Denocrats argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides – and scripts – depending on the ideology of the nominee.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power
A major reason these fights over Supreme Court nominations have become so bitter and unseemly is the stakes – the political stakes. The Supreme Court has become more than ever a superlegislature. From abortion to gay marriage, it has appropriated to itself the final word. It rules – and the normal democratic impulses, expressed through the elected branches, are henceforth stifled.
Neil Gorsuch
A Harvard Law School alumnus with a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford, he clerked for two Supreme Court justices and is considered a gifted writer of legal opinions.
Mr Gorsuch is an avowed originalist, meaning he believes the Constitution is a stable rather than living document, and has sided with Christian groups in religious freedom cases.
Because the ballot box is not available. The court has spoken, and the question is supposedly settled for all time.
This transfer of legislative authority has suited American liberalism rather well. When you command the allegiance of 20 to 25 percent of the population (as measured by Gallup), you know that whatever control you will have of the elected branches will be fleeting So how do you turn the political order in your direction? Capture the courts.
Liberalism does not want to admit that the court has become its last reliable instrument for achieving its political objectives. So liberals have created a great philosophical superstructure to justify their freewheeling, freestyle constitutional interpretation. They present themselves as defenders of a "living Constitution" under which the role of the court is to reflect the evolving norms of society. With its finger on the pulse of the people, the court turns contemporary culture into constitutional law.
No comments:
Post a Comment