Stevens/Vess
Since the precedent set by Marbury V. Madison, the authority of the Judicial branch has been called into question. In the case, judges were withheld from entering office changed the tide on Judicial Review forever, allowing the court to check its legislative and executive counterparts to ensure policies remain for and by the people. Under inspection of judicial authority, the question arises: Should the Supreme Court be able to challenge the actions of another branch, or should its power defer to the elected officials? The Stevens/Vess ticket then believes that the role of the Supreme Court is to be an active part of our government, taking on moral and constitutional responsibility.
In 1973, the Supreme Court initially ruled in Roe V. Wade that a right to abortion was constitutional under the 14th Amendment right to privacy, in which they neither interpreted the Constitution within its meaning nor through a lens of morality. Since 1973, there have been over 60 million abortions, an incriminating stain on the integrity and dignity of our country. The tides have begun to turn however, with the overturning of Roe V. Wade in 2022, which is an example of the Supreme Court factoring in real constitutional wording as well as a high moral standard. One without the other undermines either the United States as a constitutional republic or the very concept of a judiciary.
Therefore, the Stevens/Vess ticket affirms that a well-functioning judiciary is one that plays an active role in our government system, reviewing cases through a lens of constitutional wording and objective moral standards.
The fundamental role of the U.S. Court system is to administer and uphold justice and equity; inherently moral concepts. Laws would not find reason for existence if there was not a moral standard to uphold and adhere to. Judges must uphold the standards set in place by the founding fathers that transcend the writing, the Judeo-Christian values this country was built upon. Laws must be interpreted with the pragmatic liberalism necessary to account for societal subjectivity, and with moral conservatism to uphold objective morality. Take the Second Amendment for instance, written at a time when firearms were muzzle-loaded. Do we interpret it today as protecting only the right to bear cannons? No, we interpret it from the fundamental principle of the right to self-defense and therefore can apply it to modern firearms.
This presents the importance of moral value as a key responsibility of the Judicial Branch within the three-branch system.
No amount of legislation can fully account for every scenario and situation, which is where the judiciary comes into play, to account for the human aspect of government. The Stevens/Vess ticket does recognize that this poses the intrinsic risk of corruption. But in order for the judicial branch to function in its given role, it is a necessary risk and one that's mitigated by the checks and balances laid out in the constitution, just as every other branch, but with additional discouragement of political incentives, especially in the Supreme Court.
In summary, a healthy government is one with active legislation, administration, and adjudication, incorporating fair representation, ensuring efficiency of execution, and upholding constitutional principles and moral objectivity. The Stevens/Vess ticket urges you to recognize the necessity of a morally-driven judiciary and, especially in cases like Roe V. Wade, Brown V. Board of Education, etc, the impact it has on the lives and well-being of individuals.