Acrimonious process

When the founding fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they recognized the need for a third branch of government to ensure actions taken by the other two branches of government, the states, and other parties were legal under the Constitution. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court was given the duty to interpret the Constitution and laws, and evaluate the constitutionality of challenged laws.

The justices of the Supreme Court are to be appointed by the president, not elected, and for “good behavior” or life if they don’t do anything to be impeached. It was hoped that these two factors would prevent politics from influencing their selections or decisions. As we have seen over the years, nothing could be further from the truth. The candidates interviewed by both parties of the Senate are questioned about their political philosophy, ideology, religious beliefs, ethnicity and any other questions the interviewers feel might qualify or disqualify the candidate, depending on which side is asking the questions. The Constitution is seldom mentioned.

As the process has become more acrimonious, uncivil, and character assassinating, it is a wonder that anyone would want to undergo such humiliation in order to gain such an honor. It is enough to make one wonder that, if the Lord himself were nominated, how the process would go.

Democrats would want to disqualify him because he would no doubt reverse Roe v. Wade, or because he taught that people were to work for their sustenance where possible. Republicans would want to disqualify him because he taught that we should care for the poor, the old, and downtrodden, and justly share the bounties we are given. Both would shun him because he despised hypocrisy, false witness, and incivility.

The one thing we all need to remember, no matter what our political persuasion may be, is that the Lord will indeed someday be the chief justice and his decisions will be just, binding, and nonappealable.

PAUL HANSEN Sherwood