The Rule of Law

One of the strengths of the United States, most political persuasions seem to agree on, is we have the rule of law. We’re no third world banana republic where a former leader can be tried in absentia or where the highest court in the land is subject to the cries of the loudest screamers. No, we have true blind justice. Where judges interpret laws according to the words, meanings and intents of those who wrote them. We have reams of documents codifying not only the debates and alternate suggestions of major legislation but the actual words of those who wrote the laws in many cases. There should be no extraneous inputs for judges to consider and thus, a firm foundation is created on which a stable society can prosper. Sure we do.

So today we have a federal government choosing to ignore laws at our southern border. A bureaucracy that ignores courts rulings with impunity. (See the Federal Reserve sitting on applications for banks in defiance of the law.) District Attorneys making decisions by fiat abrogating criminal laws and now, Supreme Court Justices arguing that half the country won’t believe what they decide so they better not make this or that decision.

Listening to the oral arguments today on the Mississippi law regarding abortion, you would think that we don’t have a Constitution but rather a popularity scale on which to base decisions; a decision, in this case, about life and death. The Constitution either protects life or it doesn’t. Why is the integrity of the court a consideration if in fact, justice is blind and based on codified law? Justice Sotomayor actually said that overturning Roe (which is not the issue in this case) would undermine the credibility of the court. Is that what is important to her? Shouldn’t a correct interpretation of our Constitution be the guiding light?

So much for the bedrock “rule of law”. It seems it’s gone from being an axiom to a paradox.