Friday, March 30, 2012
High seriousness, or weighted thought. If one is considered to have gravitas one or more are normally expected to be expert in their evaluation of relevant subject matter. I equate gravitas as an element of wisdom that must be logically explained. If I am to trust the complexity of an argument that settles a dispute, then I expect the solution given to have a marvelous and expert weaving of all the factors involved. What I am looking at now is our US Supreme Court getting ready to affirm or deny a national law of huge importance. What I expect from the final decision about to be voted on by the justices is to have the gravitas or heft of a monumental proportion. I expect that the nine justices we have allowed to be confirmed by Senate rules will display wisdom beyond the mere facts but to also contain our nations history and the elements of our economy founded by our established principles of democracy. Anything less will be a disappointment in this particular era of judicial practicality. Always at the core of any decision made by those who are appointed or voted into positions of adjudication, I expect the base wisdom of acknowledging that democracy is paramount to any other form of institutional practice to be affirmed. Our democracy has at it's center the good of the people and the health and welfare we need to remain able to be self-determining, however, not at the expense of the diminution of our democracy's role to provide for that health and welfare. The ultimate position in our society when it comes to applying wisdom to our laws comes from the US Supreme Court, and as such the gravitas and contemplation necessary to navigate our history through precedence and insightful thought is enormous and in no way can ever be discounted. Who we allow to be in these nine positions says as much about our seriousness for our own futures as it does about the seriousness we expect from those who call themselves US Supreme Court Justices.