Pro…Something
A lot of folks have looked at a trio of U.S. Supreme Court cases handed down in the past week and suggested, with favor, that the current court is Pro-God, Pro-Babies, and Pro-Guns.
You could certainly think that, given the specific outcome of each case. But I have a different view.
I say it’s “Pro-Constitution”.
Here’s why that’s different. To say a justice is “Pro-Babies”—for example—suggests that the ruling may in part be due to the topic. That’s the same criticism leveled at those on the left who were “Pro-Abortion”…and if our system of governance has any meaning, it has to be based in the Constitution and appropriate interpretations of it regardless of the specific facts of the case.
In other words, you have to be able to articulate the Constitutional principle first, then apply the specific facts of the individual case to those principles. Otherwise, it’s not jurisprudence—it’s picking winners and losers based on a justice’s personal whims.
Some would say that’s exactly what happened with the Roe v. Wade decision a half-century ago…enough justices wanted a certain outcome that they then adapted the meaning of the Constitution to fit. It’s never been solid Constitutional interpretation; even liberal law professors have admitted that pretty consistently.
So if the Court is, indeed, “Pro-Constitution”…there is a much better chance of consistent interpretation and application of specific laws. That’s what gives us confidence in a legal system…justice being blind, and all.
Of course, this is all “in theory”—how humans act “in practice” can disappoint. But our government, the most successful democratic republic in history, is based on a solid theory…and presumes humans act accordingly.
