No Peace, No
Justice
We glow in
the dark
And we shine in the light
The souls of Kings and Queen
As we all rise
Can we have
peace and justice?
“With great power, comes great responsibility.” This phrase comes from Spiderman comics. It describes a System Optimal solution. A User Optimal solution would be “With great power, comes great opportunity”. The tension between User Optimal solutions
and System Optimal solutions is at the heart of many conflicts, most recently the
invasion of Ukraine, a User Optimal solution by the Russian Government, versus
the opposition to that invasion, a System Optimal solution; and the hearings on
the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, where the Democrat Senators appear to
be on the side of the System while the Republican Senators appear to be on the
side of the Users. The US Constitution designated
The People as its sovereign but recognized that people will act as individuals
and might not act for the good of the sovereign People. A majority of people acting through their representatives
may decide that an action should be undertaken, such as administering
justice. But that is justice as determined
by the majority. The constitution was
not ratified without protections of the individuals against the tyranny of the majority. The Bill of Rights established the rights of
the individual which can not be abridged by the majority and the US Constitution
was not ratified until these protections were in place.
The framers of the US Constitution also recognized that
they were only human and could not be perfect.
They established that it would take a super majority, NOT a majority, to
amend the Constitution. A majority of the people could view a law as just, but
it takes a supermajority to amend the Constitution.
The constitution is not infallible. It did not recognize the probable formation
of political parties which led to the 12th Amendment. It did not consider that life expectancies would
increase and that presidents might need to be limited to two terms which led to
the 25th Amendment. Morality could also change. While slavery was originally allowed, it was abolished
by the 14th Amendment. Women were
granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment. Morality can change and lead to
mistakes. Alcohol was prohibited by the 18th
amendment and then allowed again by the 21st
amendment. An income tax was deemed unconstitutional
before the passage of the 16th amendment.
The Constitutional purpose of the Supreme Court is NOT
to administer justice. It is to decide when
a law is in conflict with that Constitution.
Claims that a nominee to the Supreme Court is soft on crime are irrelevant.
The only consideration should be whether that nominee can correctly establish that a law is
in conflict with the Constitution. Justice
by a simple majority is still vigilante justice. The People decide justice. Not a majority of
the people, but a Constitutionally mandated supermajority of The People. The Supreme Court decides whether the laws enacted
by the majority are in conflict with the justice of The People as established in
the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing
less.
Can the Supreme Court be wrong in its decisions? Of
course. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson.
Can the Supreme Court make a correct decision but explain
that decision poorly? Of course. Roe v.
Wade.
The question is not whether fetuses are people, marriage is
only between different genders, what Critical Race Theory is and how it should be
applied, or what is justice for pornographers.
The questions that will be faced by the Supreme Courts are only whether a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
The rights of the majority versus their government is not in question. The Constitution is about protecting the
rights of the minority from the government.
Conservatives used to be those who realized that while the
People, collectively acting though the government for a System Optimal, must still
be comprised of people who are individuals.
Those individuals might be acting in their own self interest, are User Optimalists,
and not in the interests of the People. Also people as individuals can change their position
or lie about their original position. Power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely leads to a belief that government,
the System, should be composed of as few individuals as possible with as little power as possible. People as individuals might also not see the long-term
consequences of their short-term decisions.
To protect against unintended consequences, as few actions as possible should be undertaken.
Conservatives used to favor small government, not a User Optimal
government which is an oxymoron. Activist
judges who invent rights are not confined to so-called liberals. See the unstated right to self defense justifying
a law to bear arms NOT in support of a well-regulated militia invented by Justice Scalia; Corporations who
are NOT listed as people have protected speech; yet that right was granted by conservative justices. The Voting Rights Act applied
to governments not individuals, and governments are NOT limited by a life span, and yet conservative justices decided that those governments have "suffered" long enough. These were not liberal decisions. The Republican
majority in the Senate is acting as if they are User Optimalists which is NOT a
conservative position. Framing the nomination
hearing as a conservative versus liberal conflict is a lie.
