On Proper Responses

         Subtitled:

On Farewells, Fond

    And Otherwise

‘I see that you have strong religious beliefs, Judge.’

‘One could reasonably say that, Senator.’

‘How might that affect your ability to uphold the law, Judge?’

‘With all due respect, Senator, I would think that that would affect it rather well.  As in taking an oath, and so forth.’

‘Come come, Judge.  I think you know what I am getting at.  Let me rephrase the question: How might in influence your thinking.  On…issues.’

‘Let me put your question in a context so that I can address it as clearly as I can, Senator.

‘First: There is, of course, no religious test for federal office.  - ‘

‘Indeed, Judge.  Indeed.  I was only, ah, looking at ‘context’ myself.  But proceed.’

‘Secondly.  There are, of course, two different things here.  One is one’s religion, or lack thereof.  The other is dealing with the Constitution - the law of the land under such a rule of law.  I hold fastidiously to the concept of interpreting law against the law of the land.’

‘But there are changes in the law, over time.’

‘Indeed there are.  And if entered into via the amending process of that contract, they do indeed become part of the law of the land.’

‘And precedent?  What is called ‘settled law’?  What of that?’

‘There are two factors here as well.  One: Precedent as a concept is, indeed, very important, and to be honored, so that the law doesn’t become so arbitrary that it becomes capricious and tyrannical, depending on who is deciding the law at any given point in time.  But ‘precedent’ properly is against the litmus test of the Constitution itself, and as amended.  The idea of ‘settled law’ has another factor involved in it.  Decisions could possibly have been made that were not properly made as relating to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and so are subject to review.  As they properly should be.’

‘Would you, then, Judge, call yourself an ‘originalist’?’

‘I suppose so, Senator.  That.  Or a ‘strict constructionist,’ as I understand those terms to have been applied.’

’So, your thinking on the subject of the Constitution being a ‘living document,’ subject to interpretation as time and attitudes change…’

‘I do not recognize that term and idea, Senator.  The Constitution is a contract, between the several States and the federal government .  It - ‘

‘I don’t need you to tell me what the Constitution is, Judge.  Well  - you can tell me, and this body, what it is to you.  And that is, indeed, what we are here for. 

‘And so let’s get down to brass tacks here, Judge.  What do you think of Roe v. Wade, and how would you rule on any attempt to overturn it.’

‘First of all, Senator, it would be improper for me, or anybody, to say how they would rule on any matter before the Court.  That would depend on the arguments presented.  The best that I could say in the matter mentioned is that, as you have ascertained, I have an open mind as to the subject of ‘settled law’.  Nothing is settled in law in a nation living under the rule of law except the original intent and meaning of its Constitution, and its properly amended terms.’

‘’Properly’?  Do you mean to tell me - us - that you would even question the amendments that have been made to the original Constitution?’

‘But of course, Senator.  Whatever comes before the Court should be considered on its merits.’

‘Judge, I hardly know what to say, next.  You are so outrageous in your attitude…you would take this nation back a hundred - two hundred years, of evolution.  Of progress.  You are so far right that you belong with knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.  What do you have to say to that?’

‘I would say, that you are entailed to your opinion, Senator.  But when it comes to interpreting the law, just your opinion is not worth a hill of beans.’

‘ - What?  What??!  - Are you trying to show contempt of, of this body?’

‘No, Senator.  I’m trying my best to hide it.’

And so say I to the shade of Senator Ted Kennedy, who subjected the honorable Robert Bork to such vitriolic vituperation that he should have been hauled before any decent Ethics Committee.

That he wasn’t, and such a standard set, says a lot to the sort of country that the U.S. has become.