The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is constitutionalist judges and justices. A constitutionalist judge or justice makes decisions based on what the Constitution says and the original meaning of those words. President Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 on his promise to nominate constitutionalist judges and justices, and he has kept his promise.
According to this site, Trump appointed just over 200 judges to the federal bench as of September 2020.
I assume that this number includes the two Associate Justices on the Supreme
Court – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. When Judge Amy Coney Barrett was
confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office last week, she made three constitutionalist
justices appointed by Trump. She brings the balances of the court to six “conservative
justices and three “liberal justices.” This is the first time in decades that
conservatives have outnumbered liberals on the Supreme Court.
With Chief Justice John Roberts being an
uncommitted conservative, there could be a lot of 5-4 decisions in favor of
conservatism. However, most of the so-called conservative justices have
surprised conservatives at least a time or two. I know that the votes of Gorsuch
and Kavanaugh have raised conservative eyebrows, but I do not remember any such
votes by Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. However, we know that conservatives
do not vote as a block.
With the nomination, confirmation, and
swearing in of Justice Barrett, liberals and Democrats have gone nuts. It seems
that they do not like judges and justices that adhere to the Constitution. I
wonder why they do not like such judges.
David Harsanyi wrote that “Nothing
threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court
that adheres to the Constitution,” and this is the reason for the tantrums
The Democrat’s tantrums over Justice Amy
Coney Barrett assuming the Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat have nothing to do with her
knowledge of the Constitution or her record as a judge. They threaten to pack
the Supreme Court and to gain power in the judicial system even though the
separation of powers outlined in the Constitution will be destroyed. They also
want to “fix” the Electoral College and the Senate. Harsanyi gave the following
If President Donald Trump had nominated
Garland to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats wouldn’t have any problem
placing him on the court – not even on Nov. 2.
Liberals act as if they are imbued with a
theological right to dictate not only the terms but also the nominees of
confirmation hearings, whether they win or lose elections.
And when you’re under the impression that
the system exists solely to facilitate your partisan agenda, something will
seem “broken” every time you lose….
If Democrats win back the presidency in
2020, the opposition will no longer be “resisting,” it will be “obstructing.”
The filibuster will need fixing again. The media will again obsess over the
problem of “gridlock.” History’s trajectory arcs left, and everything else is
just an impediment.
Even though Barrett is highly qualified
for the position of associate justice, Senate
Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), claimed that the day of her confirmation
would “go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United
States Senate.” He was obviously upset by a justice that adheres to
Constitution. Harsanyi continued his explanation.
Once Barrett’s confirmation became a
reality, however, Democrats began turning to the real problem. Originalism is
the stick in the spoke of progressivism. This crusade has the demagogues
leading the idiots.
The former are people such as Sen. Ed
Markey, D-Mass., who alleges that “originalism is racist. Originalism is
sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for
discrimination.” The latter are the minions who regurgitate this kind of vacuous
talking point because they lack a basic comprehension of legal philosophies or
civic education that includes an explainer on “amendments.”
None of which is to say the radicalized
contemporary left has nothing to fear. Yesterday, Schumer warned: “A warming planet.
Workers falling behind. Dark money flooding politics. The curtailing of the
right to choose. The limiting of voting rights. Those are the consequences of
What Schumer really means is that a
Supreme Court with an originalist-majority will slow the progressive machine in
pushing through policies that undermine the American way of life. He means that
he is concerned that the Supreme Court will determine that abortions on demand
and attacks on religious freedoms might not be the way to go. He means that
unlimited third-trimester abortions on demand and funded by the state might be
in trouble, that attacks on religious freedom might be blunted, and that states
may be obligated to follow their own laws on Election Day rather than concoct
rules as they go along.
Harsanyi continued his article by stating
that an originalist-majority will probably upset partisan Republicans at times
also. A non-partisan and constitutionalist majority will rule according to the
Constitution, which is the way that the Supreme Court should rule. If the Left
or the Right are to win, they must win according to the Constitution. The noise
made by the Left about the appointment of Barrett shows that they would rather
change the court than work to win cases according to the terms of the