Why are Liberals So Upset with the New Constitutionalist Justice?

             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 taking place. 

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 explanation.

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

Minority 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 this nomination.”

            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 Constitution.