Last week, I had the honor of addressing the judges and staff of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also spoke at the conference and I was in attendance when he made his comments defending the legitimacy of the Court. Those comments took on added significance when, the following day, Vice President Kamala Harris lashed out at the justices as “activists” and questioned the integrity of the Court. Now, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus has criticized Chief Justice Roberts as missing the point in his defense of the Court. I wanted to briefly respond on why the column replicates the historical and legal flaws of the Harris comments.
In her column, What Chief Justice Roberts Misses, Marcus writes that
“[Roberts] defense badly misses the point of why the court has fallen so far in public esteem…The chief justice’s convenient framing fails to fully capture or acknowledge what’s going on. Yes, a majority of the public is angry about the court’s decision in June to eliminate constitutional protection for the right to abortion. But the bottom-line result isn’t the only reason for the fury…The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed.”
I understand Marcus’ concerns and she has covered the Court for many years in her distinguished career.
However, the objection to shifts in jurisprudence ignores prior periods where transformative rulings followed shifts in favor of the left on the Court. The Warren Court handed down a series of such decisions changing a wide array of areas, including some with sweeping political implications. That period continues to be celebrated, not condemned, on the left.
Likewise, the left has repeatedly called for packing the Court to muscle through changes on partisan lines. (To her credit, Marcus has opposed such court packing calls).
Moreover, liberal justices continue to vote to overturn precedent as they await a new majority. Former justice Justice Stephen Breyer routinely voted in dissent on death penalty cases despite decades of precedent supporting the right of states to impose capital punishment. If the Court’s majority shifted, he would have set aside decades of precedent.
While denouncing the “activist” conservative justices for overturning cases, Democratic senators and leaders have demanded that cases like Heller and Citizen’s United be overturned. Indeed, Hillary Clinton declared that she would only nominate justices who would overturn Citizen’s United.
During the confirmation hearing for Justice Kavanaugh, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) demanded that Kavanaugh promise to respect stare decisis on cases like Roe, but then called for overturning cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Democratic groups often decry the conservative majority as “partisan” while demanding the packing of the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has assured liberals in public speeches that “mistakes” in such high-profile opinions can be “corrected” by the Court in later decisions. That sounds like a new majority would produce a new result.
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky celebrated that “Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, in which she said, ‘Trinity Lutheran v. Comer was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.’” While that appears a paraphrasing by Chemerinsky, Sotomayor makes clear in the recent Carson opinion that “this Court should not have started down this path” in Trinity Lutheran and clearly rejects its hold on the Court. Not surprisingly, Chemerinsky approves of that position.
Yet, Chemerinsky denounced the conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
I do not view Justice Sotomayor as any more of a “hack” than I do her conservative colleagues. They are all interpreting the Constitution in what they believe is a faithful understanding of its language and values.
Marcus insists that Sotomayor “has aptly termed a ‘restless and newly constituted court’ could finally work its will, and so it did. That is the very definition of an ‘activist court,’ as Vice President Harris recently described it.” If so, Sotomayor herself would qualify as activist if she, as indicated, would vote to overturn these cases. That vote, however, would be celebrated on the left despite coming with a new majority.
Marcus insists that the Court’s “behavior is so difficult to defend. The fault, dear Justice, is not in the public but among your brethren.” It is not particularly difficult to defend. The Constitution invests the president with the power to nominate new justices because he (with the Vice President) are the only nationally elected officials in our government. The intent was to allow the Court to change with the country with the new leaders selected by the public. Both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (as well as senatorial candidates) have run on pledges to change the Court majority to change precedent.
For the justices themselves, their “behavior” is not “difficult to defend” when they keep faith with their oath to “faithfully and impartially” interpret the law. It is bizarre to argue that they should vote for some interpretation of the Constitution that they believe is wrong and unfounded just to preserve precedent. If that view had prevailed in the past, Brown v. Board of Education would have upheld the racist precepts of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson. When it comes to fundamental rights, justices should faithfully interpret the Constitution.
For these reasons, I believe that it is the critics of the Court who are “missing the point” over the shifts in jurisprudence that comes with changes on the Court. There are good faith reasons to object to the Dobbs decision. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts said in his remarks that such criticisms are not only appropriate but important in our system. What is inappropriate is to attack the integrity of the justices simply because you disagree with their judicial interpretations.
SC no SC, packing no packing the left (Democrats) follow the same tactics, we’ll do whatever we want legal or not, if you don’t like it, to bad eat it or challenge in courts.
Either way the damage is done.
We lied about Russia Russia so what, we impeach without reason so what, we lied about a laptop so what, we raid an X-President residence so what, we weaponize DOJ/FBI for our use so what. They really don’t care, they play by their rules not the rules we expect.
The court was politicized by McConnell unilaterally choosing not to hold hearings for Garland and then pushing ACB’s nomination through a week before the election. A majority of Americans disagreed with both moves. If Roberts doesn’t understand this, then he is willfully blind.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_democrats_and_scotus_the_real_record.html
Not much thought goes into what this anonymous says. We get whatever pops up first.
Garland ( who has proven himself unfit for the job) wasn’t going to be appointed. That would not change things. The blog still wouldn’t have been spared from his complaints, day and night, no matter what.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate has to vote or hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, and where does it say that the President can’t nominate, and the Senate vote on, a nominee who is nominated at the end of a President’s term of office? Please specify the specific Article in the Constitution that states those limitations.
The court is not politicized.
Congress is. That is nothing new.
Nothing McConnell did is unusual.
Does anyone doubt that democrats would do the same under the same circumstances.
The most bitter confirmation fights have been for republican choices.
Kavanaugh is pretty boring as Supreme court justices go. Yet the left pulled out all stops, ransacked the capital, and terrorized senators in a failed effort to thwart his nomination.
I can not recall any democrat ever getting the nasty treatment that all republican nominee’s get.
Last night I watched “Black Jesus and judas”
In the movie – the Chicago cops in the 60’s behaved badly – already knew that.
The FBI behaved badly – that is already on the record – though not nearly as bad as they had with teens and militia members more recently.
I strongly suspect the portrayal of the FBI was worse than is historically correct – the FBI inflitrated all kinds of groups in the US, but I am less convinced they entrapped them until more recently.
But the big deal was the Chicago Black panthers were being painted favorably, and still despite being the hero’s of the movie, their conduct was far worse than anyone on the right today.
I listen to the left rant about J6 or about Trump’s remarks – not like schumer. pelosi, waters, …. do not engage in worse.
Regardless, the black panthers openly advocated for violent revolution. And frequently initiated violence.
I was also reminded of the summer of rage in 68 when riots burned parts of the country down.
As well as the bombings by groups like the weather underground.
And I was reminded of the efforts to sell marxism – at a time when we KNEW how bloody the outcome of that throughout the world has universally been.
And then I looked at today and thought how little things had changed.
BLM is a marxist organization, and marxist advocacy always results in violence.
A majority of Americans disagreed with both moves.
You could ask 100 Americans to relate exactly what happened with those vacancies, and if 5 could successfuly get it right, that would be a lot.
90% don’t pay attention to DC. of the 10% left, 2% can recall these events and get close, The other 8% left of the 10% would get half the fact wrong.
Majorities of americans – disconnected from the costs, support all kinds of stupid things.
But they generally do much better when they understand the costs, and when they have time to think about it,
Rather than being whipped into a frenzy by left wing nuts.
We here prominent democrats including the alleged president telling us all that if we do not give them what they want democracy will end and we will devolve to fascism.
But the only actual threat of fascism is from the very people trying to scare us.
Your ranting about the roberts court.
This country has had to live with relatively bad supreme courts for most of its history – what is new ?
The current court is not going to take the country off a cliff.
It is not even going to reign the left in on more than the most extreme idiocy they engage in – maybe.
You can dislike Dobbs if you want – I do.
But it is not going to result in the end of the world.
It is not even going to result in the end of abortion in the US.
Further the long term impact of Dobbs is ZERO, if as those on the left claim there is broad support for abortion throughout the country.
Ruth Marcus like her partisan hack comrades in the NYT and NPR, Linda Greenhouse and Nina Totenberg decry any decision that does not promote their leftist agenda to use the SC to achieve what they cannot effect through democratic elections. So they have no other recourse then to delegitimize the SC. When it boils down to the essentials, the likes of Ruth Marcus have no respect for a Constitutional Democracy. They prefer the rule of the mob so long as their mob is in charge. Ironically, in the 20th Century when that happened. individuals like Marcus ended up in concentration camps or worse. But socialism is catnip to them and they never consider the long-term consequences of their ideology
The reversal of Roe proves that SC decisions are arbitrary and depend only on the viewpoints of the justices. In the time since the original Roe decision, the Constitution and the facts are unchanged, yet the current court reaches a completely different conclusion. The imprecise nature of language to express thought provides endless opportunities for justices to indulge the seduction of absolute power by composing long complex opinions that claim to find hidden meanings to the words of the Constitution in order support any position that fits their point of view. I don’t have a solution. We are up against the limitations of human beings to govern ourselves. With the perspective gained from many years of living I now understand that any system that depends only on the personal integrity of individual human beings will fail. It is impossible for a person dedicated to our system of law to comprehend and acknowledge this limitation, for to do so means acknowledging that the system they so revere is fatally flawed.
The court has made innumerable bad decisions historically. Some required the civil war to reverse.
We have spent millenia, trying – by trial and error, and by intellect and debate to determine how to best govern ourselves.
We are obviously doing better than ever before. We are also obviously not doing as well as we would like.
The process, including the part that the Supreme Court has played in improving the way in which we are governed, which is a major factor in how well we live, involves politics and politically driven decisions.
At the same time though individual decisions are frequently mistakes, the trend has been inexorably foreward.
You can rant that it is all politics – but obviously there is some undercurrent that brings us slowly to a better world.
Will Dobb’s prove a disaster ? Will it survive 10, 50, 200 years ? We will see.
YOU ARE FALSELY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY MANUFACTURING A REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
From 9/11/22
“Nothing in the constitution that says or implies that a “natural born citizen” is anything different from what it says. A person born here that is a citizen. The remained of the presidential clause allows anyone who was a citizen at the time the constitution took effect to also be president. It is clear the requirement is being born here. There is no mention at all about your parents.
“If I am going to take the left on for twisted constitutional reading, the same applies to you.
“Do you have something from our founders that clearly reads the text otherwise ?
“We do not get to manufacture requirements that are not there. Not right, not left.”
John Say, aka John B. Say
______________________
“CITIZEN” VS. “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
The Constitution differentiates “citizen” and “natural born citizen” – you et al. ignore it because of your personal biases and desires which constitute tyranny and dictatorship.
You completely ignore the different requirements for candidates for Congress and for candidates for President.
The constitutional requirement for president is different and higher than the requirement for Congress.
The Constitution says that candidates for Congress and the Senate must be “citizens.
The Constitution says that candidates for President and Vice President must be “natural born citizens.”
Those requirements are different in quality and degree.
The concept of raising that requirement was discussed by Jay and Washington.
The requirement for citizen-parents was defined in the legal text and reference, aka the “dictionary,” of the era, The Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 – “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
The Law of Nations “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…, ” said Ben Franklin.
_______________________________________________
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
– Ben Franklin Letter to Charles Dumas, 1775
_____________________________________
The Constitution is not a dictionary; readers are required to have a substantial education and an operable vocabulary.
That you don’t understand particular words or phrases does not bear.
Ask yourself why every president before Obama had two parents who were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.
George, I appreciate your argument and find it of interest, but mentioning the Law of Nations in one part of the Constitution, though interesting, is not strong enough to significantly influence the rest. You need further proof for your argument to have any significance.
I recognize from where your present thoughts might come. That question was asked of Judge Scalia (and others) and not answered in his usual exacting manner. That, alone, creates discussion but is not convincing.
I don’t dismiss your question, but your responses are not convincing based on a telescopic view of the question rather than a well-rounded one. I don’t expect such an answer except from the rare person who has intensely studied the question and has exceptional knowledge of the law and history.
You’re not willing to comprehensively assimilate and process the facts.
The Founders required two citizen-parents and every president before Obama had two citizen-parents.
I’m not gonna say that you’re dumb as a horse, but you’re dumb as a horse.
“You’re not willing to comprehensively assimilate and process the facts.”
George, of course, I am. If I wasn’t I never would have sent a response that discusses some of the questions involved. Prove your case based on logic, history, and the Constitution.
“every president before Obama had two citizen-parents.”
It is this type of comment that detracts from your argument. It’s meaningless.
You can insult me, but that doesn’t help your argument.
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”
Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”
Correct, George. Now you have to provide the law and whatever evidence you have to prove your point. Extraneous points do not help your case. A partial case is not proof.
You need to argue separately those things that prove your case and Kamala. If you can’t prove the former, you can’t prove the latter. Proving the latter doesn’t prove the former.
You continue to provide a single source for anything other than the plain language meaning of “natural born citizen” in 1787.
That is not sufficient.
I would further note that I doubt “the law of nations” was particularly influential with most of our founders
People who wants as little binding them to other nations as possible.
We nearly had a Civil war in the Washington Administration when Jay negotiated a treaty favorable to the UK when France and the UK were at war.
“The Constitution differentiates “citizen” and “natural born citizen” ”
Agreed.
“you ignore it”
Nope.
“because of your personal biases and desires which constitute tyranny and dictatorship.”
Given that I do not ignore it the rest is meaningless.
“You completely ignore the different requirements for candidates for Congress and for candidates for President.”
Nope.
“The constitutional requirement for president is different and higher than the requirement for Congress.”
True
“The Constitution says that candidates for Congress and the Senate must be “citizens.”
Yes
“The Constitution says that candidates for President and Vice President must be “natural born citizens.””
Yes
“Those requirements are different in quality and degree.”
One is a subset of the other. I do nto know about quality and degree.
“The concept of raising that requirement was discussed by Jay and Washington.”
“The requirement for citizen-parents was defined in the legal text and reference, aka the “dictionary,” of the era, The Law of Nations.”
Not in the constitution.
“The Constitution is not a dictionary; readers are required to have a substantial education and an operable vocabulary.”
False. The constitution is to be understood according to the plain meaning of those who ratified it at the time each portion was ratified.
“That you don’t understand particular words or phrases does not bear.”
You have not demonstrated that “natural born citizen” had a widely accepted meaning beyond born in the US at the time the term was used in the constitution.
Absolutely references from the time can be used to support meanings that are unusual today.
I have no problem with that. But your claim that a single text defines the phrase differently without even citing how that single text does that, is the same idiotic error the left makes all the time.
The constitution is a contract – it is between the government and the people – it is the social contract.
I will fight those on the left that claim that the constitution and the law are the exclusive domain of lawyers and all about opaque terms of art. And I will not allow you to do the same.
The constitution was written and agreed to by the people of 1787 – it is not some contract imposed on the citizenry by elitists from a different era.
Demonstrate that “natural born citizen” meant what you claim to the ordinary people of the time and you have a point.
You’re not willing to comprehensively assimilate and process the facts.
The Founders required two citizen-parents and every president before Obama had two citizen-parents.
I’m not gonna say that you’re dumb as a horse, but you’re dumb as a horse.
“You’re not willing to comprehensively assimilate and process the facts.”
Not from thin air, no.
“The Founders required two citizen-parents”
Where. Not in the constitution. Not in the federalist papers ?
Did Madison and the continental congress discuss it ?
Show me.
I have been polite with you.
I expect the same.
You generally argue with facts – which I respect. You have not with me on this issue.
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”
Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political
economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
Posting the same thing multiple times does not make it more credible.
With respect to “the law of nations”
Read Washington’s farewell address about avoiding Foreign entanglements.
Advice we should be taking today.
This was a well-argued post. I would add that most Americans think of an activist court as one legislating from the bench, which is what Roe v Wade did. The Dobbs decision corrected that and returned the decision to the people of the states. People like Harris don’t care about the constitutional role of the court, but would rather it fulfill her ideological purposes, that she apparently thinks is not activism!
Here are some personal observations of the 21st century.
I think that Democrats making claims that the court is a Conservative activist court is pure unadulterated psychological projection. Democrats have been openly pressuring left leaning judges and justices across the USA to be extreme Liberal activists for many years and in many cases they have accomplished their goals. This tactic hasnot been limited to outside of the Supreme Court of the United States, they have also been pushing Liberal activists inside the walls of SCOTUS too. If you actually listen to what the Democrats are saying their implications are absolutely clear, here is how Democrats view judges and justices…
1. Judges/Justices that vote in support of policy and activism from the political left are pure as the driven snow.
2. Judges/Justices that vote against Democratic Party policy and activism are evil.
3. Evil must be destroyed.
Democrats have shown us in the 21st century that they actually want a pure Direct Democracy, mob rule, politically driven, politically activist justice system and they want progressive activist judges/justices to support it as long as the activists are in bed with the political left.
Any talk from the political left of Conservative judges and justices as being political activists when they actually interpret the Constitution as written should be viewed as pure unadulterated psychological projection. The political left wants to bypass or b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e the Constitution into oblivion and make it an unenforceable quaint anecdote of history and they’ll have the activist justice system they have been ramming down the throats of the people to support them. When judges and justices no longer support the Constitution and they’re ruled by the mob the Constitution is effectively dead and so is liberty. The political left has shown us that they are fine with destroying the Constitution and liberty by enforcing an unspoken but transparently obvious policy in their favor of rights for me but not for thee.
The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?
Who Is Assaulting Our Society’s Building Blocks?
Reality shows us that it’s not the Republicans.
You could choose not to overgeneralize about Democrats.
That you instead choose hyperbole makes you part of the problem. (And the same is true for people who choose hyperbole about Republicans as a group.)
Your comment really didn’t address any of the points I made, instead it was about me personally; therefore, your comment is pure ad hominem.
Ad Hominem: argument that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I made it 100% perfectly clear in the initial sentence that my comment was my personal observations. You’re free to disagree.
Why are you surprised anonymous didn’t answer any of your points? He has a problem and that problem extends to most that question his facile answers that distort the question and conflict with his prior answers.
Anonymous wrote, “Why are you surprised anonymous didn’t answer any of your points?”
This is the problem with multiple people using the Anonymous moniker, no one knows who’s doing the writing or who your writing about. Create another moniker, I don’t care what it is as long as it’s unique. How about you choose “tree” or “frog” or “69” as your moniker?
To answer your specific question; I didn’t say or imply that I was surprised. You’re putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate one bit. Stop reading things between the lines that simply don’t exist.
The Left complains about democracy being under attack, and then they turn around and attack democracy. Their consistent attacks on the Supreme Court and its justices are far more dangerous and insidious than anything a bunch of rowdy rioters did on Jan. 6th.
Amen. It is the tactical subterfuge of slowly unraveling each thread, coming from different directions, intended to destroy the central fabric that holds this nation together.
The Left complains about democracy being under attack, and then they turn around and attack democracy.
It’s axiomatic that if the Left asserts their opponents are doing something, search and you will find it is exactly what that are doing. They key word there is “search.”
What can we conclude from these cases of political projection? The answer, I think, is this: people in the fevered grip of an ideology — whether partisan, racial, or moralistic — are not very self-aware, and see in their appointed “enemies” the evil intentions that they themselves hold.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/philip-carl-salzman/2019/12/21/projection-in-campus-and-party-politics-n122555
Missed by the left are the over 230 Supreme Court decisions the Supreme Court has overturned. Some of the most famous and important cases that they adore that over-turned prior decisions are:
Brown vs Board of Education
Lawrence v. Texas
Mapp v. Ohio
Loving v. Virginia
Under their own ‘stare decisis makes decisions immutable,’ all of those decisions were wrong and ‘judicial activism.’
I don’t know what “distinguished career” you think Marcus has had, but if she ever did, it’s history. Like all Dem apologists, Marcus has fallen down the rabbit hole of partisanship. Liberal journalists suffer from the same mental disease as most of the Democratic party base: political narcissism. All they see and believe in is their parochial causes. They hold themselves to be self-righteous, and all political interests must revolve around them. No other opinions allowed.
The Supreme Court does not make law. It now goes back to Congress to review and fix. But Congress doesn’t seem to do that now. (How long have we been waiting for updates in the immigration laws–a lot longer than 6 years ago). They are into sound bites. If they make law, they tack it onto something else to get votes with many, many pages that they push through overnight so that there is no time to read it and then suggest it needs to be passed so that you can read what’s inside. Then it is up to the career bureaucrats to interpret the law. Hopefully, there are no grammatical errors, which can change the meaning of a sentence. (just MHO)
The problem is that the left for decades has felt that the people and their elected legislatures are too stupid to understand the finer points of a federal republic and rule in that republic. For that reason they co-opted the Supreme Court in order to rule by judicial fiat when legislatures and congress did not make the “right decision”. It started with FDR and the massive expansion of federal power and continued on for several decades until the Republicans finally figured out (they were very slow to pick up on this fact) that the Supreme Court nominees needed to reflect a little more of the sense of the people. Reagan started it most consistently and I feel the greatest sign that they were serious was when the Republican Senate shot down the nomination of Harriet Miers by George W. Bush. The other was the 5 decade battle to get Supreme Court Justices favorable to overturning Roe vs Wade. They could have outlawed abortion but did not and made the determination that the people state by state should make that decision.
Since the left is so focused on abortion and points to Europe then they should be aware that abortion is tightly restricted, although allowed, in Europe and in each country the decision was by plebiscite or legislative action.
The left leaning court made some good decisions in civil rights and integration, criminal procedure and some others but also often over reached. We have some self correcting mechanisms in our constitution. Let them work. We swing from left to right to left over decades because one side or the other often over reaches and needs to correct.
It’s early, but I’ll check back to see if any leftist will step in to defend Marcus against the Fisking administered by our host.
The reality is that the battle against racial discrimination was NOT waged merely with SCOTUS ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education. The battle included three U.S. Constitutional Amendments, and multiple laws (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968). Legislators have the responsibility and the public accountability as representatives to be law-makers. That has never been the role of the SCOTUS.
I love that lies from the right even infect how they round off the numbers of the popular vote count.
Ah yes, the ‘post-truth’ GOP. The problem with that is that a lot of us that believe the electoral college is best are not ‘on the right’. All of you that want to dismantle it, without exception, are on the left. Yawn.
I celebrate your right to revel in your delusion.
None of us are always right.
But those on the left are nearly always wrong.
Wow. Where to begin? We’ve got the standard Turley tag line that the left is seeking to “pack” the court when, if anything, it’s, seeking to ‘unpack’ the court from the bad faith positioning of Mitch McConnell. Happened right in front of our eyes when Garland was denied his interviews after being nominated by Obama. One of the greatest intentional f you’s to the rule of law in the history of the nation.
Next up, the absolutely crazed idea that the court reflects the public working through the politicians ‘the people’ have put in office. I had to LOL at that for a couple minutes by itself. Trump got 3 nominees, one of which was to fill the backwash of the McConnell theft, the other with McConnell ignoring the ‘guidelines’ he used to steal the first position — all after trump lost the popular vote and won on an electoral college technicality. No ‘people’s victory’ there, ay? Add to that the gerrymandering of Congress, the dedication of the Federalist Society to dominate the Court irrespective of what the public wants, and, well…
We get Turley talking out of his butt this morning in a manner he’s become quite accustomed to. Yippee.
Breaking my rule of responding to people too afraid to use their names (there are dozens of them on this blog… often arguing with each other), what was the “electoral college technicality” involved in the 2016/2017 meeting of the Electoral College and subsequent certification?
The electoral college itself, by definition, is a technicality.
Twenty-six times the Senate has rejected a lame-duck appointment in the President’s final year. The fact of the matter is that it’s more uncommon to be seated than it is to be rejected. Garland was not going to be seated, period. McConnell, simply put, spared us all the crying drama we were going to get for months and moved on.
Having watched Garland heading the DoJ, it was the right thing to do. He is the worst I have seen in my life. And there have been some bad ones such as John Mitchell (Nixon), Janet Reno (Clinton), Eric Holder (Obama) and Alberto Gonzales (Bush) were pretty bad as well. I’d give Loretta Lynch (Obama), and John Ashcroff (Bush) dis-honorable mentions.
All of them had huge political biases and/or demonstrated incompetency. But none have been so clearly and obviously political as Garland.
It is odd that those who think absolutely everything is political, and that politica advantage justifies absolutely everything are so bent out of shape over McConnell’s use of the rules of the senate to thwart the Garland nomination.
I do not recall in my lifetime, and I beleive there was never a supreme court justice confirmed in the last year of a presidency in which the opposing party controlled the senate.
McConnell’s actions were blatantly political. But they were consistent with the rules of the senate and the rules of law.
Everything is not political – contra the left. But the use of the actual rules passed long before to political advantage is completely consistent with the rule of law.
The only rule changes in the house and senate were done by Democrats – not republicans.
The prior rules would have prevented the confirmation of all of Trump’s nominee’s.
Democrats did this to themselves – not McConnell, not Trump.
The rule of law is not outcome based.
Seeing Garland’s conduct as Attorney General – the country dodged a bullet. This man should never hold a position of power.
He is willing to bend the actual power of the law against ordinary people for political advantage.
I would note that when McConnell blocked Garland’s nomination from proceeding, he was taking a huge Gamble.
Garland was seen at the time as a moderate choice – clearly he is not, and Clinton was highly likely to win the presidency and likely to put forward a much more radical nominee.
The court is not supposed to reflect the people.
It is supposed to reflect the constitution.
You decry all kinds of actions by McConnell or Trump or the federalists.
Yet you would and have engaged in the same conduct yourself.
The ability of republicans to confirm the judges they have, is specifically because of changes to senate rules made by democrats, for the same purpose.
You rant about gerrymandering – as if there is an actual objective way to determine congressional districts.
BTW the most egregious gerrymandering right now is by those on the left.
Regardless, Gerrymandering of the type you rant about is incredibly dangerous. Small shifts int he electorate produce giant shifts in the makeup of legislatures.
The country is fairly evenly split – the current generic ballot is running +0.4D – but in the past several months it has been as high as +5R – and within the past few years it has been +7D.
There is about a 12pt swing in the electorate and that is what determines elections.
Republicans have a natural advantage – because Democrats have self gerrymandered themselves into small concentrations in cities. Geographically this country is about 98% red. That alone would dictate huge republican majorities.
Regardless, if either party games their state to increase the number of legislators or congressmen from their party, they assure that when the electorate as it often does swings a point or two the other direction – that party will be decisively swept out of power.
I have small problems with “partisan gerrymandering” – it tends to be self defeating.
But courts meddling in politics damages the integrity an trust in courts. That is much worse.
I tire of left wing nut rants such as that they have won the popular vote – Democrats control congress. advance a constitutional amendment to change elections.
If you do not like McConnell’s use of the senate rules to partisan advantage – change them – so far republicans have benefited from the rule changes by democrats.
Why have we not been told the identity of the “Dobb’s Leaker”? Surely that individual is and has been known for months and yet has not been made known. If a conservative judge or clerk had done this their name would have been revealed immediately and the media would destroy that person forever. Roberts needs to forcefully deal with this. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to have the spine for it.
Spot on, Charles.
Like nobody could photo-copy the opinion, put it an envelope and mail it anonymously to a reporter? Even Hollywood uses that trope! And the press isn’t going to give up the materials to the Supreme Court no matter how many times Roberts would stomp his feet and demand it!
(OT)
“Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and TikTok are bringing back familiar strategies from 2020 to fight the spread of *disinformation* in the 2022 midterm elections.” (NPR, emphasis added)
Haven’t we seen this movie?
They have a First Amendment right to do this.
You are a bit confused between right and wrong and how some of these services have permitted the states actions to intertwine with theirs. That a portion of what you say and mean is false makes the entire statement false.
“They have a First Amendment right to do this.”
That one has a “right” to do something, does not make it right.
Besides, social media companies surrendered that presumption when they allowed the FBI (and other government agents) to engage in fascist censorship.
Vote accordingly.
I am not sure what the effect will be on 2020. But this is an incredibly and increasingly dangerous strategy.
Our trust of institutions is at an all time low.
As Mill noted
“He who knows only his own side, knows little of that”
Ideas are tested in the crucible of heated debate. Each position must be advanced by those who defend it most vigorously.
This is how we get to truth.
Lets start with the VERY beginning.
The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed.”
This just illuminates a basic ignorence of Government of the United States
Judges are not supposed to make law.
Dobbs did not make law. It stripped power from the Federal Government. Power that the Constitution NEVER delegated to the Federal Government. Restoring power back the People.
ROFL.
You point out the fundamental issue relative to almost all comments about SCOTUS action by the left: Either it is poorly educated in civics (a strong possibility given what has happened to American education since the 1960s) or it is lying
So we can’t have weather satellites because the Constitution did not give power to the Federal Gov. to develop and launch them? The Apollo program and everything gained from it (like the computer industry) was an unconstitutional overreach?
These arguments that we are locked into a 1789 definition of Federalism are tortured. Federal Gov. is there to solve problems that the States alone either cannot solve or solve creating irreconcilable conflict with one another. Everything else devolves to the States, the localities, the family and individuals.
My sense is that this Court majority is serious about transferring responsibility for policy back onto Congress.
The way Dobbs was written was clumsy in orchestrating this handoff. It could have grandfathered Roe for 3-4 years, and called for a complete restart of State-level legislation in this area, the difference being that votes now have actual consequences. It was awkward in the way Dobbs immediately activated “trigger laws”, seemingly handing a victory to pro-life litigants by Court edict. That said, we will likely end up with a policy very similar to Roe after a full transition to political control over the policy. Congress may craft a uniform national law if irreconcilable conflicts embroil the red and blue states trying to carry out their laws.
I support the Court passing the baton to Congress for policy. However, most activist litigants, whether left, right, or business interests, didn’t get the memo. This Supreme Court will have to start thwarting conservative activist litigants before perceptions change about the policy-making retreat of the Federal Courts. I encourage them to do exactly this.
Dobb’s did not strip power form the federal government, It stripped it from the courts.
It is the courts legitimate role to find laws that actually infringe on right unconstitutional.
It is not the courts role to concoct rights from the air.
Dobbs was correct to overturn Roe.
there is no right to an abortion.
But there is a right to control of your own body.
That does not equate to the right to kill a fetus,
But it does bar government from thwarting a woman’s choice to remove a fetus from her body.
It does not bar government from requiring that be done with the best chance of survival of the fetus.
Liberals like Marcus understand the Constitution and the silliness of their arguments but thay, too, have a constituency to play to and must do so lest the truth prevail. I think most of the people see through this and dismiss it for what it is. That handful of mindless zealots who fall in step when the music starts means little in the overall scheme of things and will disappear into the litterbox of history.
Too many Catholics on the S.C.
cuinn, I also bristled at repeated mentions of the Pope, and the cut and paste directly from the catechism.
Catholics and Evangelists comprise ablout half the population of the United States (about 150 million people). Biden was elected with 80 million votes. Trump received about 75 million votes. Do the math. Abortion is not the “big” issue the Democrats/Liberals think it is and the people are smart enough to know that it was not “outlawed” but simply given to the people to decide, in effect, making the choice more democratically determined. Liberl dictators would have it another way but, fortunately, they are a dwindling group with little but hatred and anger motivating them.
They are a dwindling group *in power*, wokeism (Marxism) is absolutely rampant among young people. It matters little if the left is grasping should their death grip on power become total, with a waiting snowflake populace in the wings (see: NY’s recent election of an AOC clone). This is probably our last chance to turn things around – it doesn’t behoove anyone to be so lassaiz faire, IMO. This isn’t an, ‘ignore it and it’ll go away’ kind of situation (to be fair, it hasn’t been, in its current iteration, for over 20 years. Nobody wanted to talk about the more nascent stages).
Make no mistake – it’s 50/50 now, but Constitution loving Americans are tipping toward the minority, and there is no end to the bag of dirty tricks on the left, nor to their persistence. We, at present, can still vote them out. Again, with the state of our elections, and how far the dems have already shown they are prepared to go to control elections – this could be our last chance.
Add to that, you couldn’t even define ‘wokism’. Further, it doesn’t equal Marxism. Chances are you’re shaky on what Marxism consist of as well.
If nothing else, keep in mind that advocating against being awake means you’re advocating for being asleep.
lol. Wokeism can’t be defined because you change the definition every 30-seconds. Your games are shallow rhetorical tricks of the post-modern augment style. You think they mean something, but they’re just word salad where you think you’re clever, but you’re not.
“You think they mean something, but they’re just word salad where you think you’re clever, but you’re not.”
Good to see people recognize him for who he is.
God forbid that this country should follow New York’s lead or that of California. Both are bastions of craziness, both are losing residents by the thousands, and both are becoming criminal havens and no-mans-lands.
Popular vote totals ’20 election:
-81,268,924 for Biden 51.3%
-74,216,154 for Trump 46.9%
=7,052,770 vote difference >>> Trump and the R’s get smoked.
Dear Anonymous (‘Popular Vote Total…”) You forgot to factor in all the Fraudulence.. let us know when you get more Realistic totals… These may be ‘official..’ but we want Reality..
=7,052,770 vote difference >>> Trump and the R’s get smoked.
Nope. Not even close. In the Iowa State fair Kernel Count, Trump smoked Clintion’s wife by 10 points.
And what further adds to the delusion of your faulty math is the fact that white women on the right aren’t a monolith in regard to abortion. Many on the right don’t like have civil rights removed either.
I agree and I am Catholic. Having five Catholics (55%) is not representative of the overall U.S. population. But then again until recently, wasn’t 33% of it Jewish? Should we not now have about 60% of it people who practice no religion because I think that is the current U.S. demographic? (And now African Americans — at 22% — are way over represented but I won’t go there because talking about religion is OK but talking about ethnicity is a no no)