No headline

There is one overriding issue American voters will decide and most seem not aware of it or the consequences. The Constitution set up three branches of government with the judicial to interpret the Constitution and laws. Historically, it was recognized that the judicial branch was to interpret the Constitution and laws as written guided by original intent when enacted, and by judicial precedent to ensure stability. The judicial branch was not elected because they were performing an essentially technical function.

Judicial appointments have rarely been controversial. However, a movement has gained strength in recent decades holding that the interpretation must be adjusted for the times and what’s “right” with actual wording and original intent beside the point. Some appeals court judges have even campaigned to stop the Constitution from being taught in law schools as judges must just do what is “right.” However, if the courts are not bound by actual wording, original intent, and precedent, then the rule of law and due process are gone. A group of appointed for life individuals have no check on their power whatsoever. Political failure may be overcome by stacking courts and judicial decrees. Appointment of judges has become very controversial as a result.

The recent Senate disgrace was about exactly this, Democrats attempting to prevent appointment of any rule of law judge, not a particular one. If voters tolerate this behavior, what happens in the future when a group of judges believe something like mandatory euthanasia for population control is “right?”

NICK ORIHEL

Sandpoint