No One May Qualify for Supreme Court
The news today reports that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers checked yes on a 1989 questionnaire which asks, “If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?” According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, “This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard.” Based on the senator’s assumption, no one would qualify for the Supreme Court. To be a justice one must have gone through life without forming any opinions. By the same reasoning, one who had stated they would have opposed this same amendment would also be unable to judge fairly. To be a qualified candidate for the supreme court, one must not have any opinions about any issues. This is, of course, ludicrous. What Sen. Feinstein is really saying is that a candidate’s opinions must agree with those of the pro-abortion group.
Melinda Penner, at Stand To Reason, wrote a nice blog on this very subject. She states, “…as an originalist regarding the Constitution, I believe judges should interpret what the Constitution says regardless of their personal views and commitments. I don’t want conservatives or liberals ruling based on their political or religious opinions.” One’s opinions about issues, whether conservative or liberal, should not matter. What should matter is how one approaches the Constitution of the United States. The real question in this case is not whether one supports or opposes abortion, but whether one will interpret the law as an originalist or whether one will legislate and be an activist judge.
I’m afraid, using Sen. Feinstein’s criteria, anyone with an opinion is disqualified from sitting on the Supreme Court. That leaves….no one.