The history of America has certain themes running through it. One is the constant pendulum swing regarding regulation (more on this perhaps in another post). The concept of "checks and balances" was one of the central themes of our Founding Fathers in creating the republic that we have today was.
The people that initially crafted our government had recently come over from Europe and were casting off the yoke of an oppressive monarchy - where the national government controlled everything. It is then not so surprising that they would want to create a government perhaps as different from this as possible, one where the local governments knew best how to tax and spend, and had the majority of the power. However, this turned out to be an utter failure. We couldn't raise money for a proper militia even to defend our new country, which had numerous enemies to be sure. Hence, it was decided that we needed a new system, and thus was born the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution was a power grab by the federal government to take the power back. It was clear to them that all of the power could not be vested in the States. However the Framers and the States were concerned about the federal government ever having too much power. Hence, two things happened. One, the Framers promised that there would be a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, which would protect certain fundamental State rights. Second, the idea of checks and balances was implemented.
The theory was, and continues to be, that every governing body will want to grab as much political power for itself as possible within the system. Congress can legislate, but it needs the Courts to agree that its legislation is permitted under the Constitution (which was passed by the States), and it requires the Executive branch to enforce its laws. Even with that fundamental tension, there was also the idea that each branch would make certain power grabs, therefore no single branch would ever become too powerful, and this was proven to be true. See Marbury v. Madison (incidentally, John Marshall was a genius).
We are now crossing into an insteresting time where all three branches of the federal government will be dominated by a single party, which is good if you happen to be from that party and agree with all of its philosophies, and otherwise, it may not be deemed to be so good. However, the political party placed in power is a little different than what has existed historically. Generally, the Republican party was about reduced federal spending, allowing for a reduction in taxes, and less legislation - more laissez fair. This was often considered good by the States, corporations, and any one that thought the government was wasting "their" money. However, for the last several years, the Republicans have been spending like it was going out of style, reducing taxes, and increasing federal legislation (as it relates to privacy and "family" issues).
Ordinarily, there would be a certain limit to how much political ideology could ever be infused into federal law, as there are checks and balances and no single branch, and not even two individual branches, of the federal government could ever change anything too dramatically. However, as I said, the times they are a changing. Soon all three branches of the government will be dominated by the same political party, or by people with a very similar political philosophy.
Over time, the rights secured by the Bill of Rights, the thing that was added to the Constitution to get many of the States to actually adopt the Constitution to begin with, has been abbreviated and abridged by the same people that have the philosophy that State's rights need to be protected. However, the States have not really protested because the protections which have been abbreviated more relate to individual rights and freedoms. (Refer to the line of cases interpreting the 4th Amendment through today. You can start with Weeks v. United States. However, it has also been reducing the ability of Congress to legislate, as it shrinks the power granted to it under the Commerce Clause. See Gibbons v. Ogden, Swift v. United States, and Lopez v. United States. Again, this is only bad if you disagree with it.
The Court is often accused of being "activist" when it does anything contrary to what the Republican party deems appropriate. However, the Constitution was meant to be a living document and to be interpreted. Some people are more "strict constructionists" (often reading more "textually" into the document being interpreted) than others. "A judge who is a 'strict constructionist' in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs, —the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's 'broad constructionist' reading of the Constitution." (William H. Rehnquist in a memo to Richard Nixon about Supreme Court nominees). However, the Constitution is not always very clear. The idea was that this document would be the governing law for hundreds of years and the needs of the people and thegovernmentt would inevitably change over time. Hence, the document needed to be broad enough to cover the "What ifs".
For example, the right to privacy, the right to use contraception, the idea that seperatee but equal" is inherently unequal, the right to equal protection for all classes under federal law, are not rights or concepts specifically enumerated under the Constitution. These things were read into it by the Court. The Court determines the breadth of the fundamental protections and the powers of Congress to legislate and whether the Executive branch has exceeded its scope. Every Court interprets and "makes" law.
We now get to the new Supreme Court nominee, who will most likely be confirmed very soon by a Congessional vote that is expected to be directly down party lines. Samuel Alito will be placed onto a Court that already has a strong philosophy geared toward Republican ideals. It is why he was nominated for Supreme Court Justice. Anyone that says politics should not play a part in whether or not a Justice is placed on the Bench is kidding themselves, as so much of the appointment comes down to politics to begin with, and both Republicans and Democrats do it.
When Alito is confirmed, the Republican party will effectively have control over the Congress, the Executive branch (presidency), and the Court - all three branches of power. Thus, greatly reducing the checks and balances that were imagined by our Founding Fathers. This is not a bad thing unless you happen to disagree with any of the Republican philosophies, or happen to believe that checks and balances are always a good thing to have. The fight over the Court seems to be rather muted, which strikes me as ironic as this is likely going to be one of the most long lasting legacies left by the Republican Party on our Country, as these are lifetime appointments and the Court will have the ability to interpret whether a Congress or President of a different ideology has overstepped its bounds.
The thing that shocks me most of all is I have heard next to nothing about abortion, civil, or equal rights activists protesting this appointment. (I thought for sure the women's rights groups would be out in force on this one.) There was such a battle to have these rights recognized under the Constitution to begin with, how could anyone be so willing now to have someone appointed to the Court that is more than likely going to help to abridge those rights further. A government with limited checks and balances is the thing that scares me more than anything. However, on that front, I am obviously in good company.
