We now have a conservative President-elect. a conservative Senate and a conservative House of Representative. Will the Democrats fight them tooth and claw? Of course they will. I would expect no less.
But now, working within our Constitution, hopefully these Washington “elites” will fulfill their sworn oaths and support and defend the Constitution.
The first and most important task for Trump is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia – a jurist who believed that laws are neutral, favoring no one.
[Source: Rules of the game, by Walter E. Williams]
Hillary Clinton campaigned that she would “look broadly and widely for people who represent the diversity of our country” and that “we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights (and) on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community.” Justices who would stand for the “rights” of particular groups only enhance the conflicts that brought Donald Trump to the forefront of American politics.
Professor Williams gives us a prime analogy. Let’s look at a simple example of the benefit of neutral rules and their impartial enforcement.
[From the Williams article] On Nov. 20, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Cleveland Browns will play. So far this season, the Browns have not won a single game; their record is 0-9. On top of this sad record, the Browns have not had a winning season since 2007. By contrast, the Steelers haven’t had a losing season since 2003. In anyone’s book, this is a gross disparity. On Nov. 20, should the referees have the empathy to understand what it’s like to be a perennial loser? What would you think of a referee whose decisions are guided by empathy? Let’s be explicit.
In the name of compensatory justice, referees might stringently apply pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the Steelers and apply the rules less stringently against the Browns. Another question is: Would you support a referee who refuses to make defensive pass interference calls because he thinks it’s a silly rule? You’d probably remind him that the league makes the rules, not referees. Most people would agree that football justice requires that referees apply the rules blindly and independent of the records or any other characteristic of the two teams. They would also agree that referees should impartially apply the rules of the game even if they personally disagree with some of the rules.
When referees or Supreme Court Justices exercise “compassion” we revert to a system opposed to the notions of our Founding Fathers. These great men gave us the opportunity to unleash human enterprise and restrict government from showing partiality. At the time they were concerned with “kings, barons, dukes, and lords.” Today we are concerned with Supreme Court Justices who want to show favoritism to groups that sound better (the “underserved”) than barons and dukes, but, in principle and in fact, create partiality, bias, subjectivity, and injustice.
As Professor Williams instructs, the U.S. Constitution represents our “rules of the game” for all American citizens. The status of a person appearing before the court should have absolutely nothing to do with the rendering of a decision.