Don’t look to the courts for social change

In his May 18 column, "Nominees Refuse To Endorse Brown," Ronald K. Nickens asserts that the Senate Judiciary Committee, before whom Wendy Vitter and Andrew Oldham appeared, must not elevate these two nominees because they are unqualified. Nickens initially bases his assertion on the claim that they "refused to endorse the landmark ruling in Brown [v. Board of Education]." In fact, they did no such thing.

The nominees refused to comment on any and all cases already decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was made clear by the nominees that their personal, religious or political views regarding Supreme Court holdings were not relevant. The nominees also made clear that notwithstanding their own views, Supreme Court precedent would be followed.

Nickens implies that a refusal to endorse Brown is tantamount to disagreeing with the Brown holding that separate but equal is inherently unequal. The nominees made no such statement and refused, for the same reason, to comment on Roe v. Wade as well.

Nickens states that Vitter's record is "deeply troubling." To whom? Her record of being pro-life and against abortion is no secret. Perhaps it's troubling to Nickens, but is not troubling to over half of this country. Nickens claims Vitter is unqualified. In fact the truth as he reveals it is that he doesn't like her politics.

Nickens' claims that Oldham is obviously disqualified because he's "one of the youngest people ever nominated for a federal circuit court judgment." This is a non sequitur.

As for the American Bar Association and the other Left-leaning organizations disapproving Oldham's nomination, this comes as no surprise. These groups oppose Oldham based on his political views, not his relevant qualifications which are limited to integrity, competence and judicial temperament, which are beyond question. Of late, buzzwords such as "fair-mindedness," "freedom from bias," and a "commitment to equal justice under the law" have been added to ensure that only those passing certain liberal litmus tests are deemed acceptable.

Nickens misunderstands the role of the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to effectuate the intention of the legislature. It is not to "[bring] about major societal changes involving issues ranging from civil rights to freedom of speech."

It is the role of the legislature to propose new legislation which normally involves discussion of the matter often very robust. Article I of the U.S. Constitution states that all law is to be effected by the legislature. It states so expressly: "Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of representatives." It was intended that these two bodies would engage, separately, in robust debate and hammer-out meaningful, well-reasoned legislation.

Nickens mentions that of the 103 Article III judicial nominees President Donald Trump has selected, only one was African-American. He makes no mention of the number of African-American people within the pool from which the president can select. Nickens concludes that we must all work to close the achievement gap between blacks and whites. Again, he looks in all the wrong places. The members of the Supreme Court violate their oath of office each and every time they ignore the clear intention of the Constitution and substitute their own collective agenda for the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution and laws duly enacted by Congress.

Because it doesn't fit the narrative, Nickens fails to mention perhaps the most evident act of Trump's "closing the gap" by choosing to ignore the fact that because of the Trump tax cuts, minority and women's unemployment is at the lowest in our entire history.

Vitter and Oldham pose no threat to our nation's civil rights laws, democratic norms, the principles of equality and the rule of law unless one fears a return to honoring intellectual honesty in the interpretation of the Constitution and thereby reinstating Lincoln's reaffirmation that this is a country "of the people, by the people and for the people." This country was never intended to be ruled by a number of unelected government bureaucrats, i.e., the Supreme Court.

Looking to the courts for lasting social change and social justice is like looking for love in all the wrong places... one will never find it.