Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett were instructive on many levels.  Never have the governing philosophies of Republicans and D/S/Cs been so overtly apparent.  Republicans have always tended to be transparent in these beliefs; D/S/Cs have not, but this year, they’re sufficiently desperate–perhaps arrogantly over-confident?–to let the public see their real intentions.  Therein lies information necessary to voters in a few short weeks.

As The Babylon Bee spoof at the top of this article suggests, Barrett is not only an extraordinary jurist, obviously well qualified for the Supreme Court, she’s an extraordinary human being, worthy of admiration and emulation.  Despite the most egregious and bizarre personal attacks, she demonstrated steadfast calm, conviction and courage.  Let’s revisit her opening statement to the Judiciary Committee via Politico:

I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

There, succinctly put, is the judicial philosophy that should be a minimum requirement for any judge, and surely, for Supreme Court justices.

A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

This too is exactly on point, a simple, direct recitation of the only constitutional role of judges in the proper understanding of the design of our constitutional republic.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

Thus does Barrett answer those that would call her heartless, or argue that the consequences of a judge’s decisions must take precedence over the law.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.

That’s a pledge we can reasonably believe she will honor.

For normal Americans, Americans that believe in American Constitutionalism, that correctly believe adherence to the Constitution is the only means by which America can survive and prosper, Barrett has demonstrated not only uncommon wisdom, but uncommon fitness for the job.  Under that constitutional scheme, when a political party cannot pass its policies into law, they must accept that is because those policies don’t reflect the will of the people, and either moderate those policies to more accurately reflect that will, or move on to something else. It is necessary, but futile for D/S/Cs, to suggest they engage in soul-searching to determine whether they value the wrong things or hold false values

Normal Americans understand considering moral issues, writing law for the greatest good to attain noble ends, to solve social problems, is the sole province of the legislative branch.  Those laws may be unwise, even profoundly stupid, but they must always be constitutional.

That’s where the courts come in, and particularly the final arbiter, the Supreme Court.  Their decisions must be based on the Constitution, and while all human beings are affected to one degree or another by their faith, beliefs, general morality and their humanity, they have an absolute obligation and duty to put those concerns aside and enforce the law, even if by so doing, they come to a decision they believe to be unjust, even harmful.

Republicans, for the most part, understand this constitutional imperative.  They support it, and when the Supreme Court rules against them, accept that ruling, and work within the confines of our republic’s system of governance to revise their policies.  They do not threaten the Supreme Court as D/S/C Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and others, did, or advocate packing the Court to ensure partisan, dishonorable political operatives become the majority.  When they lose a presidential election, they do not advocate abolishing the Electoral College, or making new states to artificially establish a Senate majority.  They resolve to moderate their policies, pick better candidates next time, and more effectively communicate with and educate the public on the benefits of our constitutional system.

Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated she understands this ancient advice: sic transit Gloria mundi—the glory of man is fleeting.  She accepted the nomination because it is the pinnacle of her profession, but she understands it does not make her god-like, superior to mere mortals.  Such is not the case with D/S/Cs:

They tend to see politicians as religious figures, even gods.  Should you doubt me, merely goggle “Obama halo,” or “Obama messiah” to see what I mean.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg was no prophet.  She was a judge whose judicial philosophy was essentially opposite that of Any Coney Barrett’s.  She did not ignore the Constitution in every decision, but she often set it aside to ensure the vindication of D/S/C policies.  In so doing, she became just another politician in an unaccountable super legislature, one that rules by judicial fiat rather than representing the will of the people.

It was this general belief that turned the confirmation hearing into a farce.  Not nearly the farce of the Kavanaugh hearing, but farce enough.  D/S/Cs engaged not in legitimate questioning of Barrett, but in campaign speech-like harangues.  Their overall message was: if you don’t rule the way we want, you’re a heatless monster.  People are dying!  Rule against Roe v. Wade and people will die!  You’ll be a killer!  Rule against Obamacare and people will die!  You’ll murder hundreds of millions!  Their appeal was not to logic, not to law, not to uphold the Constitution’s limitations on government, but to raw emotion and exclusivity.  Their message was: the only way to enlightened intellect and morality is to embrace our secular religion.  You must abandon your evil, immoral Christianity and embrace the one, true, political faith.  Be not a judge, but an unaccountable super politician who will give us the policies the smelly, missing toothed, stupid, WalMart shopping public refuses to accept.

D/S/Cs do not moderate their policies.  The do not worry about convincing the public.  The public is too stubborn and stupidly unenlightened.  D/S/Cs are evolved beyond such pedestrian, constitutional concerns.  Their policies are perfect, infallible, non-falsifiable.  They cannot possibly be wrong.  Therefore, when the public rejects their policies, their solution is to override the public, change the rules, to eliminate all constitutional impediments, and if and when they are able to do that, they’ll discover the most efficient way to ensure all their policies are enacted is to abolish the American public and establish one appropriate grateful for their brilliance and inspired leadership.  No sic transit Gloria mundi for them.  Their glory will be eternal–they’ll see to that.

Amy Coney Barrett has demonstrated how we preserve our Republic, how we retain limited government, the rule of law and individual liberty for the near future.  Such retention is a never-ending process.

Her D/S/C opponents have also demonstrated the opposite.  To destroy the rule of law, to provide for unrestrained government, and to eliminate individual liberty, they intend to obliterate the constitutional role of the Supreme Court.  By packing the court, they will ensure a majority of politicians who will be an unaccountable super legislature to ensure no D/S/C policy will ever be rejected on constitutional grounds.  Oh, the Constitution will still exist—on paper—it just won’t have any application in the lives or the law of Americans.

To further secure their power, by eliminating the filibuster, they’ll destroy the Senate under the Constitution.  That will turn the Senate into merely a smaller, more powerful and exclusive House where the majority rules.  Then they’ll mandate national voting by mail and vote harvesting.  Having done that, they’ll admit more states, giving them a permanent Senate majority.  Having done that, they’ll abolish the Electoral College, forever ensuring only the major cities on the coasts will elect every future president.

Having done all that, and more, they will have abolished our constitutional republic, establishing the tyranny of the majority.  In so doing, they’ll be well on their way to permanently abolishing the public that is so unappreciative of their superiority.  The final step—actually eliminating all opposition—will be a small step indeed.

No one person can save a republic.  Abraham Lincoln, like George Washington, were indispensable men, but they needed other like-minded Americans to preserve liberty.  Amy Coney Barrett will not single-handedly save our republic, but her rulings, if she honors her promises, will help us preserve it.  When she goes to her reward, none will remember her as a prophet, but an honorable servant of the Constitution, of an honorable American people.

In the same way, reelecting Donald Trump will help us retain liberty for four more years.  If Joe Biden is elected, it won’t much matter who sits on the Supreme Court; they’ll all be reliable votes for D/S/C policy.

On November 3, choose wisely.  Sic transit Gloria mundi.