Take a moment and construe what the word ‘politics’ truly means. Specifically, what is entailed with making a calculated political decision in the process of formulating law and public policy?
Much has been made, and no doubt, will continue to be made in regards to our judicial system and how there is a concern manifesting amongst those attune to political affairs that judges are ‘legislating from the bench.’ What these individuals concern themselves is the ramifications that are wrought by such callous manipulation of words. These mere manipulations lead to ambiguity and consolidation of power within a single branch of government, which is contrary to any semblance of what our founding fathers intended.
What remains paramount to our system of governance is the fact that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are accountable to the people. All the while, the Judicial Branch should be construed as an intermediary between the two, basically to uphold the rule of law as concocted by the aforementioned branches. Without delving too much further into an elementary civics lesson, it is easy to see the rudimentary functions of each branch and their respective roles within this utterly unique process.
Such is said to illustrate the concern of those that believe that the Judiciary Branch shows tendencies of encroaching upon the legislative functions. Take, for instance, these comments uttered by Justice Breyer in discussing what aids him in his analytical process of interpreting laws,
“I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences,” said Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by President Clinton. “Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition - believing that those help you reach a more objective answer.”
Would it not better serve our policy makers to determine the purposes and consequences of the laws they are mandated to enact? It is their sole responsibility. As an intermediary, the Supreme Court is charged with construing whether the laws promulgated by the Executive and Legislative Branch can co-exist with our Constitution.
Does not the very definition of tyranny begin with an unaccountable entity reigning with no checks or balances? Justice Breyer is allowed to make these types of comments for just that reason. Individuals who understand this process find such comments inexcusable, and, at best, irresponsible. A humble observation by the present Chief Justice clearly illustrates the manner in which those who clothe themselves in black robes should approach their solemn duty,
“[I]f the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.” That’s what “equal justice under the law” means.
In other words, the Constitution does not delineate that a Justice should weigh the consequences of what decisions may bring, anything to contrary would usurp the equal protection afforded under the law.