[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         HONORING BAHER MICHEL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. PETE OLSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 21, 2012

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the 
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my 
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening 
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation. 
They provide important insight into the concerns of our younger 
constituents and hopefully get a better sense of the importance of 
being an active participant in the political process. Many of the 
students have written short essays on a variety of topics and I am 
pleased to share these with my House colleagues.
  Baher Michel is a senior at Clements High School in Fort Bend County, 
Texas. His essay topic is: Select an important event that has occurred 
in the past 50 years and explain how that event has changed our 
country. Baher chose Marbury v. Madison.

       The United States Supreme Court is often a spring of 
     controversy. With Marbury v. Madison the Court has ``judicial 
     review'', power to deem any type of legislation as 
     constitutional or unconstitutional, and thus, void. In other 
     words, any government action or law can be challenged, 
     brought in front of the Court, and whatever the Justices 
     decide is final. The fact that it holds such enormous power 
     in government but yet is comprised of a few unelected 
     appointed Justices is perplexing. How can five, nine, or even 
     ten individuals possibly reflect the American public opinion?
       To claim that the Supreme Court is insular if not isolated 
     of the real world would not be so outlandish of a claim. The 
     fact that Justices are appointed and not elected by the 
     general public is one indicator of a direct deviation from 
     the public's opinion. Another is the fact that Justices serve 
     in the Supreme Court for life (unless they are convicted and 
     impeached or they retire). Thus, while public society and 
     opinion may and inevitably evolves, appointed Justices remain 
     in power, succeeding to not reflect nor mirror the public's 
     changing opinion. Contenders might claim that such 
     ``insularity'' is actually beneficial because the Supreme 
     Court is not designed to reflect public opinion, but rather 
     to merely interpret the Constitution. But then again, how can 
     only nine people decide on what the Document meant as it 
     relates to today's cases?
       While the Supreme Court does seem sovereign of public 
     opinion, it is not completely secluded from it. A Justice 
     appointee cannot make it to the Court unless voted on by the 
     United States Senate, comprised of directly elected senators. 
     So in essence, Justices should reflect public opinion not 
     only because the elected President chooses them, but also 
     because the Senate confirms them.
       In conclusion, it may appear undemocratic and thus 
     paradoxical that one of our most powerful branches in 
     government is comprised of unelected officials. However, it 
     must also be stated that such sovereignty actually shields 
     Justices from faltering with the public's ceaseless waves of 
     ever-changing beliefs, emotions, and culture.

                          ____________________