Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Supreme Court Justice

Dear Madame L,

I read your post about the so-called "broccoli test," in which you claim that the liberal-versus-conservative composition of the Supreme Court won't matter for deciding the issue of the health-care law passed by Congress in 2010.

But here's a new one for you: The Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 majority, recently decided a case against a grandmother, putting her back in jail for a crime she probably didn't commit, apparently just to "teach a lesson" to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had thrown out the woman's conviction.

It seems to me that when the highest court of  the land, which is supposed to be impartial, uses outdated medical understanding and picky technicalities to send an innocent person back to prison, and does it in a quiet way to keep from drawing attention to the case, there's something really wrong with that court, and, by extension, with our entire government system.


"And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge. If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:28-29).

Please enlighten,

Another Dear Reader


Dear Another Dear Reader,

Madame L thanks you for bringing this case to her attention. The article you linked to also details a case in which a man was deceived by police into making a confession which should not have been accepted in court, and being convicted.

The issue of shaken-baby syndrome is being disputed, but, more importantly for our justice system, as you point out, is the fact that the Supreme Court is using such a case as a way to "punish" a lower court instead of to bring justice to a person who is probably innocent. (And who, even if she is not innocent, deserves to have her case decided based on medical evidence, not intra-judicial wrangling.)

Madame L does not have a solution to this issue, except the following recipe: 

1. Vote for officials, including the President of the United States, who have opinions and support policies like those you yourself support. 

2. Let them sit in office long enough for you to see if they are making laws and appointing judges who are righteous and who will uphold justice for all the public.

3. If they're not doing that, throw them out and elect new officials who will uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

4. Continue to pray for righteousness to prevail in America.

Sincerely,

Madame L

1 comment:

Jeff said...

This sort of intra-judicial wrangling sounds remarkably like courts deciding when an embryo or fetus suddenly becomes human. As if they could even remotely know.

This brings to mind the Pharisees arguing how many angels could stand on the head of a pin, and how far you could legally walk on a Sabbath.

My grandmother often used this expression: "mind your own business!"
~~~~~