The current discussion about selecting a Supreme Court Justice is running on one rail: the search is for an objective judge. That is impossible. The search or confirmation is set up for failure.
The Executive branch enforces the laws from the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch interprets the laws and orders. “Interpretation” is a subjective process. It always involves divining what was the intention in the minds of legislators (or executives) when their document was constructed.
To claim to read the law text and interpret the original meaning and intent is full of opportunity for personal opinion. When Jesus went “up to Jerusalem,” did he climb a hill or travel toward the north on a map oriented with north at the top? Not necessarily. So a judge could claim Jesus traveled “uphill,” or “north,” or “moved closer” to Jerusalem.
Our search for a “fair” judge is to find a person who will read the law and apply it to the circumstances before him. The legal arguments are important and so are the current cultural, social, and demographic conditions.
Any judicial candidate who has expressed an opinion on a topic that is in social flux has reported themselves as biased. Change from “tradition” is expected to be slow, the role of the court is to codify that change and strengthen it while being aware of potential complications and always (yes, a bias) leaning toward what will help the people of society — least harm and most long-term good. It would be “bad” to try to conform to any religious doctrine or tradition, regardless of how “good” the judge may personally feel it is for the people.
Any candidate with a claim to be firm on one side of an issue is to be treated with suspicion. Except that they will decide on the merits as applicable to the current case and the state of society. That is a subjective role.
Any candidate for Supreme Court Justice who hides their history from a confirmation process is suspicious. It must be shown by a preponderance of their history that they will decide cases on their merits as applicable in our state of society. That is, the decision will meet the law’s requirements and support social behavior that is beneficial for people at all levels of the economy and social status.
The object of a court is to provide us with decisions that best fit a case and most benefit society. That is a subjective role.
Confirm wisely.
