Posted on 10/14/2018 11:21:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many conservative friends could not contain their excitement when the final vote for Judge Kavanaugh was announced. Many rushed to their Twitter account to predict that Roe v. Wade would soon be consigned to the ash heap of history.
The histrionics of the looney left mirrored the excitement on the right. We smiled at the scenes of unhinged demonstrators pounding on the metal doors of the Supreme Court. Those scenes will be remembered for a long time.
We will also remember the anticipation, waiting for the 3:00 announcement of Maine’s Senator Susan Collins. When she finally delivered her speech on the floor of the Senate, neither side could wait for her conclusion. It was high drama. Her remarks were both reasoned and principled. Whatever you may think about Senator Collins, she is her own person. She did what a Senator is expected to do. She asked tough questions and listened carefully to the answers. She was not intimidated by the hate-filled, angry mob. She came to her own conclusions and announced them in calm and measured tones.
It was branded as one of the greatest Senate speeches in recent memory. That may say something about the quality of the oratory of her contemporaries. But, it was a good speech. She used a razor to slice through the disgusting muck that Democrats had thrown at this good man.
The Left predictably and immediately unleashed fire, furry and vitriol. They pledged millions to defeat her in her next election. Traitor! She would be forever banished from the feminist plantation. How could she turn her back on her gender?
The Right just as predictably heaped high praise on her. She had become a genuine statesman (stateswoman?) in their eyes. Carving a special place in history.
What both sides seemed to have missed is what she actually had said leading up to her historic announcement. She recounted the nearly three hours, both in her office and on the phone, that she had spent with the Judge. Senator Collins reviewed the questions she had asked and how he had answered them. Those answers should give pause to the celebrants and comfort to his detractors.
We have been repeatedly assured that Brett Kavanaugh is a solid constitutional conservative. That he will be a critical ally in the drive to restore sanity to the court. This is a court that from campaign finance to gay marriage to ObamaCare has been an embarrassing disappointment. All of those decisions were decided by Republican appointees. Justices that we had been assured would be “solid”. To say that they have tried to steer clear of matters that should have been decided by accountable elected officials is laughable.
Review for yourself and listen carefully to what the Senior Senator from Maine told us at https://youtu.be/LJRdMh1XhAY
She repeatedly called Judge Kavanaugh a centrist. She reinforced that point with several examples. On over 93% of the cases jointly decided, he and Judge Merrick Garland concurred. Was it a Garland fellow traveler that we had in mind? Lisa Black, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other woman, offered high praise for Kavanaugh. Black is a self-professed staunch defender of Roe and said that he “fits within the mainstream of legal thought.”
Kavanaugh called Marbury v. Madison one of the four greatest Supreme Court rulings. This is the bedrock ruling upon which all judicial activism is built.
Hmmm?
Senator Collins reminded us that Kavanaugh had tried to find middle ground on the matter of forcing religious orders to offer contraceptives to employees. Fine. But, he went further. He offered that this was “settled law” citing Griswold v. Connecticut and that the “government had a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.”
Compelling interest? Access? Really?
But, it was his reverence to precedents that was most troubling. Collins clearly probed deeply on the 45 year old Roe decision. He told her that past decisions become “part of our legal framework.” He added that precedents are not merely judicial policy, not a goal, but a constitutional tenant. That they were “not to be trimmed, narrowed or overlooked.” When she asked about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (a decision co-authored by Justice David Souter) he told her that it was “precedent on precedent.”
Somehow legendary philosopher Yogi Berra comes to mind. Is this deja vu all over again?
We can all celebrate that Justice Kavanaugh survived the ruthless assault on his character. But, exactly what kind of a Justice he will become remains an open question.
The Abortion argument began as the right to have safe abortions......it was the feminists of that generation that latched onto it as a womans right to her body because it was then women were screaming about having the right to work, which of course a pregnancy could create an issue. In other words feminists wanted the right to use abortion as birth control. Which is exactly what’s been happening since and has had little if anything to do with safe abortions.
While I agree that is true for Republican presidents, it seems that justices appointed by democrats are real line soldiers in the long march leftward.
I don’t recall anyone of them changing over time. Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan decide like they’ve just gotten out of Marxist law school.
40% difference for one calendar year is pretty divisive between two members of a body in charge of “Judicial review” though. In fact, that is not only dangerous, but embarrassing as hell (Although dead for over a century or close to two) for those who defended Article III.
Thank you for that view. I have just about as much problem with legal tyrany from the old hard core conservative right as I do from the left. Our individual liberty is at risk from both sides.
I remember well how shocked people were it passed. Women were just as delusional then as they are now......who swallowed the feminist drive to change the tune from safe abortions, which at that time were illegal, to a womans right to her body. That change brought women into the streets for equal rights and the whole nine yards.
“a constitutional tenant”? As long as it doesn’t disturb the other people living there.
This is a tired old tale told by bitter anti-abortionists. It is not true. Marburg v Madison did not establish the power of Constitutional review. That power is in the constitution itself and is already described in the Federist Papers. M v M was merely the first case where the SC invoked said powers.
I don't know why this would bother anyone. Governments have functioned this way throughout human history. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and that applies to government, too.
I have my worries too. But Marbury vs. Madison is what gave our Constitution a spine. IMO pretty obviously what was intended, put into practice.
Judicial activism is really another outgrowth off of a legitimate foundation.
>>The truth is Presidents have no say what justices do
Technically no but Kagan was and is Obama’s rubber stamp.
The author is an illiterate.
No doubt that would make it to the SCOTUS and we would see where he stands. If a "fetus" is 3 weeks old and the mother takes a "Plan "B", she would be guilty of a crime just as she would be if she threw her child down the stairs. With birth control measures we have today, their is no excuse for unplanned pregnancy. I've been married 47 years and my one and only child was planned 13 years after I was married and my wife took the pill for just a couple of months. It made her sick so we used other methods.
Getting pregnant today means you just don't care, you are too drunk, or you haven't figured out what causes it.
He is a Bushie.
People who expect him to be Scalia are going to be in for a surprise.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ...
That's a very broad power of taxation; isn't it? And that last item is critical -- because "uniform" means exactly what it says. The Constitution clearly had an expectation that everyone would pay the same tax ... which means they HAD to tax people just for existing.
If anyone on the Left or even in the center ever hoped there was a Anthony Kennedy lurking in Kavanaugh's soul, that opportunity was burnt, and the ashes salted, by Cuck Schumer and Diane Finsteen.
I’m not even sure what you mean by “positive” and “negative” actions when it comes to taxation. Can you explain that?
Souter was to the left of center right out of the box and, as is typical for Justices, only got worse.
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.