Jerry Miskulin – 9/14/05

This page was last updated on September 17, 2005.

Roberts could become robot; Jerry Miskulin; Beaver County Times; September 14, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“With John Roberts confirmation hearings under way, I’d like to lodge one complaint, and that would be he must be crazy. To ask why I’ve come to such a conclusion, well I’ll tell you.

“If attorney Roberts, who has a thriving practice, is to become like Justices Scalia and Thomas, I see a fate worse than death for him. Somebody in the Republican Party years ago decided what was kosher politically and what was not. There’s no room in the Republican Party for inductive reasoning. It’s all deductive in nature.”

[RWC] Mr. Miskulin needs to keep up with his current events. Judge Roberts has not had “a thriving practice” since 2003, when he was appointed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“The Republican Party years ago decided what was kosher politically and what was not?” For the sake of argument, let’s say this is true. Does Mr. Miskulin believe the same is not true for the Democrats? For example, does Mr. Miskulin believe the Democrats don’t have a pro-abortion litmus test? What about FDR in the 1930s? He didn’t like the Court’s rulings and attempted to pack the court by adding six more justices. As we know, that scheme failed.

If Mr. Miskulin believes “there’s no room in the Republican Party for inductive reasoning,” he doesn’t understand the term.

“Attorney Roberts, if he follows the accepted ways set out for him to become, will be no more than a robot. He will have forgotten more than he knows.”

[RWC] Not to be picky, but how can anyone forget more than he knows?

“An independent-thinking Supreme Court is something that’s frowned upon by many. As the court of last resort, shouldn’t it be above petty prejudices and serve to enlighten? But for many they want to pull the strings. I guess it’s all how you look at it.”

[RWC] The Supreme Court’s purpose is to interpret the laws of the U.S., including the Constitution. Its purpose is not to “enlighten.”

“Independent-thinking Supreme Court?” Translation: Justices who creatively read the Constitution to say what they want the Constitution to say.

Let’s consider the results of “independent-thinking.” Until the 1950s, “independent-thinking” justices told us “separate but equal” was constitutional. Until this year, we knew what “public use” meant. As a result of “independent-thinking justices, we now know “public use” means anyone willing to pay more taxes than the current property owner. Though it’s not yet the ruling of the Supreme Court, the “independent-thinking” U.S. 9^th Circuit of Appeals tells us it’s unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

The purpose of law is to provide us with a fairly constant legal foundation. When laws become subject to the personal policy preferences of judges, laws lose their meaning.