Moderation in all things...

With the apparent dual vacancies on the supreme court, there a buzz out there like never before on who will be picked to fill the seats. I have heard cries from all over on who should be picked, ranging from really thoughtfull names, chosen for their beliefs and fortitude, to the completely assinine: 'We need a woman'. 'We need a moderate'. 'We need somebody who can bring the country together'.

Let's take those one one by one.

Being a woman is not a merit or a detraction when it comes to being a judge, particularly a judge of how to apply the Constitution. How about we look for a JUDGE and not even care if that judge is a man or a woman? How does that sound? How about we forget people's sex when looking for such a job? Does it matter?

Breaking order, here: The job of a justice is not to unite. It is to meter out justice. It is to be wise and fair. If that unites, so be it... but you can not be just if your goal is to unite for the sake of unification. Your justice will anger some. Your justice will make enemies and divide. Justice, however, must be the supreme standard of all judges, the consequeces be damned.

Now for my favorite: MODERATE.
Boy oh boy oh boy... where do start to kill that one? Okay, have you noticed how moderate is usually a euphamism for 'not Conservative'? ... back to that thought later. Alternatively, it means somebody who is not willing to take a stand on an issue when taking a stand would draw fire. In my experience and observation, moderates are those who are willing to compromise on issues of human life, on issues of national well being, and on issues of morality. These are exaclty the issues upon which there can be no compromise, for to compromise on them would be to de-legitimize your position and to concede that, for example, that some are less equal than others (a nice fuzzy way of putting it).

Now, I personally know a lot of you who call yourself moderates. What I just wrote probably stung a bit. You are going to tell me that you simply look for common ground over conflict. I'll tell you that you can't do that, and I'll tell you why: sometimes you can't compromise. When lives are at stake, you can't compromise. When it comes to what is right and what is wrong, there can be no compromise. You can compromise on how to allocate funding. You can not compromise on what is within the Costitution... or what is without... what is written there is written there. The words are plain. What's more, the words have meaning, meaning only what they state and nothing more or less. Their meaning can't change.
You see, what is, is. Existance exists. These are immutable, absolute. Because of this, you must move forward in your mind and recognize that there is a concept of truth. Truth describes what is. Because of this, truth can not change.
Since there is truth, there must be right and wrong. You can also look at this as true and false. Now, how can you find middle ground on truth? How can you find middle ground on morality? If I say that that it is acceptable to take your life, you are going to take exception. You say that it is not accpetable. Is there anywhere that we can compromise? Murder is wrong. That's all you can say about it. It can't be justified, that's why it's murder.

I have seen self proclaimed moderates try to compromise on terrorism, national defense, human rights, civil rights, and even human life. They move through life, carefully choosing a path that does not require them to defend anything at the expense of the rights of others.
Such attitudes can not be allowed anywhere near an instution who's task it is to apply the absolutes of the Costitution to modern law. It is these attitudes that have led to the current revisionism and the direct conflict with our own supreme law.

What we need on the supreme court are men and women who are not there to change anything. We need men and women who will stand on the truth of law and apply that truth instead of attempting to create 'new' truth or to overrule the truth. Without absolute truth, the Court will loose its authority. Truth is the only leg upon which law and the court can stand.
I suppose that one could debate for a very long time what is right and wrong (but that's dumb, most of us know even if we don't like the answers), but one thing that you can not debate is the meaning of words, such as the words in the Constitution. We all know what they mean and we don't get to pick. There can be no moderation or compromise in the application of those words.

Now, back to my thought on moderates, for some odd reason, seeming to be moslty liberal. Don't even consider Democrat vs. Republican... those tags grow more meaningless by the day. Is it just me or are the compromises that they make usually slanted toward the left, towards fewer rights for people and towards more government control?


Well, maybe I should do a post on right and wrong... naaaa
Charlie Foxtrot out...


EDIT: We find out at 2100 East Coast time...
EDIT 2: The meaning of words can change. The intent of the words and the meaning of words from a certain time is not only unchanging, but well understood.