Let's hope we can trust his judgment.

I took a brief hiatus there (3 days, I think?) but I am back. The big news (aside from the slowly dying swine flu scare, no pun intended) seems to be the news that Justice Souter is retiring after this session, meaning Obama will very soon be putting in his first Supreme Court Justice. Let's hope we can trust his judgment.

There is all sorts of speculation about whom he might pick and why. Will it be a woman? A Latino? A Latina? Some other minority? Does it need to be? As with every issue, there are two sides (or more), and I won't claim any kind of supreme knowledge on this one. I don't know much about appellate judges, nor am I privy to our President's "short list." I really can't say whether it is "necessary" to appoint a minority or a woman, though I must say that if he/she is highly qualified, adding diversity to the court certainly can't hurt. Then the question, will he/she be a political activist, an "extremist," who will try to legislate rather than interpret constitutional law? Conservatives fear yes--though they certainly want their own "activists" in there to overturn cases like Roe v. Wade, and/or rubber stamps.

Our government was set up by the founding fathers to provide checks and balances for power. The Supreme Court is the most powerful check, in that they are supposed to be politically impartial and interpret the legislation passed by Congress, deciding whether or not it is constitutional. Our Constitution was written before civil rights ("all men are created equal" but that really meant all land-owning white men, certainly not minorities or women), automatic machine guns, internet or the sexual revolution. A lot of issues are, and will be, difficult to define based solely upon the Constitution. Does that mean laws restricting things like accessing child pornography are an invasion of privacy? That, because of the Second Amendment (written at a time when the British army were occupying colonists' homes at their leisure and the founding fathers wanted to assure that these Americans had a right to protect themselves and their families from these invasions), it should be as easy for anyone eighteen or over to buy an automatic weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per second as it is for them to buy a cheeseburger? Let's face it. The world has changed a lot since the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, both for better and for worse. We no longer tolerate slavery or even segregation. We guarantee all people equal rights--men and women, of every race, color, ethnic background, religious background and sexual orientation. We no longer tolerate the exploitation of children in sweatshops (within our borders--though we certainly tolerate it from other countries, when it means we can buy a product for $3 instead of $10...but more on that topic at a later date). Our interpretation of the Constitution has to be flexible, and has to take into account changes that have taken place since its creation--good and bad changes alike. The Constitution has to be a living document--and that means open to modern interpretation in light of social, scientific and medical progress. We want to uphold the principles the country was founded upon, but we do not want to take our country back to all the mores and values of the 18th century. We want to be a country that looks (and moves) forwards, and strives to guarantee both more freedom and rights and more protection to its citizens--particularly those most vulnerable to be abused or exploited by the majority.

I cannot say that I want a politician on the Supreme Court, even if it is one whose ideology I agree with. That would set a precedent that could absolutely come back to bite me in the ass one day. But I have to agree with the President when he says that he wants someone pragmatic but empathetic. Law cannot be interpreted only in the black and white manuscript of white men who lived and died hundreds of years ago. Just as our world and country have changed, the laws have changed and adapted, necessarily. We should not be afraid to make necessary adjustments in the Constitution as well. I am sure plenty of conservatives and even many centrists and those left of center would blast me for this, but I would be very much in favor of eliminating or, at the very least, adjusting the Second Amendment. I believe the circumstances for which it was written no longer apply, and that if the founding fathers could see the devastating effect that having such "freedom to bear arms" has had on our country, especially in comparison with other western countries who wisely decide NOT to grant such unlimited freedoms to their citizens, they would turn in their graves and fall over one another to scratch those lines out of the Constitution.

We also have to go back to recognizing and supporting the rights, freedoms and privacies of individual citizens over those of corporations. Though people seem to believe today that the capitalist system and our Constitution are inseparable, they are not. It is shameful and reprehensible that today the courts side more often than not with corporations, even when said corporations are trampling employees, consumers and competition. The free market is not a moral system or one that is inherently good. It is simply one of many models of economics, and if looking at what its influence in the world today is doing to more vulnerable populations is any indication, it is not the fairest or even the most free. We need a Supreme Court that is willing to stand up for individuals, especially those most often overlooked or slighted, and to recognize that corporations are not people. They should not automatically be granted the same rights that are guaranteed to individuals. If Republicans try to stir up a fear of "big government," I am far more afraid of big corporations. They exercise vastly more power in our nation today, at all of our expense, and at the expense of countries and populations around the world.

Appointing a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important, if not the single most important, decision a President has to make. These judges are for life, and cannot be voted out of office if we are unhappy with their rulings. We need a strong justice who will represent individuals (and not just rich ones), who will analyze the ways that laws affect common people, and who will value individuals' rights and liberties over those of the corporate world. This does not necessarily mean an "extremist" judge--but one who interprets the Constitution and the laws with empathy?

I will second that, President Obama.