"Do they swear oaths to interpret
the Constitution or to uphold and defend it?
question, and one that injects two sets of reality into the discussion. The
first set is theory that, while technically correct , is not reality. The
second set is reality that, while technically incorrect, is what we all
Theoretically, the judiciary cannot interpret law. A law, to
be lawful, can have only one meaning and that meaning must be clear. If
the law is so obtuse that it needs interpretation, then it is void for
vagueness. Theoretically, the judiciary can only judge if the law can be
applied in the case before him/her and accomplish justice, and then to apply the
law as far as the Constitution would allow him/her.
however, this is far from true. Justice is no longer the objective of the
judiciary -- dispensing of the case is usually the primary objective and
pursuing a social or legal agenda is often a backup objective. As a result
of this totally different motivation, a judge will allow justice to be totally
raped in favor of following procedure so that the case can be dispensed with
more quickly. And often a judge will allow justice or the Constitution to
be thrown out in favor of accomplishing that social or legal
reality, judges have ceased to be agents of justice and have become agents of
change. This allows for them to pursue social and legal agendas rather
than upholding and defending the Constitution.
It is sad
that America no longer has a system of justice. All that is left is a
system of laws and rules and procedures.
Do they swear oaths to interpret the
or to uphold and defend it?