“JUST AN UMPIRE”
U.S. Supreme, Chief Justice, John Roberts, claims that (in his role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution) he is merely an Umpire calling “Balls and Strikes.” My short response. “Just an Umpire, my a_ _. “
My more in-depth response. The kindest thing you can say about Justice John Robert’s statement is that he is “sophomoric” … lacking in nuance and sophistication. But, given the upward, mobility in his, long, long journey in government and politics (which he parlayed all the way to the head of the Judicial Branch of government), I say Justice Roberts is just using a “sleight of hand” shell game in an attempt to take the heat off himself and his fellow, right-wing Supreme, Court Justices i.e. just trying to dodge what is there to be seen… the political “partisanship” that the right-wing, U.S. Supreme, Super Majority uses in rewriting our U.S. Constitution to suit their own needs.
But, Justice Roberts’ “sleight of hand,” comes with a price… for him. The price ??? The revelation that Justice Roberts is gaslighting America. Does Justice Roberts really think America is made up of only country bumpkins or MAGA ??? For the most part, the U.S. Constitution has no strike zone. The Constitution is much more subtle and sophisticated than a baseball strike zone. It is loaded with “subjective” terms and nuance that beg interpretation. And, that interpretation (as it always is with all interpretations) is in the subjective mind of the beholder. Or as Goethe so aptly put it… when interpreting, “We tend to find what we are looking for.”
Examples of “subjective phrases” in our Grand old Constitution…
- Due Process of Law
- Equal Protection of Law
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
- Fair Trial
- Probable Cause
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Rights, Privileges and Immunities
- No “Excessive” bail
- “The enumeration… of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
- etc.
Rhetorically, I ask Justice Roberts and his right-wing, Federalist friends on the U. S. Supreme Court…
- Is that a “one strike zone, fits all” for all the above subjective constitutional phrases ??? or
- Are there different strike zones for each subjective, constitutional phrase, above ???
As quickly as I ask the question, it becomes readily apparent that Chief Justice, John Robert’s Strike Zone, “sleight of hand” starts to (philosophically and semantically) unravel, unwind, fall apart and crumble before our very eyes.
Hey, you right-wing, Supreme Court Justices, don’t B.S. me, and don’t gaslight America by telling us that you are just Umpires, calling balls and strikes… on wholly, ill-defined, and “subjective” Constitutional phrases that beg interpretation.
You are not Umpires. Umpires have a well-defined strike zone. If there is even a strike zone for Judges and Justices, it is, at best… an illusory, ill-defined, and subjective strike zone that allows Justices to interpret the Constitution in any way they want and find “cover” behind the false claim… “just calling balls and strikes on behalf of We the People.”
ORIGINALISM…
DESTROYING THE LIVING CONSTITUTION
More Bull S_ _ _ _. This time from deceased Justice, Antonin Scalia. For the same reason discussed above (“subjective” eye of the beholder interpretations), I also resist Justice Scalia’s invitation to interpret our Constitution via an “originalism” theory, i.e. the words and phrases chosen by the Founders (for the Constitution) … are forever locked into and determined by the historical context of the Founder’s times (absent a Constitutional amendment).
Even assuming we can get an accurate, historical context of the Founders’ era of 250 years ago (a questionable assumption), still the Founders intentionally chose “subjective” words and phrases to create a living, breathing document that could adapt and grow, just like human evolution… which constantly adapts and grows. That is clearly signaled by our Founders intentional choice to use the “subjective” terms they chose in their writing of the Constitution. See again those “subjective” words and phrases above.
Context of the Founders’ times is just one relevant consideration (amongst many others) in interpreting the subjective terms in our Constitution. I reject Scalia’s theory that “originalism” alone rules the day. Certainly, the Founders wanted to write a constitution that had some sense of permanence, a constitution that did not have to be rewritten (or amended) every 10 to 20 years years. Certainly, the Founders intentionally chose subjective words and phrases for the flexibility those subjective words and phrases would provide in an endlessly changing world. Certainly, the Founders’ intentional inclusion of subjective words and phrases was our Founders’ way of signaling their desire to allow the Constitution to live, breathe, evolve, adapt, progress and change with the course of an ever-changing world.
But, the ever mischievous, Justice Scalia pulled off a Saturday Night Live hoax with his theory of “originalist” interpretation… which is still the “Holy Grail” of Constitutional Law interpretation for the Supreme Court’s, Super Majority, right-wing, Federalist, Supreme Court Justices (Clarence “The Mooch,” Thomas, Samuel “12 Angry Men” Alito, John “Strike Zone” Roberts, Neil “Georgetown Prep” Gorsuch, Brett “I Like Beer” Kavanaugh and Amy “Handmaid of Lord” Comey-Barrett).
The right wing, Federalist, Supreme Court Justices are using their false and deceptive terms (Umpires, Balls and Strikes and Originalism) to rewrite long standing, past precedents and reframe American Law to suit their subjective, right-wing needs… especially their right wing need to make America a Christian Nation.
Fred Lauck
Copyrighted 2024
