Friday, September 16, 2005

Checks and Balances II

I must still be doing something right. I can support a Bush nominee and still be at odds with Rick Scarborough, who isn't buying:

In short, we don't know whether a Chief Justice Roberts would be more like Justice Scalia, who is regularly faithful to the Constitution, or like Justice Souter, who regularly betrays the Constitution.

All this uncertainty does is point out the need to have a back-up plan. Whether or not Chief Justice Roberts would be all that our President has promised us will be determined in time, but even if he is, he, like all men, is subject to being deceived. All men have a sin nature and, therefore, all men need to [sic] held accountable.


Rick's paragraph continues, but I think we should pause to reflect here. Just like that, he leaps from deception (which is what the courts are set up to deal with, and work over extensively before any case reaches the Supreme Court) to sin (which I thought was in the Supreme Being's Court). But never fear. Rick is coming out with an answer to the shortcomings of both. He continues:

Our Founding Fathers gave us a back-up plan; its [sic] called checks and balances, or as I like to call it "judicial accountability." The truth is that regardless of who is on the Court they must be held accountable. We are working on an aggressive, yet achievable, Judicial Accountability Plan. This Plan will be unveiled in the days to come - so please get ready to help.


Funny, I thought lifetime appointments of judges nominated by the President and consented to by the Senate was the Founding Fathers' "back-up plan." I guess I don't understand checks and balances after all, but perhaps I have been deceived. I'm pretty sure it's not a sin.

I look forward to being enlightened.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home