Why the Fight? Nomination of a Supreme Court Justice
October 2005
"It's the best reality show on the air." That's what one commentator called it. If we saw it ourselves, we got the impression that we were watching a championship fight. Yet it was a simple procedure in our United States Senate. And this procedure will be repeated again now.
The procedure was the confirmation of a person nominated to be Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. And the nominee was not even the one doing the verbal slugging. At first he simply answered questions. Then he was simply watching the debate, and waiting for the final decision.
But he will do a lot more than watch now that he is confirmed. He will have real power, and both sides know this. They know he will be a main protagonist in a struggle that is much bigger than him.
His name is John Roberts. The U.S. Senate has just approved him as the 19th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of this country.
Almost immediately after Judge Roberts was confirmed, the President nominated another person to fill a second opening on the Supreme Court: Ms. Harriet Miers. Let's look at what was in play in the confirmation of Judge Roberts to see what may happen also with Ms. Meirs.
Hope and fear
It is not yet clear exactly where he stands on many issues, but some senators fear him, while others have great hopes for him.
Generally, the senators who favor abortion and homosexual marriage, fear Judge Roberts. They believe he will overturn decisions that have led to the death of millions of unborn children. The pro-life senators generally support judge Roberts, hoping he will protect human life and promote solid values.
Big stakes
But this was not just a question of personal preferences and intuitions of particular senators. The media, the Church, and many others also confirm that the stakes are high. They know that the basic moral direction of our country is in play here. They are right. Supreme Court judgments affect all Americans, for better or for worse.
Dreadful decision
About 150 years ago, there was a dramatic case brought before our Supreme Court. It was about slavery. A black slave from the southern United States (where slavery was legal at the time) had escaped to the North, and was therefore free. Nevertheless, his former owner found him, and demanded he be brought back into slavery. The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The slave's name was Dred Scott. Mr. Scott lost that decision. He was made a slave again, by decision of the Supreme Court.
Changing dread to freedom
Most Christians in the North were horrified at the decision, even though the Court claimed it was done legally. These Christians, members of other faiths, and even those who did not believe in God insisted more tenaciously over the next years that the words of our Declaration of Independence "...that all men are created equal..." guaranteed the right of Mr. Scott and all slaves to be free. They helped to elect members of the government who agreed with these moral principles . A man named Abraham Lincoln, who favored freedom for all, was elected president. There was a terrible civil war. But the result was the Emancipation Proclamation , giving freedom to the slaves.
Protecting basic freedoms requires moral courage . Our court system also needs people who possess moral courage.
New drama
In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States made another stunning decision. Its consequences were even more dreadful: the Court ruled that a mother has a right to kill her unborn child. This decision ( Roe vs. Wade ) has deeply divided our country ever since, and has been followed by a series of decisions that have made many Americans and the Catholic Church extremely worried about the moral direction of our country.
Life, death, and bottle deposits?
In the debate about present moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage and prayer in public, both sides claim to be protecting the basic rights of others. Some call for a middle ground or a series of concessions . Yet what is in play is so radical that a middle ground is not possible.
We can use the example of abortion. We find that one side (the pro-abortion side) says that a woman always has the right to an abortion. The other side (the pro-life side) says that a baby always has a right to life.
Other issues, like whether a state may require cash deposits on bottles or how high to raise gas taxes, may be negotiable, and can be discussed in our legal system, but the life of a baby does not have a "middle-ground." Once someone decides he or she can kill, we are all in danger. A society without basic moral values is in danger of killing itself.
Slogan slugging
We have seen a lot of slogans flying around in these hearings. But slogans can sometimes destroy serious thought. One slogan that was often heard is "a woman's right to choose."
The Church sees this phrase, "a woman's right to choose," as a slogan for selfishness . This is a way to say that unborn babies can be killed. No woman would really want to choose this. What would be needed is ways to help women accept their babies and be respected.
When protecting moral values, a society has to look to something other than selfishness. It has to look deeper. Selfishness made abortion possible.
For those who go deeper than slogans, it is clear that the conflict between the culture of life and the culture of death is in play in our Supreme Court. As confusing as the debate may sometimes become, it must be clear to us that, in basic moral issues, there is a right and wrong.
Catholics need not apply
Mr. Roberts is a Catholic. Ms. Miers is a Protestant Christian. The Catholic Church has clearly and always stood in favor of life--not just now, but throughout history.
Many of the dramatic issues that the Supreme Court faces (abortion, euthanasia, protection of marriage) were things Christians faced 2,000 years ago. Little by little, and in spite of persecutions, Christians were able to change bad practices in society and help others see the value of solid moral principles. They eventually convinced their leaders to create laws that protected solid moral principles. As a result, society became more humane.
Today there are loud voices in the Senate and in our culture that claim a Catholic or Protestant Christian who defends moral principles has no right to be a judge, because he or she will "impose their beliefs" on others. But the Catholic argument is simple. It is not a matter of making someone believe in the specific things of our religion. For example, we are not trying to make non-Catholics believe that Jesus in really present in the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is simply a matter of fundamental values, which all people of good will can appreciate.
We do not know if Judge Roberts will defend these moral principles by the means allowed to him as Chief Justice. Nor do we know what Ms. Miers will do if she too is confirmed. But we can hope and pray that they will do this. If they do, we can also make their work easier by increasing public awareness of the fundamental values that make our society stand firm.
Not there yet
Mr. Roberts has just been approved, in spite of this very dramatic debate.
If Judge Roberts does favor life in his decisions, there are still two more rounds to win, and round two has already begun.
The second nominee, Ms. Meirs, could be even more crucial in swinging the Court in favor of life. So far there is even less known about her stand on these issues. If Judge Roberts and Ms. Miers do hold that a child's right to life is protected in our founding documents, a third pro-life judge would still be needed to overturn the 1973 abortion decision.
Jesus once said that "the children of darkness are more astute than the children of light." He meant that the laziness and apathy of Christians can be the reason evil grows in the world. We must work peacefully but tenaciously to create a culture of life in our government and in our society. Many people are doing this. Will you join in?
|
