Sense And Sensibility

Sense And Sensibility

When I was growing up there was a spate of r0ad signs demanding the impeachment of Warren. The target was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Governor of California, he had been appointed to the position by Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States – his nomination having been approved by the Senate and then by Congress. He was, however, more liberal – and he led the Court in a far more liberal direction – than had been anticipated.

Had the choice been a bad one? Was Governor Warren unqualified for the position? Absolutely not. Was he the right man for the job? Perhaps not. The two criteria don't necessarily go together. Chief Justice Warren was well-schooled in the law, the Constitution. and in American government, but his political philosophy – whether you view it as right or wrong – was not shared by large segments of the population. And the principal advocate of our judicial system differed in many of his views from those for whom he judged the law.

The Constitution was written at the end of the eighteenth century when our country was founded, and the document contained the compromises expected in such a contract. Not everything was agreeable to all our Founding Fathers, but it was a good start. It was the basis for all our laws, although there has been a lot of debate about some of their wisdom. Our outlook has changed regarding many subjects over the years, including the contents of our founding rulebook. Fair enough. Times change, and with them ideas. Over the years there have been numerous laws, at all levels, that have aroused the dismay of citizens – often dismay reflecting changes that simply mirror a reaction to societal differences over time rather than some political quibbling. And even moreso court decisions – especially those of the Supreme Court.

It's not a surprise. Since the beginning there was a call for a a regular review and updating of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was among the group favoring frequent change, feeling that children should not be bound by the views of their parents – moral or legal. In addition, however, perhaps nine eminent legal scholars should consider the perspectives of the American population – both the majority and significant portions of the minority – when they decide upon the “established law” that will govern our society. It's sad for example, that Roe v Wade, a decision long ago repudiated by the plaintiff, should still be inspiring invective and hostility so long after it became the law of the land, over the protests of so many. And it is surprising that “Doe,” of Doe v Bolton, whose suit accompanied Roe's and, according to the nine sages, supported its conclusions, disclaimed it and maintained that it was brought in her name without her knowledge, but was contrary to her wishes and beliefs.

And there are other issues about which we ask the enlightened nine to decide right and wrong although they are making sociological as well as legal decisions. The original Founding Fathers (all men) accepted the concepts of slavery, and the limitation of the franchise to certain men. Yet we manage to nullify these features of the “law of the land,” features with which the nine disagreed and which violated societal norms, by simply “interpreting” them out of existence. The Constitution is not inviolable when we want to change it.

Perhaps our Justices should consider how the American people feel and how they they'd vote when they consider the cases before them. More is involved in the law than the law than the law.