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.

Reply to UCLA Law School Professor's Op-Ed on Trump's SCOTUS Pick

(Note: In the July 9, 2018 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed by UCLA Law School Professor Jon D. Michaels. The writing below was my email to him commenting on his article. His article, "A case for bold dissent," anticipated Trump's not yet named nominee being approved by the Senate, and called for the four left-wing Justices to be more vigorous in their dissents (also anticipating more 5-4 decisions). Professor Michaels opined that President Trump's pick would be an "arch-conservative." For the Left, all conservatives are now either "arch-conservatives" or "radical conservatives" or "extremists." It is not necessary to have read the Op-Ed to follow this post.)

I do take issue with a couple of your points. To the Left, every conservative is an "arch conservative." After all, before knowing the pick you dubbed him/her to be an "arch conservative." Furthermore, even with five of these "arch conservatives" on the court, we both know that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not likely. Does C.J. Roberts really strike you as the type of Justice to overturn a 45 year old precedent?

(This paragraph was added by me the next morning as a P.S.) Yes, Janus overturned a 1977 precedent (Abood). However, I see a significant difference between not compelling support for speech with which one disagrees, versus taking away a right (abortion) that has existed for nearly half a century.

Of greater concern is that you seem to believe that the Constitution needs to change/be reinterpreted based upon demographic changes in society. Is that how it should work? The law varies based upon the ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity of the people involved? "Formal equality?" The "justice is blind" type of equality? Apparently, as you go on to express your concern about the "realities of structural poverty, racism, sexism and homophobia."

Assuming there is such a thing as "structural poverty," what do you expect the Courts to do? Wouldn't that be a legislative issue? It is disappointing that what the Left is unable to achieve through legislation they believe should be accomplished through the Courts.

I would surmise that you agree with President Obama's approach to the Bill of Rights - changing it from protecting the individual from abusive government power to mandating that the government provide ... (fill in the blanks).

Hillary Clinton, an attorney, said that "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." When did the Courts become a representative branch of the government? She also opined: "...the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy." Should we tar and feather the wealthy as well? And this from her: "...we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United..." Again, one's identity should predetermine the outcome of a case? Rather shocking, no? Why would we even need Courts?

As for Citizens United, a couple of quick points. Before the Citizens United decision, who was paying $35,000 to $40,000 per plate at Obama's (and other politicians) fundraisers? The average Joe? Hardly. Where was the concern about that money? Lastly, why the outcry about conservative money? Might it be because the Left has a virtual monopoly on political speech otherwise? Think the LA Times, the NY Times, The Washington Post, and most of the written mainstream papers. Think ABC, NBC and CBS. Think MSNBC, CNN. Then, we have Hollywood - TV shows, movies - one left-wing message after the next. Billionaires? Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are left-wing.

I am always amazed that so many on the Left are unhappy with the American system - providing more freedom than any other in history; and lifting more people out of poverty than any other. Yet, President Obama said we needed "fundamental change."