LETTER: Safeguard against court rewriting our culture and laws
Mr. Weed, as many liberals, seems to have difficulty (Daily Inter Lake, Aug. 2) understanding the Constitution which he accuses me of trampling “into oblivion” because I suggest a super majority of the Supreme Court be required to decide major cases to prevent politically motivated judicial activism.
In fact, the Constitution, while establishing the Supreme Court in Article III, does NOT declare the number of justices or how their decisions are made (i.e., simple majority). In fact, there aren’t even any requirements in the Constitution to become a Supreme Court Justice... not even a law degree. The Constitution merely establishes the court as an entity.
So as we turn over the fate of our nation and our heritage to nine men and women who have no obligation to follow the Constitution once appointed, I, for one, do not find it onerous or “outlandish” to demand that decisions be made based on our Constitution rather than by political leanings. Since only four of nine Justices need to vote in favor of hearing a case, and as few as six Justices represent a quorum, and since a tie in cases where only six or eight justices are present essentially results in a pass upholding the lower court ruling, I do not feel it burdensome or un-Constitutional to require a super majority of six to reach a decision.
It is specifically because Supreme Court decisions set precedent which they are reluctant to overturn in the future that we should assure their decisions are solidly based.
If two justices who had performed gay marriages can vote on revising the definition of marriage that seems to have served us well for several thousand years both before and after our Constitution was written rather than recuse themselves, then certainly I should be able to suggest legislation that would require a super majority of justices vote to change a long accepted part of our laws and culture rather than make these decisions on ideological grounds. —P. David Myerowitz, Columbia Falls