2009Jun5 Supreme Court Appointments

This week’s poll results examine how we view the current process of appointing a new judge to the Supreme Court of the United States. The poll was not scientific and was driven by radio listeners of the syndicated Don Creech Radio Show and subscribers to its “Week in Review” email. Listen or subscribe at www.DonCreech.com.

 

Participants have some very strong views regarding Supreme Court lifetime appointments that do not closely match what is being expressed by many Senators.

 

Should a judge’s view on any single issue be used to keep them off of the Supreme Court?

 

More than two thirds of respondents do not believe any single issue is a disqualifier. That is inconsistent with the way much of the main stream media frame pro-life and second amendment supporters.

 

Should Supreme Court Justices keep the intent of the framers of the Constitution in mind when making rulings?

 

Significantly more than two thirds of respondents do not believe the Constitution is a “living” document but rather an absolute document that should have interpretations consistent with original intent

 

Should interpretations of the Constitution evolve to keep up with the times?

 

Again, significantly more than two thirds of respondents do not believe the Constitution should be evolving. Rather it is a set of absolutes designed to limit government’s intrusion into and upon personal liberties guaranteed in the document.

 

Should a judge’s race be a factor in being appointed as a Supreme Court Justice?

 

Respondents were unanimously opposed to race as a qualifier for Supreme Court. The Court does not “need to look like America”. Its function is to accurately interpret the law according to the standards set in our founding documents.

 

Should a judge’s gender be a factor in being appointed as a Supreme CourtJustice?

 

Respondents were, likewise, unanimously opposed to gender as a qualifier for Supreme Court.