Editor,

INQUIRING minds are asking Mokofisi to propose an alternative or a better approach to the judicial appointment process as stated in the 80th clause of the Constitution that, ". . . the Chief Justice of Tonga and of such other judges as may be appointed from time to time by the King with the consent of Privy Council . . . "

After comparing that clause with the judicial nomination process in the U.S of A, inquiring minds wonder what is the basis for Mokofisi's critique of the 80th clause. Obama had picked Elena Kagan to be U.S 112th justice upon the advise (supposed to be) of the Senate, and after the Senate holds hearings, perhaps around July, they have to confirm (or reject) the President's choice. Should the Senate confirm Kagan to be the 112th justice of the U.S Supreme Court, she will hold that position until she retires or "expires." Apparently, Obama knew that Kagan is very liberal and she would most probably be against any attempt from the Republicans to struck down the Obamacare System in the Supreme Court. That's American "fakapone" professionally and subtly exercised.

Inquiring minds know that justices have their own political ideologies and biases which will affect their constitutional interpretation. Either they are conservatives who will uphold Judeo-Christian values, or liberals who will reinterpret the Constitution and foster a new culture with laws that are free of Judeo-Christian values. Additionally, most justices fall under one of the two categories of constitutional interpretations - originalism and living constitutions. Proponents of originalism, mostly conservative justices such as Justice Scalia, believe that the framers of the U.S Constitution had an original intent, and therefore justices have to search for the social, cultural, political, and legal context of the Constitution. Contrastingly, proponents of "living constitutions" are progressive justices who believe that the meaning of the constitution evolves.

Believers in such judicial philosophy are most likely to interpret the Constitution to support abortion, euthanasia, and other issues which are against to Judeo-Christian values. Roe v. Wade is a classical example of how the imperial U.S Judiciary dictates her power upon the entire citizenry, even though it was obvious the majority of Americans were and are against abortion. No judicial or political puppeteer exists in American judiciary, only judicial oligarchy.
Imagine giving away Tonga's judicial destiny to a liberal progressive foreigner? Would she or he value what the majority of the Tongan people value? How can we be sure that Tonga will be secured from what is happening in America as millions of babies are permitted by Judiciary to be executed through abortion in the name of liberty and personal freedoms?

Now we face two judicial evils:
1) the present system where the King puppeteers the Judiciary;
2) the American system where the Chief Justices can act almost like kings and make decisions which are against the approval of the majority of the American people.

I opt for the former as the lesser evil of the two judicial evils for only one reason - Tonga still respects the weakest member of the society - the unborn babies. How to counter the present judicial evil? Lets reserve that for further conversation.

Respectfully Yours,

Senituli Penitani
Nomuka

seni15266 [at] yahoo [dot] com [dot] au ( seni15266 [at] yahoo [dot] com [dot] au)