I never had the reason or opportunity to argue before the United States Supreme Court. I did attend a few sessions when I lived in Washington. Over the years, I have watched the Court change its views as older Justices retire or die, and the sitting president can then nominate a successor. I even attended the hearing on one of the nominees where all 100 Senators attended and rejected the nominee. Of the present slate, three were appointed by George W. Bush, two by Barack Obama, one by Joe Biden, and the other three by Donald Trump. That makes the slate 6-3 Republican nominees approved.

Over the years the political beliefs of the president in nominating a person for the court were followed with some devotion by the nominee. With the conservative side of the Court being nominated by Republican presidents, there has certainly been serious leaning to a quite conservative majority decision. The leading example may be the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

One of the key cases in front of the court right now is the birthright citizenship issue. The Constitution is quite clear that those born on U.S. soil are Americans. President Trump finds this unacceptable, especially if the birth in our country was from undocumented immigrants. He is so determined to undo this privilege (or right) of the American Constitution that he personally attended the oral arguments in the court. This act is unprecedented in our history, but apparently, he thinks his presence could shame or bully his nominated Justices to become part of the majority and change our Constitution.

For those who may not be that familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment of that historical document, here is the part that applies.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”.

I understand the politics of our country, but our Constitution is the last stop between democracy and absolute control by the Executive branch. The one Justice who has voted consistently with a total conservative position along all of President Trump’s lines has been Justice Samuel Alito. How is he so bound to the Republicans who nominated him?

Upon graduation from law school, Alito clerked for a federal judge for one year and then became an assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. After Ronald Reagan was elected president, Alito became assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General and then an assistant Attorney General.

Later in 1987, Alito became the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Then his first judicial job came when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Always known as a staunch advocate for law and order, he prosecuted several high-level drug trafficking and corporate fraud cases and even took down Giovanni Riggi, the alleged head of the De Cavalcante crime family, in his prosecutorial positions.

In the fall of 2005, President Bush nominated Alito to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court following Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement. From day one, his nomination was opposed by the more liberal groups in the federal government. Here was a man who, in his legal background, never took the side of an accused and his defense but merely prosecuted people and companies all his political life.

His voting record is the most consistent in favoring Trump’s bold policies. In his questioning in the recently argued case, Alito seems the most receptive to Trump’s idea of ending the longstanding constitutional principle that anyone born in the U.S. is an American citizen.

The executive and judicial branches of our country are supposed to be totally separate and apart according to our Constitution. No doubt the political force in the White House each time a Supreme Court Justice dies or retires can significantly change the prevailing balance of the court.

How could Roe v. Wade be reversed? One reason is because the Constitution does not say anything directly about abortion. But the birthright is written in simple words, with no place for reinterpretation.

Right now, some of the Justices seems to be voting in ways that their nominator did not follow. Both Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, in their questions to counsel in the oral arguments in this case, would indicate that the Constitution is more important than the beliefs of their nominator. We will wait to see if Justice Alito can break away from his entrenched stance. I have no hope for Justice Thomas.

I have no problem with each of the Justices following his or her beliefs in our Constitution. I do think, however, that what was implicit in the drafting of the Constitution in 1775 may not be the best today in current beliefs.

In 1896, the Supreme Court opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson said if schools that were separated racially were both equal in quality, it was not segregation. The famous separate but equal rule. It took the Supreme Court until 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, to find that such a ruling was a direct violation of the rights stated in our Constitution, as that Court interpreted the language. We will wait to see if the Executive Branch’s idea on who is a citizen prevails rather than that stated in our Constitution.

· Dennis Marek can be contacted at llamalaw23@gmail.com.