Current Nominee For The U.S. Supreme Court

Last Saturday, President Trump selected his nominee for the highest Court in the land. When the founders of our Constitution set up the system of checks and balances, I don’t think they ever envisioned the Court becoming so powerful.

But this is 2020 and we live in a very litigious society. People readily accept that laws legislatures pass will be tested in the courts. It’s who we’ve become.

Unfortunately there are jurists who interpret the Constitution as “a living document,” meaning that

the Constitution and other constitutions, holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended.

Except, the Constitution has very specific ways it can be changed. This “loose constructionism” allows for un-elected judges to create law because of their interpretation that “adapts” to the times.

But that’s what the Legislature is for: our voted representatives in both the House and Senate were designed by the founders to make laws, because they are directly responsible to the people. Judges are not.

All that said, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a “conservative jurist,’ as she describes herself. Not because of a political leaning but because she hold to the belief that the Constitution and other statutes need to be interpreted based on what the original meaning was to those who wrote the documents.

Some times I think that position is described as “origionalist.”

Unsurprisingly the Democrats are up in arms because the President made the nomination and the Senate, conferred with the powers of “Advice and Consent” have enough votes to confirm her as a Justice.

The woman herself seems amazing. She’s a mother of 7, 2 adoptive children and 5 natural children, including her youngest who is a special needs child. She will be the first ever mother of school age children to sit on the bench.

In fact, she graduated at the top of her class in Notre Dame. Not, in the top. The top! I think she has a doctorate. She clerked for Judge Scalia, and he influenced her ideas about judicial interpretation. When what of her law professors recommended her for the position, he simply wrote, “I’ve never had a better student.”

So the woman is brilliant. And she’s experienced, having served on a federal appellate court since 2017.

In addition, Judge Barrett is a Catholic. One late night TV comedian tried to ridicule her by saying, she’s a Catholic, Catholic. You know, a nun. Well, of course she’s not a nun, but I guess the point is, he couldn’t find any dirt on her—her life apparently looks “boring” to him because all she does is car pool and sit on a judicial bench.

Not out there parting much, is she? Not a Catholic like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi.

So that apparently is the big criticism of the recent appointee. They also try to rip the Republicans, perhaps rightly, for holding to the idea that President Trump should nominate anyone when in 2016 some of these same politicians were claiming that President Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court justice in his final year in office.

I thought the Republicans were wrong then, and I think the Democrats are wrong now. The fact is, the Constitution gives the Senate the right of consent. Unfortunately, because our government is so partisan, that means it’s rare for a Senator to vote across party lines. So in 2016, the Republicans didn’t need to come up with some lame idea that the President shouldn’t nominate someone. All they had to do was decide they didn’t want to consent—not if the nominee would take a liberal or “living document” approach to judicial interpretation.

As it happens now, the Senate has an even larger majority and therefore are all but assuredly confirming Judge Barrett.

What’s funny to me is that the Democrats don’t have to worry as they are, thinking that some of their pet liberal policies will now be overturned. If anything, the Supreme Court might return to the states the right to decide the laws that the Federal government has imposed on us all through the courts.

But the Democrats are hitting panic buttons all over because they don’t understand the difference between liberal and conservative judges. They assume that the conservatives will make law as they see fit, because that’s what liberal judges do. But a conservative Jurist is bound by existing law and understands that the Legislature or the states or the people are to make law, not the Court.

So no, we aren’t going to see Roe v. Wade abolished, unfortunately. But states may be permitted to place limits on abortions. Same with other laws like flag burning and the like. After these have been on the books for so long, they now have precedent—an important tool in the interpretation of the Constitution and legal statutes. The Affordable Care Act? Not long precedent there, so some of those provisions could be challenged. Other things, like “the right to die” and the imposition of a tax on people who want to leave California (only the wealthy, but seriously? How can they get away with that? I don’t think they will with a conservative court.)

All this to say, I believe American’s Bill of Rights is safe with this court, and I’m really relieved. I honestly didn’t know if President Trump, once he came into office, would keep his promises, and particularly the one about the judges he would appoint. I’m grateful he has.

But interestingly, this chain of events has shown why it’s so important for a conservative who will stand by the Constitution to be the next President and why it’s equally important for our legislators to be the same. All the bickering and political maneuverings can be rendered moot by our vote in November.