Perfectly Legal Actions and Nuclear Detente
Some, including Mark Thiessen in a recent Palm Beach Post column, attack Joe Biden for being non-committal about what would be the perfectly legal action of nominating additional Justices to the Supreme Court. That is one of the perfectly legal actions, including supporting the addition of two more States to the Union, which the Democrats might use to counteract the results of the perfectly legal action of the Republicans appointing a Supreme Court Justice just a few days before a presidential election in order to take the perfectly legal actions of reversing Roe v. Wade and emasculating the Affordable Care Act.
While the Republicans are deadly serious about actually taking those
perfectly legal actions which would favor their positions during the twilight
of their administration and control of the Senate, Joe Biden is not renouncing
the perfectly legal retaliatory steps which will be available to the Democrats
as well, if need be, if they win the election. He would be a fool if he
did.
Just as possessing nuclear weapons, without using them, has
prevented a cataclysmic war, mere possession of these perfectly legal tools (an
expanded SCOTUS and Puerto Rico and D.C. becoming States) by the Democrats
might be enough to bring some sense to the Republicans and the new SCOTUS
majority. Getting Joe Biden to declare in advance that he would not use
these perfectly legal tools is like unilateral nuclear disarmament, which would
considerably weaken our nation’s position regarding its adversaries and
possibly lead to a hot war.
Thoughts on Amy Coney
Barrett
Because of their
majority, the GOP Senators will confirm Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the
Supreme Court. But they may not be getting what they expect. Unquestionably,
Judge Barrett is a brilliant person, both from an intellectual standpoint and
from a judicial standpoint. She is far too smart not to see Donald
Trump for the conceited, not too bright, buffoon that he is.
I hope it is just coincidental that what the
President wants for politically selfish reasons, specifically the returning regulation of
abortions to the States (reversing Roe v. Wade) and emasculation or destruction
of the Affordable Care Act are also things that she supports.
 |
| He knew her positions before he nominated her. In fact, that's why he nominated her in the first place! She cannot be objective. |
Her reasons, however, are different from his. As for abortion, and even birth control, she deeply believes it should be illegal, as a matter of faith. Trump has no apparent faith in anything other than himself and has in the past supported abortion. As for Obamacare, she apparently feels its passage was not in accordance with her “originalist” views of the Constitution’s limits on what it permits Congress to do. Trump does not understand the Constitution. He just wants government’s health care involvement turned over to the private sector. On these two points, Bennett is out of step with today’s United States. That’s why she should not be on the Supreme Court. The Constitution and the precedents established by prior Court cases (Stare Decisis) need to be flexibly interpreted and her mindset prevents this. But I am afraid we are going to be stuck with her for at least one generation.
By accepting the nomination, Barrett compromised, fully knowing
she was being used by the President and the Republican Party. She did this, apparently, because she felt that
being appointed to the Supreme Court was the best way to further her deeply
held beliefs concerning human life and her Constitutional 'originalism'
position regardless of how she got there, ignoring the scoundrel Donald Trump
as the source of her nomination.
Regarding the question of a contested or delayed election as
well as the mechanics of the transfer of the presidency, I am not at all
certain that if litigation regarding any such events reaches the Supreme Court,
that in the face of a massive Democratic victory, a Justice Barrett would stick
to her “originalist” views, which might be a basis for the Court’s denying
Biden the presidency. Republicans certainly hope
so. Indeed, certain things are mandated by the Constitution but
clever lawyers can find loopholes anywhere. Because of her views
regarding abortion and Obamacare as mentioned above, as documented in articles she has written, she logically should be
expected to do whatever she can to keep a Democrat out of the White
House.
But there is a “but” and it is a big one, which Judge Barrett
seems smart enough to recognize. If the Democrats win the House and
the Senate as they are likely to do, and the Supreme Court is asked, due to the
kind of circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, to give Trump four
more years, despite his losing the election, the measures the Democrats might
take to counteract such a position by the Supreme Court might be extreme enough
to significantly deflect a rightward swing of the Court’s positions on both abortion
and Obamacare. As pointed out in the lead piece on this posting, more SCOTUS Justices and two more States would cancel out any
conservative direction the Court might take with her on the
bench. It might take a year or so to accomplish that, but it would
happen! And the fact that she took the nomination offer from an immoral
scoundrel like Donald J. Trump proves that she is capable of compromise.
Be that as it may, as brilliant as she appears, Judge Barrett
should not be approved as a Supreme Court Justice at a time when a third of the
Senate and the Presidency are being selected by voters, many of whom have
already taken advantage of “early voting” and “voting by mail.” I think she knows
this. If she disregards it, and she will, the Senate’s ramming through her appointment
to the Supreme Court would be subject, historically, to far greater criticism
than her judicial philosophy, whatever her few answers to Democratic Senators’
questions about it elicited.
But the Senate will do exactly that, approve her nomination, if
only for the sake of Trumpublican Party loyalty. I would hope that Judge Barrett, despite her
brilliance, does not go down in history as just another person being used by
Donald Trump and then tossed on the trash heap.
Possible Conclusion: A massive Biden victory, including a
Democratic Senate majority, will result in Roe v. Wade and the ACA
surviving. The Republicans and the Court will realize that unless
the will of the voters is served, the alternative would be far worse than the
status quo for them, conceivably including two more Democratic States and
perhaps four more justices on the SCOTUS bench. They will be
grateful that Joe Biden will be the new President and not Bernie Sanders.
Whether or not this comes to pass depends to a great extent on
continued efforts by Democrats to bring out the vote. In that
endeavor, you can be helpful.
The Fighting Irish
I am not impressed by the number of Notre Dame alumni present in
the Trump administration. Good school, but not Harvard or
Yale! Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, received her
law degree there and his White House physician, Dr. Sean Conley, received his
undergraduate degree from Notre Dame. (Becoming a military doctor,
Conley served in Afghanistan before his White House assignments which
culminated in his becoming the President’s doctor in 2018 when his predecessor,
Dr. Ronnie Jackson, left to enter politics. Dr. Conley’s further
education was at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, where he
received his medical degree.) Former White House Counsel Don McGahn
also receive his undergraduate degree from Notre Dame. St. Patrick’s
Day at the White House in March ought to be fun if the Republicans still have
keys to the place. They can wear green masks if Trump is still
around and lets them!
Insults Strengthen the Insulted
Two expressions which bother me are “non-college graduate white
male voters” (often used by pollsters) and “low-information
voters.” I may have used the latter myself but will do so no
more. To those whom these expressions describe, they come across as
elitist slurs and reinforce their loyalty to Donald Trump, a “low-information”
President himself whose college degree can be ignored as well since he spent
little or no time in classes at Fordham and the University of Pennsylvania
where, as some claim, his Wharton degree was facilitated by his
family. There is a bond between Trump and these
voters. Why strengthen it?
JL
No comments:
Post a Comment