Judicial Review

Since my child hood I have really been interested in “review” exactly; judicial review. At the young age of 12 I became curious about laws. What were they, who said so, and the plaintive drag on every mother; “why?” My mother was no scholar in yours or many other people’s understanding of the term. But she offered wisdom to me which matches that of the, as one of my law school professors put it, “are in the Hall of Fame”. The legal one, not the baseball one of Cobb, Ruth, Mathewson, Walter, Johnson, and Honus Wagner. The first five inductees.

Justice Cardozo, Brandeis, Marshsll, and of course John Marshal, America’s first great Justice, expounded that the Supreme Court has final say as to what the law is, in the United States.

So let’s make a short review, of what the law is.

Legislatures are voted into office to make laws that protect, defend, and help the downtrodden against the ills of life in a free society.

Ah, but that’s where the fun starts. Conflicting views on what the law says and on what the laws should have said are the gist of conservative snd liberal thought disputes.

Today’s most important “political fight” is: Amy Coney Barrett. .

Objectively all, and I do mean all, agree that she is as qualified as any nominee ever. All cards are in a row. As a woman, she has achieved a higher status than any male has achieved. Even her mentor, former Justice Antonin Scalia, while being approved by a vote of 98-0 did not match the accolades of Amy Coney Barrett.

The reason is of course political, now in such an inflamed state that rationality, sensibility, and honest intellectual discourse is defenestrated.

So, let’s get back to the “ prompt”, ie: review.

Judicial review of Obama’s policies, Trump’s policies, and those of any and all predecessors are subject to Judicial Review.

Why, oh why, can it be arguable to have the highest ablest person, a woman, take part in the process?

I now stand down, take my seat, and will listen intently to a “review”.