Not only is it being suggested that the replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens be a protestant (noted here in a previous post), but that replacement must also, according to President Obama, “[know] that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” [picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=supreme+court+stevens&iid=6650705″ src=”1/9/6/b/US_Supreme_Court_852e.jpg?adImageId=12653827&imageId=6650705″ width=”250″ height=”165″ /]The President has also suggested that a new nominee should possess a “keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”
At the risk of sounding like a broken record by repeating my previous post, what ever happened to the idea that a justice’s sole responsibility was to be faithful to the Constitution, regardless of which side in a case the “supreme law of the land” happened to favor? All of this talk about having a person on the Court who represents the American people or sympathizes with them is really nothing but meaningless rhetoric. Representation and sympathy can come from our elected officials, not judges. To suggest otherwise would distort the purpose of our system of government and the separation of powers.