What The Courts Are For

They're panicking because last week, Justice Anthony Kennedy -- a reliable vote in favor of certain leftist priorities including abortion and same-sex marriage -- announced that he will step down from the Supreme Court, leaving President Trump a second selection. This apparently will lead to the end of a free America. According to Jeffrey Toobin of CNN, the remade Supreme Court will spell doom: "Abortion illegal, doctors prosecuted, gay people barred from restaurants, hotels, stores; African-Americans out of elite schools, gun control banned in 50 states, the end of regulatory state."

None of this is true, of course. It simply demonstrates the wild overreach to which the left has subjected the judicial branch to date.

The judicial branch was never meant to act as a superlegislature, using the verbiage of the Constitution in order to implement preferred policy prescriptions. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton expressed the idea well: "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Substituting will for judgment would make the case for utterly dissolving the judicial branch.

Yet, according to the Democrats, the Supreme Court should exercise will instead of judgment. The role of the court, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is to help expedite change in our society: "Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions." Justice Elena Kagan believes the same thing, which is why she constantly describes the Constitution as "abstract," leaving her room to interpret it as poetry rather than statute.

This is why Democrats celebrate obviously superlegal decisions like Roe v. Wade: There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, but they would prefer not to battle that issue out at the electoral level. The Supreme Court allows them to hand down their policy from the mountaintop without having to subject those policies to public scrutiny.

And that means that any reversal of such policy by a Supreme Court that actually reads the Constitution as it was written, is a threat to Democratic hegemony. Were President Trump to appoint an originalist to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would surely die, but that wouldn't make abortion illegal -- the issue would have to be put before the American public. Affirmative action from state schools would end, but African-Americans wouldn't be barred from attending elite institutions -- such a bar would remain illegal. Gays across the country would not suddenly find themselves barred from public restaurants -- it's unlikely the Supreme Court would rule such action legal, and even if it were to do so, virtually no establishments across the country would start asking about sexual orientation at the door.

“”If I recall it was “Gay employees” who voted that Sanders should be kicked out of a restaurant.””

Where on earth did you hear that? Even if it was true, I doubt anyone reporting on TV or newspaper would have stated it...

If I recall it was “Gay employees” who voted that Sanders should be kicked out of a restaurant.

Once again, liberals are projecting THEIR vileness on us - no gay person has ever been denied service because he was gay. BUT, a conservative WAS denied service within the last month FOR THE CRIME OF 'EATING WHILE CONSERVATIVE'.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Mae Anderson
Associated Press
Jul 1, 2018
9:00 AM

“The Red Hen’s co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson told The Washington Post that her staff had called her to report Ms. Sanders was in the restaurant. She cited several reasons, including the concerns of several restaurant employees who were gay and knew Ms. Sanders had defended Mr. Trump’s desire to bar transgender people from the military.”

In another story I had seen it reported that they “Took a Vote”. I can look that up for you if you want.

“The role of the court, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is to help expedite change in our society: “Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.” Justice Elena Kagan believes the same thing, which is why she constantly describes the Constitution as “abstract,” leaving her room to interpret it as poetry rather than statute.”................Don’t these people take an oath of office to defend the Constitution & base their decisions on it? There must be some way for Congress to quickly & efficiently dismiss these idiots.

By Marlene Lenthang and Rory Tingle For Dailymail.com

Published: 23:34 EDT, 23 June 2018 | Updated: 08:49 EDT, 25 June 2018

The owner of The Red Hen restaurant that kicked out Sarah Huckabee Sanders has revealed why she refused to serve the White House Press Secretary.

On Friday night Sanders was asked to leave the Lexington, Virginia restaurant where she was dining with her seven family members.

Restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson said she took a staff vote before asking Sanders to leave. When they voted to boot her out, Wilkinson complied.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.