LETTER: Courts don't hold supreme power

I was pleasantly surprised when a current presidential candidate actually expressed an understanding of the proper constitutional role of the judiciary. He said “The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws.”

True to form, the writer of the article on NBC News called this position “a dubious interpretation of the Supreme Court (ruling)...” No, it is simply a correct understanding of the clear language of the Constitution; nothing “dubious” about it.

Article I, Section 1 of the federal Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...” “All” means ALL. Judges make decisions, not laws. No legislative authority is granted to them.

Another long entrenched fallacy: The Constitution does not establish “life tenure” for federal judges. The actual language is judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...” (Art. III Sec. 1) Obviously, Congress (specifically the House) is responsible to determine “good Behaviour,” as it has the power… and duty… of impeachment. Ironically, adherents of “judicial supremacy” would have us believe the absurd notion that judges themselves are to determine what constitutes “good Behaviour,” since they believe judges have exclusive and final authority to determine and apply the Constitution; the oath of legislative and executive office holders apparently being in vain.

Is citing international law rather than the U.S. Constitution alone as a justification for their decisions (as in Lawrence v. Texas) exemplary of “good Behaviour” by judges? I think not.

We were never intended to live under a judicial oligarchy. Abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, a tax penalty for those who do not buy government approved health insurance… all “laws of the land” because the Supreme Court says so? Not hardly… except when a cowardly Congress shirks its duty while hiding behind the skirts of black robes. —Rick Jore, Ronan