A Nation of Laws and Not of Men

February 1^st is an important date.

• Is it a day that will ‘live in infamy?’ No.
• Is it a day of joy and goodwill? No.  
• Is it a day that every American knows and respects? No. 

Why is this date important?  It is the 232^nd anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s first session, in 1790.  The day when the highest court in the United States with the ultimate jurisdiction over all U.S. laws commenced.  As such it should be recognized as an important day because the U.S. is a “nation of laws and not of men.”^[1]

The United States Constitution which created the basis of our form of republican government established three independent branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, each with checks and balances on the other branches.  It is the U.S. Supreme Court that interprets the laws that congress enacts and among other things, determines if they comply with the Constitution.

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An important requirement in any effort to ‘establish justice’ is the ability for individuals to turn to the courts to right any wrongs done to them. Granted, there are times when a court’s decision is controversial,^[2] or recognized to be wrong,^[3] but the goal of the courts must always be towards establishing justice. 

An Independent Court System

Having an independent court system allows for citizens to challenge laws passed by the legislature and authorized by the executive branch; it allows private citizens to peacefully settle disputes that they cannot resolve themselves. It allows the courts, an independent branch of the government, to decide what happened and what should be done about it; to decide the case based on the facts and the law, not according to the political currents.  When they work, courts protect the minority from the majority, whether the minority is because of differing races, or various ethnicities, or even opposite political parties.  The courts can protect the rights of individuals who cannot protect themselves. 

Just last week, January 27, 2022, Justice Steven Breyer announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court effective this summer. Over the next few weeks, President Biden will be considering who to nominate to fill the newly open position. According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates the person “and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” (Article II, section 2) Meaning, once the President nominates the person, that person is than considered by the U.S. Senate, which ultimately decides on whether or not to approve the nomination.  This is typically after a number of committee hearings held in the Senate.  It is during those hearings that the nominee is questioned about her or his beliefs, past judicial opinions, and thoughts on a variety of issues of the day.

 No matter who is nominated, there will be any number of organizations and individuals in favor of the nomination and also in opposition of the nomination, all based on a variety of issues and whether that nominee aligns with the groups’ views.  What these groups and individuals recognize is that what the court decides on a daily basis makes a difference.

Making a Difference 

Whatever the topic – whether it is marriage equality, freedom of speech, health care, search and seizure issues, immigration or some other national issues – how the courts interpret any number of laws can impact significant segments of the United States population.  It is that broad impact which explains the importance of February 1, 1790. It is that broad impact the demonstrates the need to remain vigilant in how the courts interpret the laws brought before them.  It is that broad impact that demonstrates the need to understand who our judges are and listen to what they are saying—it makes a difference in how we live our lives. It makes a difference in achieving justice for all. 

---

^[1] A common expression of the ‘rule of law.’

^[2] Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida’s 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. 

See also, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee.

^[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.  

See also, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as “separate but equal”.