It is not as if the 2020 election year has not already had its share of intrigue. We must admit that the turmoil in our national politics has been nothing short of historic. The death of celebrated Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just added serious spin to the already reeling political discourse.
There is a fundamental difference between Progressives and Conservatives when it comes to executing judicial office. There is a reason Presidents seek to appoint new judges at nearly every level when they take office. Progressive judges (read Democrat or liberal) seek to use the judiciary as a legislative tool to reflect ideology by creating new law or policy from the bench even when Progressives may not currently hold power in local or regional legislative offices. Conservative judges are much more originalist and view courts not as a vehicle to create ideological policy, but a forum to interpret and enforce laws already extant by legislation.
Thus, we see activist judges appointed during Obama’s tenure strike down presidential orders when they do not actually have the constitutional power to do so. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco is a prime example. It was here that Progressive lawyers sued the Trump administration when he rescinded Obama’s executive order on DACA. Something Trump had every right to do (such is the nature of presidential executive orders). That same court placed an injunction on Trump’s travel ban. It is not a coincidence that the rulings of the Ninth District are reversed 85% of the time when they are heard in the Supreme Court.
When courts become activists in such a manner, the only remedy is an appeal is to a higher court. If that court will not hear a case, the lower court rulings stand. The Supreme Court is, in reality, the last bastion against legislating from the bench and preserving a balance of power between the three branches of government. Thus, the greater interest of the people is for originalists, not activists, to be appointed. Ginsburg was an activist Progressive. Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, is an originalist. And her confirmation would restore a balance away from activists back to originalists.
It is also interesting is to hear the rapid reversal of the politicization of Barrett’s selection in an election year. In 2016, when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate led by Mitch McConnell used the same rhetoric of “let the people choose” as a basis for his deliberate inaction. The Democrats demanded McConnell allow the process, starting a hashtag campaign lambasting the Senate to #DoYourJob. Republicans would have been better served to simply say “We decline the President’s candidate on purely political grounds”.
This time the roles are reversed. The Democrats are demanding the people be allowed to choose while the Republican Senate reminds us they have a job to do. And the Republicans are correct. The Constitution calls for the President to nominate and the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent”. Essentially, whoever controls the Senate controls the process. No time limits are given. That is the law.
And Trump has provided the perfect candidate. Barrett is a mother of seven, including one special needs and two adopted children, and has an impeccable legal resume. No concocted controversy will stick to the woman, as Democrats attempted when smearing Brett Kavanagh. In fact, if the Democrats endeavor to use a religious argument against her, as they are currently intimating, that strategy will backfire with a large segment of the public.
Barrett is a no-lose proposition for the American people. Leftist hysteria over Roe versus Wade or other nonsensical talking points only make them look foolish. The fact is that an originalist who seeks to interpret constitutional law is only a threat to a previously activist majority in the court (Since Justice Roberts seems to have flipped to the activist role in recent years). The likely losers here are those politicos who want to see left-leaning legislation continue from the bench. We should lose no sleep over their gyrations. An originalist like Barrett is a win for the Republic and the Constitution.