By Christopher G. Adamo

The rapidly intensifying dispute over the proper makeup of the Supreme Court, and in particular, the possible confirmation of John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra O’Connor has, by its very nature highlighted the recently metastasizing role of the courts in American law. To understand the framework of the present debate, a review of the Constitution’s significance to the structure of American government must be undertaken.

Much controversy has erupted over the rampant judicial activism recently occurring in America’s courts. And people are right to be concerned. The role of judges should be simply to interpret the tenets of the Constitution, and to decide whether or not a particular case being tried involves a violation of those tenets. It is no less than the sworn oath of each member of the Court to abide by the Constitution as the ultimate guide in such decision-making.

Disdaining any restriction on their ability to issue edicts from the bench, judicial activists instead invoke a multitude of techniques in order to sidestep constitutional law. Some manufacture “emanations” and “umbras” of the document’s original intent, whereby they might stretch and contort it to buttress their agenda.

Certain justices on the nation’s high court, such as Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsberg, have deferred to “judicial precedent” or even the laws of other nations as a basis on which to form their opinions. And from these, immutable and binding “constitutional principle” is ostensibly ordained.

Judicial precedents are, at best, clarifying interpretations of established law. At worst, they can be the means by which formerly bad decisions ensure that continually worse decisions ensue. Clearly the founders aspired to something far more noble, coherent, and concrete as the source of true justice and law. And that was what they intended to codify in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Moreover, they clearly recognized the hideously flawed nature of the laws and social fabric of other nations. Having risen beyond the tragedy and oppression generated within those societies, why should Americans now allow themselves to be dragged back down to them?

But if adherence to the Constitution has nonetheless become optional, then America in effect no longer has a Constitution. The document so thoughtfully crafted by the founders and ratified by the states is henceforth reduced to nothing more than a venerated piece of parchment, sitting in all of its irrelevant glory behind a protective piece of glass.

In truth, it is much more than that. It is the original and foundational “Contract with America.” The result of great deliberation and consideration in both its construction and ratification, it allowed the states to establish a federal government to arbitrate between them and collectively represent them among foreign powers.

As such, its premises must remain intact to whatever degree America, as we know it, is to be preserved. This, above any other consideration, is the utmost responsibility of justices on the nation’s highest court.

Therefore, achieving “balance” between those who would properly uphold it and those who would desecrate it in service to their social agenda is in no way a worthwhile goal. Whether religious and conservative, or humanistic and liberal, the only rightful purpose of members of the judiciary is to maintain the integrity of that document as it was originally intended and written.

At issue is neither John Roberts’ party affiliation nor his conservative political inclinations, but rather his honesty and principle when considering constitutional precepts, and his integrity to defend them as such. If liberals want to make the case that these qualities are exclusive to conservative nominees, perhaps it is time to concede their point.

Moreover, liberals have historically had no inherent problem with judges who meddle with the law, just so long as they do so according to the perversities of liberalism and “political correctness.”

Certain key Senate Democrats regularly display their abhorrence of the religious views of such individuals as Justice Antonin Scalia, and openly voice their intent to engage in “religious profiling” of all potential nominees. But the rulings of Scalia and other like-minded jurists reveal no cause for fear that their religious beliefs might somehow be translated into law.

It is not the specific tenets of their religion, but the fact that by their spiritual condition they are diligent to honorably uphold the precepts of the Constitution, which makes them a threat to the enormous power of an unbridled government to injuriously transform America.

Conversely, limitation of such power is crucial to its preservation.