THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -- AMERICA'S TRUE RULERS

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In an effort to create a “more perfect union,” the United States Supreme Court was established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Various other lower level federal courts were also established by the U.S. Congress – but the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are final and may not be appealed to any other body – their jurisdiction is nationwide. However, the U.S. Supreme Court itself may, at a later date, overturn and reverse a prior ruling. It holds both original and appellate jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President of the United States and each must be confirmed for that position with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate. Federal Justice Appointments are for life and as long they continue with “good behavior,” they can only be removed by resigning or by Congress through the impeachment process. The U.S Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and such a number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by the U.S. Congress. Over the years, there have been a varied number of Associate Justices. Currently, the number of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices is fixed at eight. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for U.S. Supreme Court Justices. However, U.S. Presidents usually nominate individuals with prior legal experience. U.S. Supreme Court nominees are evaluated by the American Bar Association but their opinions bind neither the President nor U.S. Senate – however, these opinions are generally taken into account.
The confirmation and ultimate selection process, conducted by the U.S. Senate, is merely a stringent form of interviewing. All nominees are subjected to a rigorous and vigorous interrogation of their background and views on matters of constitutional judicial prudence with their most personal and private thoughts put under public scrutiny. These nominees retain the right to answer only those questions they feel are relevant to the position they are seeking and may refuse to answer any and all questions that are too subjective or requiring answers related to their personal viewpoints. Even if this process may seem unfair to the nominee, it is extremely necessary if we are to continue the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. As the final arbitrator of the law, successful nominees will function as the guardians and interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. They will be charged with the responsibility of ensuring equal justice under the law to all Americans.
The United States Constitution was designed to provide a strong flexible national government that met the needs of the republic, but protected the guaranteed rights of its citizens. It created a balance between society’s need for order and an individual’s right to freedom. To achieve these ends, the architects of this Constitution created three separate, independent, and coequal branches of government. Each branch was endowed with its own unique and distinct powers. The Legislative Branch was charged with making the laws and the Executive Branch was charged with enforcing those laws. The Judicial Branch, having the most complex role in this system, must interpret those laws by invalidating legislation or executive actions which in its considered judgment is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The power of “judicial review” has given the Judicial Branch a crucial responsibility in assuring individuals rights while preserving and maintaining a “living Constitution.”
In addition to the power of “judicial review,” courts now practice “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench.” It is the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of an existing law with the judge’s personal feelings about what the law should be. Judicial Activism is usually one of the following acts: interpreting a state or national constitution with personal liberties that are not explicitly stated within the law; overturning or refusing to overturn an existing law that is in disagreement or agreement with personal or political leanings; establishing a legal principal or right which is not written in the law; failing to adhere to a precedent; or ruling in a way that prescribes public policy.
Many times these rulings can be contrary to popular opinion – but revolve around issues concerning the equal protection clause, due process rights, and the right to privacy. Bench legislation is called “Decrees.” Decrees can be anything from mandatory jail population limits to hiring practice quotas. U.S. Supreme Court Decrees become the laws throughout the nation without any action from the United States Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court uses the Executive Branch to enforce these Decrees. Critics believe this to be a subversion of the democratic process – an unreasonable concentration of power in the hands of a privileged few. However, others see it as a way of preventing a “Tyranny of the Majority,” which is viewed as worse than the “tyranny” of the few judges. Therefore, the selection of potential judges must be handled with the utmost care and a detailed public analysis of each Supreme Court nominee, regardless of their privacy rights, must be completed. Understanding the individual’s ideology is essential in confirming a nominee for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court because, contrary to popular belief, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are America’s real rulers.