On Sunday morning, thousands filled a Baptist church in Nashville, for "Justice Sunday II", an effort to draw support for stifling the power of what they believe to be a "radical" federal judiciary, the Supreme Court of the United States. Their efforts were supported by well-known conservative Christian leaders James Dobson and Tony Perkins, and bolstered by another conservative face, the scandal-ridden Texas Representative Tom DeLay.
The focus on the Supreme Court is odd at a time when the Court itself is weighted with more self-avowed conservatives than liberals, and during a process which looks promising for appointing another such conservative in the near future. But the real story seems to be the desire that a Congressional leader has to dismantle the safeguards that our founders put in place to protect the highest bench, while at the same time showing his own ignorance of basic civics.
Tom DeLay spoke at length regarding the role of the SCOTUS, and the 'radical' judicial decisions it has enforced upon the will of the American People. Playing to an audience that was keyed to hear his message, it was obvious that he was going to get little resistance to his ideas from the gathered assembly.
To occasional shouts of "Amen!" from the audience, DeLay said arguments for same-sex marriage, for instance, have no basis in the Constitution and represent "the frustrated imagination of an out-of-touch political movement whose world view the American people simply will not endorse."
Indeed, there is some truth in this. Given the option of allowing same-sex unions in states around the country, those who chose to vote also chose to deny same-sex unions, whether by wide or narrow margins. In general, states have shown little support for the concept of same-sex unions, and many political leaders in those same states have lobbied voters to reject these proposals.
But that doesn't speak to the whole issue. The Founders and Framers of the Constitution created a lifetime judiciary appointment for a reason. Untethered from fear of impeachment or the need to raise election capital or answer to a mercurial public body, the SCOTUS was the sole government entity that was established with immunity to the tyranny of the majority. As has been seen in the past, once appointed, SCOTUS justices are able to meld to a moderate bend that they might not be allowed if they were forced to answer to angry constituencies or Congressional interference.
Tom DeLay isn't satisfied with those answers, though, and attempts to twist these inherent government balances with false flashes of paranoia.
The Constitution assigned Congress the power to make laws, DeLay said, but "this fact ... has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself."
As evidence, he and others cited Supreme Court decisions about abortion and religion in public life. "That's not judicial independence," DeLay said. "That's judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."
"All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told the crowd. "The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress."
DeLay claims that every High School social studies student knows this, but that the judiciary has ignored this. While he questions this understanding of the balance of federal powers, it's obvious that Tom DeLay himself has issues of his own with basic civics knowledge.
While no one questions that Congress is given sole power to create laws, it is also true that Congress was restricted in the laws that it may create, specifically those which would infringe upon the rights of the States, or those of the People, as enumerated in the oft-ignored Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The balance of federal powers is shaped for this purpose, to allow a stop-gap in instances where Congress, impressed by its own power, would choose to overstep the boundaries of the powers it was given by the Constitution. Congress was given a due process to expand it's powers, which would seem to highlight further the limited role that the Framers wanted the federal Congress to play, and if the current Congress and the mood of it's citizenry demand the assumption of additional fundamental rights, it is possible for that Congress and those People to modify the Constitution to do so. If this is not possible in the current political climate, it is exactly this protection from the whim of a slight majority that the Constitution was drafted to protect our laws against.
Deconstructing it further, there are things that should be noted. While voters have generally been against same-sex marriage, it is a fallacy to attempt to construe those who vote as an accurate representation of the thoughts and beliefs of the real majority. The demographics of voters are weighted towards upper-class, white, and older individuals, who might tend to a social conservative bend that agrees with DeLay. Additionally, even if a majority of the country believed that restricting the rights of individuals is okay, this wouldn't make it correct from a Constitutional standpoint.
Tom DeLay questions whether the court is operating in the fashion in which the Founders intended, and that perhaps judges that represent "the will of the people" should be installed into the SCOTUS. However, DeLay and the sponsors of the Justice Sunday event are incorrect in their view of the Court's mission. When the Court errs on the side of freedoms, they are correct. When they err on the side of personal freedoms versus government interference, they are right. When they side with the fundamental rights of ALL people versus the concern of the narrow-minded few, they are fulfilling their duty to the ideas that envisioned it. Perhaps the fact that the Court can breed such consternation in both sides is the most compelling evidence that the highest judiciary is in balance.
Luckily, there are still those speaking out against the narrow views presented by speakers at "Justice Sunday".
Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
"Majority Leader Tom DeLay's participation in this weekend's Justice Sunday II is troubling. Mr. DeLay's vilification of judges is unworthy of a leader of a major political party.
"Our nation's leaders should cherish an independent judiciary - a concept we promote around the world as the foundation for the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. Instead, Mr. DeLay has shown nothing but contempt, most notably when he crudely threatened the federal judges who refused to do his bidding in the Terri Schiavo matter: 'The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.'
"Our nation's leaders must value the fundamental principle of an independent judiciary, not try to undermine our system of government."
Emmanuel Cleaver, D-Mo, and a Methodist Minister
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a Methodist minister, was one of several religious leaders who spoke out against Justice Sunday II in advance.
"It is one of the most startling and painful realities of serving in Congress these days because it is said over and over and over again that people don't have faith if they disagree," he said last week.
Now, as much if not more than ever, it is important to protect these fundamental separations of power, and ensure that justices, regardless of how they arrive, are free to express their true feelings regarding law, and not catering to the pressure and whim of a Congress that forgets it's place in the balance of those powers. And we must ensure that we are meeting OUR responsibility, and holding the men and women of Congress accountable for their role in attempting to undermine the protections which the Founders of this country worked so hard to provide.