A vivid phrase has been used to describe the Supreme Court of the United States: “nine scorpions in a bottle.” If only they would stay there.
Let us turn to an early American for some guidance. Here is a section of a prayer by Bishop John Carroll, the first bishop of the Catholic Church in America, dated November 10, 1791. Thus, it was composed after the ratification of the federal constitution, June 21, 1788, and shortly before the ratification of the Bill of Rights, December 12, 1791. I think it is a model, not only for prayer, but for perspective.
We pray Thee, O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through Whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy holy spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of the United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his Excellency, the Governor of this State, for the members of the Assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world can not give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal. (source)
Surely, that's a prayer we all need to have in mind, if not always on our lips. But, let me ask you this: What kind of role do you think Bishop Carroll and his contemporaries expected the Supreme Court to play in the life of the new country and of its citizens? After all, he didn't even bother to mention it.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Lane Core Jr. was raised in the United Methodist Church and became a Catholic at seventeen. He has been active in Internet apologetics for almost a decade. A freelance writer for the Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh/Greensburg, Pennsylvania), he holds forth at The Blog from the Core.
But they do not. They have been, as a body, insinuating themselves into every aspect of everybody's everyday life, usurping matters of policy that by right belong to the other branches of the federal government, and matters of law that by right ought to belong to state and local governments. Like the incoming tide that slowly advances farther with each passing minute, quietly inundating low-lying levels until the unwary might find themselves surrounded by water, the Supreme Court has arrogated unto itself more and greater power, inch by inch, decade after decade, generation after generation.
Now we look around, wondering how in the world we got to be where we are, and worried how we are ever going to extricate ourselves. This worry has extended to the Left as well as to the Right. Quite recently, for instance, the court has determined that the government-forced transfer of property owned by one private party to another private party meets the definition of “public use.” It also decided that a state law allowing marijuana to be grown and consumed by private individuals on their own property does not supersede a federal law proscribing such use because the Congress has the constitutional power to ”regulate Commerce… among the several States.”
Careful observers noted that neither decision should have surprised anybody. Why? Because they followed logically (so to speak) upon previous decisions of the court. Thus, the justices have effectively replaced the federal constitution with their own ipse dixit: they have established their own rulings — their own preferences, if you will — as the supreme law of the land.
Moreover, they do this willy-nilly. For sailors, any port in a storm; for justices, any excuse they can manufacture in a case. In 1992, for instance, one reason the court declined to overturn Roe v. Wade (the decision that had invalidated state laws against abortion) was that society is so divided over the issue; in 2003, the court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (which had allowed an anti-sodomy statute to stand) partly because — because — because — because — because — society is so divided over the issue. (Confer.)
Here is how it works. Like-minded justices on the court cobble together a majority: If they want to approve something, they find an excuse to do so; if they want to not approve something, they find an excuse to not do so. Since we have allowed them to make their rulings the supreme law of the land, what excuse(s) they come up with are irrelevant. And they know it.
It was not supposed to be this way.
A new scorpion is now being dropped into the bottle. President Bush has nominated John G. Roberts, Jr., as the new justice for the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts apparently agrees that it wasn't supposed to be this way. Here is part of his written answer, dated Febuary 11, 2003, to a written question from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) during the confirmation process for Roberts's appointment as a judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals:
Deciding the case calls for an appreciation of both the strengths and shortcomings of the adversary system, adherence to precedent and reliance on the traditional tools of the judicial craft, and openness to the wisdom offered by colleagues on a panel. It also requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will — the Framers expected them “calmly to poise the scales of justice,” as Judge William Cranch put it, even “in dangerous times.” But it does mean that, in doing so, they should be ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the Framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.
My goodness. A measured, well-reasoned reply that asserts the requirement of humility. Might one be forgiven for suspecting that the mere mention of humility might stick hard in the craw of a senator? And might one have some grounds for hope that the tide might soon be turning?
Roberts is reported to be a “traditional Catholic,” and his wife is said to have been an executive vice-president of Feminists for Life. Neither fact has been made much of, so far. But the contest has only begun.
