Redd/Sartor
Although the judicial branch is the most isolated branch from the will of the American people, it often has the most drastic effects on its nation. Thus, the founding fathers had a specific intention for how this branch should operate. However, there has been a movement to disregard this intent, allowing the branch to take on an activist role. This is done through judicial activism—interpreting laws in ways that exchange constitutional intent for personal or social views.
In the landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court looked beyond the constitution to create a new right: the right to have an abortion. The case served as precedent from 1973-2022, and allowed over 63 million abortions to occur in the United States. Cases such as Roe exemplify the dangers of an activist court. To combat this, the Redd/Sartor ticket is opposed to judicial activism, believing the judiciary should focus on original intent, upholding only existing rights and being limited in power.
As the Supreme Court is the ultimate legal body of the United States, it is vital that it upholds the country’s values. Justices should interpret the constitution as the founders interpreted it, not based on a social lens. In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court concluded that it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on minors based on “evolving standards of decency”. While this specific issue is beyond the scope of this press release, this highlights an important truth: Justice is dependent on a moral standard. If a standard can change with time, it is no standard at all. The Redd/Sartor ticket upholds that the Constitution is the ultimate standard by which the Supreme Court ought to rule. Any change to the Constitution ought to be done through constitutional amendments, not legislation from the court bench.
Additionally, the Supreme Court must be focused on preserving natural rights, not creating new rights. Examples of such newfound rights include the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade), or the right to contraception for unmarried individuals (Eisenstadt v. Baird). The Supreme Court has misled citizens to believe they are entitled to more than the Constitution allows. Judges should remain guardians, not authors of rights.
The judicial branch should remain limited in power to maintain the balance of power. As established in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down the actions of the legislative and executive branches. While the Redd/Sartor ticket does not completely reject this power, we call for it to be used wisely and in moderation; the court should not take on the role of the Legislative branch. Examining the judiciary, Alexander Hamilton wrote “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter… so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.” Typically, the states are the first victims of judicial overreach. Roe v. Wade completely nullified the states’ authority over abortion rights. With such far-reaching power, the court becomes a tyrannical tool for the few to impose their will on the many.
The Redd/Sartor ticket believes that the Supreme Court must recognize their role as a limited guardian of rights, exercising their power as the founders intended. Judicial activism should be rejected. Had Roe v. Wade never taken effect, an estimated 26 million additional members of Generation Z would be alive today. America must learn from the results of past judicial activism to maintain a balanced judiciary and protect the rights of all people, even the smallest among us.