Conservatives have a rising hope for the stability of our Constitutional Republic. The President has nominated a third candidate for the Supreme Court. Another candidate with a philosophy closer to the departed Justice Scalia than the departed Justice Ginsberg.
The angst I feel about the path the country is on exists on multiple levels. One is my perception of a systematic push away from Judeo-Christian practices and principles. Another is the growth of the Federal government and the exposure of the corruption by Federal agencies (IRS & FBI).
Another is the unequal application of the law with the Justice Department being used to inflict punishment on parties who are in opposition to the political status quo as it existed before November 8, 2016 (Flynn).
The recent Senate Judicial Committee hearing on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has been illuminating. For instance we found out her favorite pendent is Stare Decisis. It must be similar to diamond because she said it had been around for a long time.
We found out she likes originals, not copies or sequels. She admitted she is also really good at texting.
This is where my wife told me to change the batteries in my hearing aids and listen again. So she wasn’t talking about a pendent, she was discussing PRECEDENT. The concept that something that has been decided should remain decided.
The originals are her philosophy of Originalism. The concept that meaning of a law must be interpreted as it had meaning when it was ratified. The common understanding of the law at the time it was passed.
Her texting is another philosophy of Textualism. The concept that text is what is to be considered. What the legislatures wrote and what the meaning of the words they used meant.
These foundations of a Judicial Philosophy lead to decisions that attempt to uphold the framework of our Constitutional Republic. The problem with any other Judicial Philosophy is that decisions made by Judges following them will reach decisions that weaken the framework.
This is the point of the Democrats objections to Judge Barrett as a nominee. The political spectrum has polarized around two competing and vastly different opinions about what the United States should be.
Conservatives who typically identify as Republicans favor an unchanging constitution that has mechanisms to correct issues over time. Slavery was a divisive issue when ratification was being sought in 1787. The Constitution itself, once ratified, allowed for the abolishment of slavery in 1865 through the amendment process.
Progressives who typically identify as Democrats, favor a reinterpretation of the framework to achieve outcomes that they deem socially responsive without having to craft coherent legislation. The Affordable Care Act is a convoluted shoddy piece of legislation. Progressives want it interpreted to provide a social outcome rather than writing the law to withstand constitutional challenges.
The larger issue is the political vision that drives each party. Conservatives are striving for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, strong military, a balanced budget, sovereign borders, and America first foreign policies.
Progressives are striving to fundamentally change the United States of America into a socialist style single payer health care system, remove any reference to a higher being from any public space, change individual responsibility into dependency on the State, open borders, and a submissive foreign policies. Having a Supreme Court that bends the framework is desirable to Progressives since they are trying to twist the United States of America into the ground.
Judge Barrett is seen as the tipping point to swing the Supreme Count to a 5-4 or 6-3 that are using an originalist/textualist philosophy. A Justice Barrett would be presumed to join Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito.
Though usually considered conservative, Justice John Roberts is closest to the liberal spectrum. He may be considered Moderate and is most likely to be joining a decision or decent in either camp.
Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor are considered liberal. You can see now why the Democrats are so upset about the possibility of Judge Barrett becoming Justice Barrett. So much so that they are changing the meaning of “Court packing” in true 1984 fashion.
Court Packing is the process of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The normal process is for the sitting President to nominate a candidate when a vacancy occurs. Court Packing will see a President nominate several justices after the Congress has changed the number of seats on the court.
Democrats that state the President is practicing “Court Packing”, are twisting the meaning of a President nominating multiple candidates with similar judicial philosophy. The President is packing the court with similar candidates because he can. It’s all a matter of timing and the outcome of elections.
EPILOGUE: October 26, 2020 – The Senate confirmed the nomination of Amy Cony Barrett as an Associate Supreme Court Justice by an Yea or Nay vote 52 to 48. No Democrat voted for her. Less than two hours later she was administered the Constitutional Oath by Justice Clarence Thomas in the White House Rose Garden.
Issue PN2252, the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump came to the 116th Senate on September 29, 2020 where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. After hearing the issue was reported favorably and placed on the Senate Executive Calendar on October 22, 2020. After two attempts by Senator Schumer to postpone/delay, a vote in the Senate was held October 26, 2020. The vote was 52 Yea, 48 Nay. The lone Republican to vote against the confirmation was Susan Collins of Maine.
Justice Barrett will take the Judicial Oath on Tuesday October 27th and become the 115th Supreme Court Justice.