Why Supreme Court Nominations Have Become a Matter of Life and Death
Why Supreme Court Nominations Have Become a Matter of Life and Death
And why character assassination is no longer enough for the Left.
By Don Feder
Rioting in New York, threats of court-packing, promises of arson at the thought of Trump replacing its demi-god with a justice who actually believes in the Constitution. The left is rabid.
Even character assassination (a la the Bret Kavanaugh inquisition) is no longer enough. When will the hostage-taking start?
The President has Article II power to nominate “judges of the Supreme Court.” Donald Trump’s power doesn’t extend to the next election, but to the next inauguration — still four months away.
The composition of the United States Supreme Court was a major issue in the 2016 election. Voters balked at the idea of giving that supreme power to the Queen of Corruption, the Bonnie Parker of Illegal E-Mails. Trump was empowered to nominate justices for his entire term of office.
The media told us conservatives had a 5-4 majority prior to Ginsberg’s death. This was meant to soothe us into a false sense of complacency.
In reality, it’s now 4-4 at best. Chief Justice John Roberts is a turncoat who sides with the left (Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) on the really important stuff. That’s why a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the center of a storm that makes Hurricane Laura seem like a summer breeze.
At the time of the Kavanaugh circus, I said it was a dress rehearsal for choosing Ginsburg’s replacement. World War III just broke out.
For decades, the judiciary has been the left’s House of Lords. It can lose the presidency. It can lose Congress. But as long as it has the courts – the Supreme Court in particular – democracy is in chains.
You want to deport illegal aliens? Sorry, you can’t do that unless you leap through hoops. You want to end federal funding of Democrat cities that won’t put a stop to the insurrection in our streets? You can’t do that either; the money has already been appropriated. So the rioting will continue and the funding will continue.
For leftist jurists, the Constitution is a wishing star. They can always come up with a clever rationale for whatever they want to do, regardless of the intent of the founders and the clear meaning of words. Take abortion and gun control.
The First Amendment says nothing about abortion or a mythical right to privacy, words which appear nowhere in the Constitution.
From the First Amendment’s enumerated rights (speech, press, religion, and so on ), the Roe Court hypothesized a right to privacy and then found a right to abortion lurking in its penumbra – an amazing bit of judicial prestidigitation. The result is the current march to infanticide.
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, the left still loudly insists that the amendment only guarantees a collective right—that the phrase “a well-regulated militia” limits its exercise to military units controlled by the states or federal government.
Under this interpretation, the Second Amendment was written by the first Congress to guarantee to government the right to arm itself. No – really.
The Amendment speaks of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The founders had just gone through a revolution whose success depended on yeomen farmers armed with muskets banding together to defend their rights against a king backed by the strongest army in the world.
Given a choice between civilian gun ownership and a standing army, Madison and company would have chosen the former.
But now that the left has its own army (Antifa, Black Lives Matter) rampaging in the streets, it’s more determined than ever to disarm Middle America – or, to paraphrase Beto O’Rourke, “Hell yes we’ll keep you from defending yourself.” (First they came for my AR-15 and I did nothing.)
It’s not just about the right to life or the right to protect your life, as crucial as they are. It’s heads, we win; tails, you lose. If we win the election, we write the laws. If you win the election, through our judges, we interpret the laws in such a way as to completely frustrate their intent.
Thus, we have judges seriously maintaining that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, but late-term abortion is a vindication of rights. And, in a recent SCOTUS decision, that, DNA notwithstanding, a man who believes he’s a woman has a right to participate in women’s sports. Purported conservative John Roberts sided with the left on that one.
It’s not about fairness (“You didn’t give Merrick Garland a vote!”) or the proximity to a presidential election. As far as the left is concerned, because the last election supposedly was stolen, Trump didn’t have the right to fill the last two Supreme Court vacancies either.
The left will do anything and everything to maintain its control of the high court. The battle for Ginsburg’s replacement will replicate its urban uprisings. The Molotov cocktails will be rhetorical, if no less lethal.