The New York Times Takes on Trump's SCOTUS Pick

In their lead editorial in their July 10, 2018 edition, The NY Times describes the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as "awful," with the result being a "shift (of) the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the right." Had President Trump nominated a left-wing judge to the Court would the Times, and the rest of the Left, be concerned about a shift of the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the left? A 5-4 conservative majority proves to be a cause for fear-mongering. A 9-0 left-wing Court would likely cause no concern whatsoever.

We know that the Left cannot tolerate losing. Recall that when Trump won in 2016, the Left's answer was to get rid of the Electoral College. Now, with their alleged concern over the "polarization" of the Court, the Times suggests "there are structural fixes, like term limits, that could counteract this trend." The Times: "One proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, which would create an opening on the court every two years," assuming a staggered process. The elimination of the Electoral College and term limits for Supreme Court Justices would require Constitutional Amendments. But that has not stopped the Left from seeking other - underhanded - means to achieve their goals.

With regards to the Electoral College, left-wing states have been forming a compact to give their electoral votes to whichever candidate gets the most popular votes - totally undermining the majority of people in any of those states which may have voted against the national popular vote winner. So, we'll have to see what they come up with to change the conservative majority or limit their terms.

The Times asserts that Trump's list of potential nominees were all proposed by the Federalist Society and/or the Heritage Foundation, as if that is just evil. Not all of the leftist groups are, let us say, of the intellectual variety - think Occupy Wall Street and Antifa, for example. Then we have the countless left-wing activist organizations, such as MoveOn.org, and the left-wing think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Foundation, among others. Would the Times have a beef with left-wing groups proposing SCOTUS nominees to a Democratic President? Not likely.

I love this quite telling comment by the editorial writers: "The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences..." Suspicious? Why? How? Because Republicans support the Constitution - and do not believe that one's race, sex, religion or gender should automatically determine who wins a case. (See the prior post.)

The Times concludes with these thoughts. First, the "Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals..." As noted in the last post, all conservatives are now considered "radical" or "extreme" or "arch-conservative" by the Left. Second, the Times tells us that there is "a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy" in places like Hungary and Poland, and presumably they include the USA under Trump as well. This blog has commented in numerous posts how liberals here no longer believe in liberal democracy, for the simple reason that liberals no longer believe in classical liberalism - rather, they are Leftists. Many just do not know it.

I think that the July 10 Wall Street Journal editorial on Kavanaugh said it best: "The American left is distraught because it fears losing the Court as its preferred legislature." Which explains why the Left is unhappy with judges who simply interpret the law. The Left wants judges to write the laws that they are unable to get passed in Congress or the State Legislatures. If one of the senior liberal Justices should retire or otherwise leave the Court during Trump's term, allowing Trump yet another nominee, I can only imagine the fits and tantrums that we will see from the Left.