Buckle Up Boychicks
Just a quick note to all Jewish liberals; buckle up! You might actually get some of that “Change” you voted for.
With the recent announcement by Justice David Souter that he will be shedding his judicial robes, Barack Obama now has the chance to fulfill his campaign promise to install a true liberal onto the bench. Even though Souter, having been appointed by President George H. W. Bush, sided mostly with the liberal wing of the court, the new justice handpicked by Obama will likely be nothing short of a full-fledged, dyed in the wool, living constitution liberal.
While Congress will have the final approval of Obama’s pick there is for all intents a filibuster proof majority for the Democrats pretty much assuring a smooth and positive outcome.
You may ask, “What does this have to do with Jewish liberals?” Allow me to explain.
Currently in Chicago the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals is about to take the unusual action of seating the entire 15 judge panel on an “en banc” review of a lawsuit brought by a Jewish mother and her adult children. An “en banc” review is a rare occurrence and usually signifies the justice’s anticipation of a landmark decision.
The lawsuit was brought by Lynne Bloch and her adult children Helen and Nathan Bloch against the condominium complex in which they all reside. It centers on a small religious icon Jews place on their doorways called a mezuzah. This small icon is a scroll inscribed with specific Hebrew verses from the Torah housed in a decorative container and nailed to the entry of many Jewish homes. Some of the more observant Jews place them on the entry to every room in their house. The mezuzah is placed on the doorpost to fulfill a biblical commandment from the book of Deuteronomy.
The condo complex where the Bloch’s live viewed them as being against their association’s board of director’s 2004 decision to have nothing affixed to the doors of a condo unit or to the common hallway walls. The Bloch family filed suit claiming a denial of their religious freedom and the condo association countersued. The mezuzah on the Bloch’s doorway was removed and replaced several times and the legal wrangling went back and forth until the condo association relented and rewrote their bylaws to allow the display of “sincerely held beliefs”. The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois both passed legislation to protect religious expression. It was at that point that the Bloch’s lawsuit was dismissed prior to trial. The Blochs filed an appeal in federal court which is what brings us to the “en banc” hearing.
This suit has the obvious potential to set far-reaching legal precedent. Does the constitution guarantee freedom OF religious expression or freedom FROM religious expression? The original three judge panel at the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals was divided on that question. I think it’s safe to assume that no matter how this turns out at the appeals level it is likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court by either the Blochs or an opposing atheist group.
The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues in the past. But that was the old Supreme Court using the old U.S. Constitution. If Obama is successful in seating a true liberal minded justice he could be on his way to reshaping some of the vitally important, long-established protections we have enjoyed.
The Obama vetting process will no doubt be focused on finding a liberal judge that views the constitution as a living, changing document. Someone who believes it is the role of the court to actually legislate rather than interpret the law. My question is; if the framers of the constitution meant it to be a changing document why do we have amendments? If it was meant to change with the whims of whatever is politically expedient at the time why even have a provision that allows an amendment?
By a wide margin Obama carried the Jewish vote in the last election. A Supreme Court ruling on something as simple as the ability to display a mezuzah may bring about the Change he promised but one they never anticipated.
