Lawfare: drawing the line

Scott at Powerline, A Philosophical Divide, says Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee, laid out clearly and eloquently the difference in judicial philosophy between Republicans and Democrats. Sessions draws the line and cites several examples to illustrate his point of view.

Down one path is the traditional American system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system, because it’s the fair system.

In the American legal system, courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law would strike at the heart of our democracy. Here, judges take an oath to administer justice impartially. That oath reads, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and to equal right to the rich and the poor, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

These principles give the traditional system its moral authority, which is why Americans respect and accept the ruling of courts, even when they disagree. Indeed, our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is a process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to truth.

The talking point is the assertion that the SCOTUS nominee is worthwhile because of empathy. It is about whether words, like those in the laws, mean what they say or can be ‘interpreted’ to fit the needs of the moment.

Comments are closed.