Saturday, September 19, 2020

The Democratic Delusion (UPDATED)

     There are probably very few persons alive and awake at this time who aren’t aware that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away. The emphasis this places on the importance of the presidential election cannot be overstated. In short, President Trump has the opportunity to replace a left-liberal justice with a right-conservative one. I doubt he’s going to let it pass him by, nor should he.

     But hearken to the most recent emission by the odious Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY):

     Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted his own statement that "[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.

     "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Schumer added, using same phrase that McConnell employed denying federal judge Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing after the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

     Oh, really? I have but one question: Why?

     The Senate deferred action on the Garland nomination because at that time, the White House was in Democrat hands while the Senate was majority-Republican. It was an appropriate exercise of discretion in a split-control situation. The election of Hillary Clinton would have made it impossible to avoid a straight up-or-down Senate vote on Merrick Garland. The loss of the Senate majority to the Democrats would have had the same effect. But the election of Donald Trump and the GOP’s retention of the Senate majority would – and did – put the Garland nomination in a different light, one where the Senate could reasonably allow the incoming president to put forward a different nominee.

     Today, there is no split-control situation. The White House and the Senate are both Republican-dominated. It is reasonable for the president to submit a nominee to the Senate for its advice and consent. It is also reasonable for the Senate to act or not act on such a nomination in its own good time. What President Trump will do, and what Majority Leader McConnell will do, we shall soon see.

     But on a larger and more important point, Schumer’s nonsense about “the American people” deserving “a voice” in the selection of the nominee is contrary to the Constitutional design. Such a “voice” is expressed through their selections of Senators and President. With both those institutions in Republican hands, it is wholly within reason that the president should put forward the nominee of his choice, and leave what follows to the Senate.

     Schumer’s demand is a restatement of the democratic delusion: the notion that everything about the federal government “should” be decided by a majority vote of the citizenry. The Founding Fathers wanted buffers between the highest federal officials and the public to keep majority passions at bay, thus dampening the influence of the events of the moment and the machinations of demagogues. The Constitution explicitly – and quite justly – separated the Supreme Court from popular decision making, just as it originally separated the Senate and the presidency from them.

     Yes, the design has been tampered with: in my opinion, completely unwisely. But what remains still insulates the Supreme Court from “democratic” passions and the events of the moment. As we speak here of the body that rules on the Constitutionality of the laws proposed and passed by the elected legislators of these United States, that is exactly as it should be.

     In closing: Note that the Democrats have never had a problem with using the courts – or the Court – to rule against majority sentiment when that was the Democrats’ preference. On many occasions a Democrat-dominated Supreme Court has ruled in a fashion that contradicted the opinion that prevailed among American citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is one notable example; another is Kelo v. New London. Should the Left ever again acquire control of the Court, we may be sure that such decisions will again be issued in such circumstances.

     UPDATE: This has been making the rounds:

     Kinda hits home, doesn't it?


Andy Texan said...

Most of the gears of government are creaky and full of progressive sand. The judicial system does not work any more. The supreme court will be expanded to accommodate more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs in a few years. Her replacement is of temporary interest. Until the constitution is rededicated and the progressive cancer is cut out, there are no solutions.

Pascal said...

Should those in power succumb to well-funded mob rule this republic is toast. Crassus, wealthiest oligarch of the Roman republic, funded those mobs. Rule of law was ended swiftly followed by dictatorial rule and civil wars for ~20 years. Then emperors ruled tyrannically until Byzantium fell 1500 years later -- along with the Dark and middle ages in the West. Will YOU permit it on your watch?

It is of great significance that police in Blue "governed" zones won't stop the mobs and that there is a party working hard to abolish the police all together.

Ancient Rome HAD NO POLICE and our "wise" oligarchs know it.

Therefore, DEFEND the police like your life depended on it -- and pray they honor their oaths to law and not to men.

They who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. Hence, please repeat to anyone who will listen this connection of current events to the history of how last time the West went under.

Linda Fox said...

Just one nominee makes sense - Ted Cruz.
Both a strong Constitutional scholar, and one that would be able to be confirmed.
He may not want it. He may prefer to try to win the Presidency.
But, he needs to take it, if offered, because his country needs him now.

MrGarabaldi said...

Hey Francis;

the Democrats are threatened to "burn the shit all down if dRump nominates anybody to replace the sainted RBG" Well ain't that what they are doing anyway....They already hate us with a passion, they expect us "play fair" and they are" all in" Well since they hate us with a passion, we might as well "go for broke" and get someone in. I hear Ted Cruz made a case why a 8-8 is a bad idea for a divisive election. He would be a good nominee...

Jess said...

I think Mark Levin would make a fine justice, but the constant knife fights in the halls would be terrible.

Paul Bonneau said...

"The Senate deferred action on the Garland nomination because at that time, the White House was in Democrat hands while the Senate was majority-Republican. It was an appropriate exercise of discretion in a split-control situation."

Well, this is kinda silly, isn't it? The real calculation is a bit more crude: whatever they can get away with doing, is what will be done.

I would say that people should be prepared for a stab in the back, by certain Senate Republicans. Pardon my cynicism.

markshere2 said...

"Fair" disappeared during the Kavanaugh hearings.

There is only winning and losing.

If the Murkowski Colllins Romney arm of the D party choose to throw spanners in the works of the confirmation hearings, they should be held to account..

Paul Bonneau said...

"Murkowski Colllins Romney... should be held to account."

Won't be. When the ruling class needs someone to stab us in the back, they always pick Congresscritters from a safe district. That is how the game is played. The R Party's function is to shunt discontent into safe channels, and to cement in the "advances" of the socialists. There is no accountability in government; the ruling class is allergic to the notion of rulers accountable to peons. That makes sense, if you think about it.