Posted on 10/14/2020 5:52:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week, Democrats struggled to explain why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court. They trotted out hackneyed arguments, suggesting that some political norm had been broken by a Republican president nominating a judge to be confirmed as a justice by a Republican Senate in an election year. There have been 19 times where a seat became vacant in an election year and both the presidency and Senate were controlled by the same party, resulting in 17 judicial confirmations. They suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish to leave her seat open until a Democrat takes power represented a sort of binding legal commitment.
And they fumed.
They fumed that Barrett refuses to pledge fealty to their political priorities. They fumed that Barrett has stated that the role of the judiciary is not to achieve moral ends but to enforce the law. They fumed that Barrett had the temerity to state that "courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life," that "the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches" and that she has done her utmost to "reach the result required by the law," whatever her preferences might be.
That's because, in the view of the political left, the court ought to be merely another weapon in its political arsenal. Conservatives see the judiciary as Alexander Hamilton characterized it in "Federalist No. 78": as the "least dangerous" branch, capable of "neither force nor will, but merely judgment," an institution whose legitimacy rests on its unwillingness to "exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT." Liberals see the court as a super-legislature, designed to act as moral arbiters on behalf of progressive values. That's why former President Barack Obama stated that judges ought to be selected for the quality of "empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
Critical legal theorists have suggested that conservatives are fibbing -- that their view of the judiciary as relegated to judgment alone is merely cover for the reinforcement of their political priorities. But the data suggest otherwise. During the 2019 Supreme Court term, for example, out of some 67 decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times; Republican appointees only voted together 37 times. As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute has pointed out, "it's the (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg Four that represent a bloc geared toward progressive policy outcomes." Republican appointees, in other words, are politically heterodox significantly more often than Democratic appointees. That's because, on a fundamental level, they take their job -- and the constitutional separation of powers -- seriously.
Democrats do not. That's why they see as the glories of the Supreme Court those moments in which the Supreme Court seized power on behalf of progressive ideals. Roe v. Wade has become holy writ on the political left, specifically because it robbed the American people of their right to vote on the issue of abortion. Democrats see nothing but glory in Supreme Court justices seizing authority to protect abortion on behalf of defining "one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992). They see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of "a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning" (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). They see nothing but cause for celebration in the Supreme Court cramming down on the American people their own sense of our "evolving standards of decency" (Trop v. Dulles, 1958) or the importance of never-before-defined "emanations" and "penumbras" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). They want the court to act as an oligarchy.
And they are angry that Barrett's nomination has moved the court away from that progressive, oligarchic rule. That's why they're threatening to pack the court -- because they wish to restore that oligarchy to power. And that's just another reason why, for all the talk about Donald Trump's threats to core American institutions, he can't hold a candle to even mainstream Democratic willingness to trash checks and balances on behalf of power.
She’s everything they can’t be. Good.
It’s simple: Democrats hate everyone that doesn’t agree with them totally on every issue, particularly those who have run off their plantation, such as women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc.. Barrett is an attractive woman with a husband, large family, and doesn’t want to bend the knee to them.
The same is truth of people. Those who have drifted furthest from truth, hate those who speak it the most.
I'm not so sure about that. If that's truly what she believes, then slavery should and would still be legal. After all, it was the law, was it not?
We have no more slavery because we are enforcing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
I suspect in her context, the law is the Constitution itself.
Why did we need to add the 13th Amendment?
Before the 13th Amendment, any legitimate U.S. Supreme Court decision about the legality of slavery would have to recognize that slavery was a legal institution in many states up to that point.
What did The Constitution say before the 13th Amendment was added?
I believe there is something more fundamentally unsound with that statement.
The judicial branch (specifically at the upper levels such as the circuit courts and Supreme Court) does not exist to ENFORCE the law, but is there to INTERPRET the law.
Ah. Now I see. Abortion will continue to be legal, or in Any Barrett’s mind, moral, until another Amendment is added to prohibit it. Why didn’t she just say that?
If they try to do a Kavanaugh type smear on her it’s going to backfire big time. There is nothing in her background to suggest any type of inappropriate behavior on her part, but we know that won’t stop the RATS from doing a hit job on her. I predict they’ll go race card on her today. The RATS are just looking for anything to delay her confirmation vote.
I’m not really sure where you are coming from. I will try to answer in some detail. If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why in some detail.
Laws come and go. Prohibition being one example. Sometimes people think drinking is immoral, and sometimes people actually pass a law against it. Same with slavery.
Up until 1865 or so, the judiciary didn’t do much against slavery because it was a moral issue but the existing law (in some states) declared slavery to be legal.
We needed the 13th Amendment so that slavery became more than a moral issue. It became a legal issue. At that point, the judiciary could have a role in making sure that we no longer had slavery.
At the state level, there had been some laws against slavery (in, say, MA) but Virginia had no such law at the state level and the Constitution did not expressly forbid slavery. Therefore it was a moral issue and the judiciary had not much role. Once the 13th Amendment was passed, the judiciary had a bigger role to play because they were enforcing a law.
They hate her because she’s a sincere Christian, unlike the hypocrites biden, pelosi and bammy.
You need to read about the history of the Supreme Court. How Jackson, the founder and first president of the Democrat party IN THE 1830’s expanded and stacked the Supreme Court.
This led to Taney becoming Chief Justice and the Drew Scott decision that blacks were property and had to be returned to slavery in the south when caught in the north.
History repeats itself. If the Democrats stack the court again, the result will be the same, i.e. civil war II.
I hate auto correct.. Dred Scott
But they are the things the demons that possess the dems wish they could posses.
This. Darkness cannot exist where there's light, and Ms. Barrett's light shines brightly.
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.