A Supreme Court For All Americans

(CBS)  This column was written by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

---

Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to Congress is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. As President Obama prepares to announce his first nominee to the nation's highest court, this is a good time to consider the vital role played by the Court in our system of government and in Americans' everyday lives.

Through recent, narrowly decided cases, we have seen clearly the Supreme Court's impact on ordinary Americans.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, we saw the Court undermine the intent of Congress by giving immunity to employers who covertly discriminate against their workers. The 5 to 4 decision struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across the country, and it sent a signal to corporations that discriminatory behavior, if kept in the shadows, would never be punished. In contrast, the Court's 5-4 decision earlier this year in Wyeth v. Levine rejected an anti-consumer position adopted by the Executive Branch during the last administration, and upheld strong state laws designed to protect consumers.

Both these cases, and many others, have far-reaching effects on the ability of Americans to seek justice in their courts. The closeness of the Ledbetter and Wyeth decisions makes clear that the stakes on the nation's top bench are very real.

I have encouraged President Obama, as I did his predecessor, to consider qualified nominees from all walks of life, from every corner of our nation, and from diverse backgrounds. I hope that he will look outside the "judicial monastery" as he considers nominees. I would like to see a Justice with real life experience, gained outside the confines of federal appellate court chambers.

I am looking for the President to pick a Justice who approaches every case with an open mind, and a commitment to fairness. I want a Justice who recognizes the importance of the words engraved in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law." I want a Justice who will keep faith with our core constitutional values of personal freedom.

I want a Justice who will make decisions based on the law and the Constitution. Politics and ideological agendas have no place on the nation's highest court, or anywhere in our federal judiciary. Activist judges - from the right or the left - who substitute their judgment for that which is written in our national charter and in our nation's laws undermine the protections for ordinary Americans provided in our Constitution.

Now more than ever, while the country is in the throes of an economic recession, and fighting to strengthen our economic and national security, Americans are looking to Washington for leadership and cooperation. The President is consulting with Republican and Democratic and Senators alike on this most important of nominations. This is an opportunity for this Senate to further the spirit of bipartisanship Americans want, and to confirm and impartial, fair-minded Justice to the Supreme Court.

The interests of all Americans are at stake.

By Patrick Leahy
Special to CBSNews.com

[maryphillips]

The only by which Americans can have a Supreme Court all their own is to elect one themselves. The Constitution is a magnificent document but it is outdated. No longer do we require electoral votes, a two-year election process, and justices who are appointed. The technology possessed today enables Americans to vote directly for their elected representative, and the Supreme Court justices should have a term limit. Imagine, the President and Vice-President have term limits yet our hightest court does not.

[tadzio308]

Re: stopkidding. You dispute no facts. You offer no alternative explanation of the facts. You appear incapable of nothing but name calling. This is characteristic of stupidity and bigotry. Are you a neocon?

[stopkidding]

Tadzio -- raising crackpottery to a new level!

[jon2012-2009]

Bipartisanship isn't worth it if all it does is legitimate ideas that have been proven disastrous. This is like the argument for the same or equal treatment and coverage of views when there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of one side or the other. Ideas that are already known to be of no productive value should be allowed to die a natural death or must come with informative disclaimers to blunt their impact.

[noloyalisti]

We need to have a progressive liberal who will stand up to the big corporations who own and run the government. It is a long shot even if the court was filled with liberals because of the absolute control by money (and the complicity by so many "good Germans" here is America). But we have to start somewhere.

I was making the point earlier that there SHOULD NOT be bipartisan anything now. The CONS have shown their true colors again and again. Just look at the disasters of Roberts and Alito.

[tadzio308]

Propitiation, nothing weird about the Catholics. Nixon discovered how deep the Democrat hatred of White Protestants was when he nominated Carswell and Hainsworth. The GOP since then has placated the Democrats by advancing Catholics because it is hard for them to vote against them. The other nominee rejected by the Democrats in the Senate was White Protestant Robert Bork, (who years later in 2003 became a Catholic). The Democratic haterd of White Protestants is fueled by Jewish loathing and discontent with WASPs It is very racist and class based. To understand it read the seminal work of cultural anthropologist, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, readily available on the Internet. .

[propitiation]

Noloyal,

This sounds like the Left-Wing Liberals want to be "Bipartisan:"

"The President is consulting with Republican and Democratic and Senators alike on this most important of nominations. This is an opportunity for this Senate to further the spirit of bipartisanship Americans want, and to confirm and impartial, fair-minded Justice to the Supreme Court."

Can you provide an example where Senator Leahy has ever been Bibpartisan? He was NEVER Bipartisan when President Bush was in office. He was a fake. He was the reason for the Gang coming together to stop his silliness. He is a hypocrite!

[propitiation]

Tad,

The problem that I have with your statement is that the Moderate-Conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court were all picked by White Protestant Republicans.

A little bit weird to think about?

[propitiation]

Tad,

Good point. A majority of the Justices are Catholics - Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110601134.html

[tadzio308]

America is over 50% White Protestant. With Souter's departure this group will have only one Justice. One in nine for over half. The largest group within White Protestants to never have had a Justice is the Mormons. Do not expect the MSM to take note of this. Not since Harry Truman has a Democratic president appointed a White Protestant. Yet this group provides more actual votes for the Democrats than any other identifiable demographic/ethnic/religious group. Why do Democrats and Liberals hate White Protestants? Is it because they founded this great nation and formed its ethos and they want to turn it into a communist/socialist state? You tell me, but it is clear that the Democrats and Liberals are at war with White Protestants for racist and ideological reasons. Some democracy when a majority is reduced to a token representation.