree with.

I believe the Supreme Court should not make law, whether I agree with it or not. The Supreme Court should interpret the current law. I do realize that justices will be influenced by personal prejudices and beliefs, but I hope they will try to keep that to a minimum. Where is the political party that really supports my belief?

Discussion: 4 comments so far…

By POWERPLAY

6/7/09 at 2:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hey Michael > You ask where is the political party that really supports your beliefs that's the problem there is none all the political partys have a platform some have more on there's then others.
By Future

6/7/09 at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Many in the Democratic Party believe the Supreme Court should make law, as long as the law it makes is along ideological lines they agree with."

While the discussion centers on the interpretation of the Constitution for which there actual are few cases each year a bigger body of interpretation comes from the inability of Congress to write clean laws that require little interpretation.

It is a constant irritation that Congress will write broad inept laws, which then need hundreds of pages of Administration generated rulemaking, which then have court challenges by the losing side.

Whether Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will admit it the selection is about having someone who will support their interpretation of their laws that they failed to properly write.

As an example some states have refused stimulus money with Administration rulemaking strings that requires the states to violate their own state laws. They are being sued in court to force them to spend the money.

Who would you put on the Supreme Court to decide this issue?
By Bigsky007

6/7/09 at 8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael, the courts are a key component of the system of justice in this country. As long as we have a situation in this country whereby a majority can pool their votes and demonize and subject some minority to injustices as we have just seen happen with California's proposition 8, as long as that same type of majority can pool their votes and elect officials to the legislature, who they know will aid and abet in the suppression of certain minorities through legislation and as long as we have judges, who have no problem turning a blind eye to the "justice is blind" principle, then the need for the judiciary to step in and fill the void being occupied by evil will be there. So often the majority acts like the dirty wrestler, who seeks to cover his dirty choke hole. Let's face it, if everybody followed the principle outlined by the Golden Rule, these discussions wouldn't be necessary. Would they?
By smaction

6/7/09 at 1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Michael, While I am not sure your examples are the best for the points you are making, I agree with your assertions. However, I think we all should be worrying more about the cesspool of politics that is the Nevada Supreme Court. Look at Guinn v. Legislature. Look at the recent decision disenfranchising all the voters of the City of Las Vegas about a new city hall. Want to go back further, but in recent memory, try the Whitehead debacle or rewriting term limits votes to exclude themselves. These are only a few examples that scratch the surface of their misconduct.