The left is in deep mourning about Kennedy’s resignation
It occurs to me, on reading many many reactions from the left to Justice Kennedy’s resignation, that the left had gotten to thinking that the Court was theirs, and that any change towards conservatism was illegitimate. Against the march of history.
And that would have been true even if a more conventional Republican politician than Trump had won in 2016.
At least for the most part, the Court has moved to the left pretty much ever since the administration of FDR. So SCOTUS decisions that were made on very iffy legal grounds (such as Roe v. Wade, where it found a new right that had never existed before) have now become part of the “rights” that the left feels it is owed by law.
So there is a great deal of moaning and gnashing of teeth on the left, as well as statements of fear that we’ll now be going back to some horribly dark and oppressive ages. Some of this fear is actually sincere, I think, and some is a strategic stirring up of fear in Democratic voters in order to motivate them to go to the polls in November.
This NY Times editorial is very typical, and actually on the restrained side compared to some. The editors think that conservative justices threaten Americans’ “most cherished rights and protections”—but the Times sees those rights as abortion rights and the like, rather than the protection of basic liberties such as freedom of religion and of speech. It’s those latter rights, embedded in the Constitution, that conservative justices are bent on preserving—and that liberal judges (and the Times editors) are bent on undermining if it suits the cause of the left.
The editors also add the following deeply misleading passage:
The Supreme Court is designed as a countermajoritarian institution, and operates as a crucial check in a democracy based on majority rule. Still it is hard to swallow that this court is about to solidify a deeply conservative majority, despite the fact that in six of the last seven presidential elections, more Americans have voted for a Democrat than for a Republican.
That last sentence ignores the fact that in the last seven presidential elections, Republicans won three of them because of the electoral college, which determines the winner because it also “operates as a crucial check in a democracy based on majority rule.” And of course the Times chose to start its count with the election of Bill Clinton, which followed three elections won by Republicans.
Well, keep dreaming, NY Times. The left may find a way to stop a conservative-majority SCOTUS from happening, of course. Or the GOP’s very own RINOs may do the same. But at the moment, conservatives can savor the very strong possibility that for the first time in a very long time the Court will act to preserve the Constitution.
I am definitely savoring that possibility. And I think Trump will nominate a solid conservative in the mold of Gorsuch. If he does, and if McConnell can corral his caucus to confirm, and if the new justice doesn’t sashay to the left over time, NeverTrumpers should finally admit they were wrong (I’m looking at you, George Will!)
amenable
Don’t ya hate it when the spell checker doesn’t know what you mean?
I turned 18 the same year they gave the vote to 18 year olds. Why did they do it? Because we were draftable. Because there’s nothing like tramping around in the jungles of Vietnam with an M16, to make you wise in your political decisions.
Shouldn’t people be out of college and into a job, on average, before being allowed to vote? So, 22 or 23 years of age.
Don’t misunderstand. I think any immigrant (illegals too) who serves in combat and get an honorable discharge should be given citizenship and the right to vote, at an age older than 18. Combat doesn’t make them any wiser in politics, but it does give them skin in the game.
Crucial that the NYT—and the judges—write the tripe they do, and that people—as many people as possible—can read it, can see it.
And draw conclusions about how bent, how distorted, how twisted, how delusional—and how politicized—these people are.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence. Their intelligence is not in question.
In fact, intelligence in all too many cases may assist in distilling such grotesque distortions and rationalizations.
“NeverTrumpers should finally admit they were wrong”
What part of the word “never” is unclear…?
Trump could find the lost city of El Dorado, give free tickets to The Big Rock Candy Mountain & have Jesus come hang out at the White House & all those rusted-on NT folks would still howl on the street corners & plot to “stop him.”
The President should do what he has proven to do well…just be President like we elected him to be. Oh…and after we get another conservative judge on SCOTUS, please build that wall like you promised.
The left must be particularly upset that Justice Ginsburg didn’t yield to the pressure put on her to retire during Obama’s second term.
The court is “countermajoritarian”? In the first place, that isn’t its mandate at all. It is more accurate to call it “un-majoritarian,” in that its function is to carry out its specific remit of power as though majorities were irrelevant.
The left’s inability to conceive of disinterested application of principles just adds to the sense that they have lost touch completely with the nature of law. Small wonder they have zero regard for it.
Second of all, these lefties can’t keep their stories straight. Beyond the little inconsistency noted by neo, there’s another one relating to their implicit argument that 1) the Court should reflect majoritarian preferences in its make-up, but 2) should act in a countermajoritarian fashion.
So, let me get this straight. The idea is that Democrats win popular vote majorities; therefore, the Court should be majority Democrat; therefore, the Democrat majority Court should, and should be expected to, act as a check on the Democrat majority’s prevailing fetishes.
Makes *perfect* sense.
Moreover, all you ever hear from the progs is “democracy, democracy, democracy” – there is no ailment under the sun that more democracy cannot cure. And yet, when it’s convenient, they turn into rock-ribbed Hamiltonians, shouting indignantly, “Sir, your people is a GREAT BEATST!” (though to be fair, Hamilton probably never said that).
This kind of gibberish is par for the course for people whose entire philosophy is rooted in the principle of making it up as they go along. It’s disgusting, like seeing people with four heads and ten tongues, like some monstrosity right out of John Carpenter’s The Thing.
The complete disregard for anything like harmony, elegance, gentility, grace, beautiful symmetry, etc., in the very relation of their ideas to one another, the syntax of it all, is enough to show that their semantics are going to be every bit as hideous and devoid of grace.
Phew. Rant over.
Barry Meislin Says:
June 28th, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Crucial that the NYT—and the judges—write the tripe they do, and that people—as many people as possible—can read it, can see it.
* * *
For any astute reader (not soaked in the sad tears of the left), the NYT article is not going to improve its reputation as a purveyor of “fake news” — although, at least they label that one as opinion.
Rave on, Kolnai. Good to see you in mid season form.
Let’s get us a really good court, for a change:
– Neil Gorsuch
– Samuel Alito
– Clarence Thomas
– Don Willett
– Mike Lee
– Ted Cruz
– Amy Barrett
– Britt Grant
and, The Ghost of Antonin Scalia
Alternatively, I’d take:
– Neil Gorsuch
– Samuel Alito
– Clarence Thomas
– Clarence Thomas
– Clarence Thomas
– Clarence Thomas
– Clarence Thomas
– Clarence Thomas
and, The Ghost of Antonin Scalia
I suppose if we have to have a token weathercock in the court, we can let John Roberts stay. If we absolutely must.
Those are my nominees. With this crowd, I shouldn’t have any trouble finding a “second.” All in favor?
“in a democracy based in majority rule” NYT
That begs the question; is the writer and editor at the NYT that ignorant… or simply that deceitful?
As, we don’t have a democracy based in majority rule.
We have a Republic that operates within the constraints of a written Constitution. No majority, no matter how large can rule outside of those constraints. Not even the amendment process can rescind “inalienable rights”. For “rights” which can be rescinded are NOT rights at all but merely privileges.
Societies that reject the premise of inalienable rights granted by our creator are inescapably reduced to “might makes right”.
Geoffrey, the NYT and other media know that anything they say often enough will be accepted as “true” by its audience, including conservatives.
I’ve long wondered about the Democrats’ claim Republicans have moved far right.
Consider the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not some drastic effort to resurrect the times of Andrew Jackson, much less 1930s Germany. There would have been no Tea Party in 2010 if the US had been like it was in 1996 — the temporal center of the Clinton presidency and only a decade and a half previously.
No, the Tea Party arose when the Obama went full-bore on his promise to “fundamentally transform[] the USA.”
For Democrats the status quo is, or supposed to be, steady “progress” towards the left, towards some kind of socialism. Hence Obama’s constant rhetoric about the arc of history and “who we are as Americans.”
When Republicans oppose all the nudging, “teachable moments,” “conversations,” top-down social engineering and outright power plays like Obamacare, they become “far right.”
Ah, 1996…the last time I voted D.