Kangaroo Court
By JARED PUTNAM

Sentinel Writer

Jared Putnam

One of my biggest concerns about the 2004 Presidential election was not just who would be occupying the Oval Office for the next four years, but who that man would be appointing to the Supreme Court bench for possibly the next 35 years. The fact that the winning candidate would likely be selecting at least one Supreme Court Justice within the next four years is a very significant responsibility.

As I've grown older I've become more and more wary of the Supreme Court, watching as they have often abused their power. The rulings handed down from the high court have steadily progressed from bad, to worse, to downright strange. Anything resembling interpretation of the law gets thrown out as these Justices write their own rules, making decisions based on clear as mud logic.

You have to wonder if such an entrenched position can be healthy for a democratic society. Are these virtually invulnerable justices getting drunk on their own power? The American people essentially have no ability to remove a judicial tyrant. There are no elections in which these men and women have their actions judged by the voters, no hope of tossing out a bum after a four-year term. Once there, he or she is basically there to stay. So much for checks and balances.

On Monday the Supreme Court handed down a pair of conflicting decisions in the debate surrounding the 10 Commandments, allowing a monument in Texas to remain while declaring that two in Kentucky must be taken down. The brilliant reasoning behind this hinges on the context in which the monuments were erected. If it appears that the display has a historical purpose, it can be upheld. But if it is decided that the item in question was placed with the intention of favoring a religion, it must be removed. The end result is that every such dispute will be judged by this murky new litmus test. Each one will be decided on a case by case basis, which only fuels the flames of this heated battle. Both sides now have a leg to stand on, inviting an inevitable hailstorm of lawsuits.

Terrific, because we all know that what the courts in America really need is more litigation.

This ruling comes less than a week after the Supreme Court ruled to extend the powers of eminent domain. Eminent domain is, of course, nothing new. It has been around for years and has generally been used by the government for taking private property to be used for highways, parks, public housing, or any reason deemed to benefit a larger number of citizens. This new ruling now allows for land to be taken and used for private development. So let's get this straight: The Supreme Court thinks the government should be able to take my land to build a shopping mall, but doesn't believe that same government should "violate" my rights by displaying the 10 Commandments with religious intentions. What?!? In what bizarre line of thought do the American people win here?

I'm getting an eerie feeling that we're just a heartbeat away from the Supreme Court telling us that socks are illegal, Tuesdays violate the constitution, and the national anthem is now the theme song from Bonanza.

While watching the nightly news coverage of this insanity, I actually heard a correspondent reporter say in complete seriousness, "The danger here is that by the government displaying the 10 Commandments publicly, a child could be influenced." Well good thing they're trying to nip that in the bud before tragedy strikes. Welcome to 2005.