Connect with us

Democrats

Left vs Right: Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts?

Published

on

Left vs Right Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts

The 9th Circuit Court has some vacancies and President Trump has made nominations to fill those holes. This bypass of traditional norms comes after a Supreme Court confirmation process that deviated from many norms. Senator Feinstein was undoubtedly culpable for that. In recent weeks, the Left talks a lot about the legitimacy of the courts. In fact, to them the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh represent a crisis for the legitimacy of our nation’s highest court. Michael Tomaski at the New York Times writes:

And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh soon, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.

See, Tomaski doesn’t seem to realize, in his calculations, that the 17th Amendment wasn’t always a thing. The Senate was never intended to represent the will of the people. It was intended to represent the will of the states. Therefore is metric of legitimacy is entirely unfounded in our nation’s history, a complete creation of a leftist melting down over Kavanaugh. He continues to implode on this these premises.:

But I implore you to take a moment to be angry about all this, too. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court.

The court, as Professor McMahon notes, was intended never to stray far from the mainstream of American political life. The fact that justices represented that mainstream and were normally confirmed by lopsided votes gave the court’s decisions their legitimacy. It’s also why past chief justices worked to avoid 5-4 decisions on controversial matters: They wanted Americans to see that the court was unified when it laid down a major new precedent.

But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will.

But of course, this talk is hardly the result of Kavanaugh whom they will paint a vehemently partisan judge. Neil Gorsuch is the thief on the stolen seat, and Merrick Garland is an angel perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nevermind that Merrick Garland failed a basic reading comprehension in DC v Heller. Trump and Cocaine Mitch defiled the norms, the latest norm being blue-slipping.

Initial Story

Fox News: Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Any working relationship is likely only to have soured further after Harris and Feinstein led the charge on the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In particular, Trump and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until after the hearings were over. Both Feinstein and Harris voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, joined by all but one Democratic senator.

Solutions of the Left

Fake Conservative of the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin has this much to say about “salvaging” the Supreme Court.

In some respect, the fix for the Supreme Court is the same as the fix for our politics — leveling a right-wing populist party that abhors democratic norms and building a center-left to center-right coalition. (Some structural reforms such as ranked voting, eliminating gerrymandering and automatic voter registration would help.)

Basically, get rid of Conservatism. But at least she knows that 17th Amendment exists. This is a simplistic petty fantasy of a solution. Then there is the age old progressive trick to stack the courts. What failed under FDR, is now table talk once again. Socialist online publication, Jacobinmag, writes an apocalyptic defense of court packing. Note: he thinks the New Deal worked.

And this is the important point: with union density near an all-time low and climate catastrophe on the horizon, future lawmakers will need tools even more robust than what FDR was able to get through — think a Green NIRA on steroids. A handful of justices pulled from Federalist Society debating clubs can’t and shouldn’t get in the way of a more democratic and sustainable economy.

A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past. With inequality and human rights abuses spiraling upward and justices making it all worse, the time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

Ultimately, the Left’s arguments for court packing openly admit that they do not care for the process of interpreting the law or the intent of the US Constitution. They see the court as a means to protect their agenda. Take court packing argument from The Outline:

We cannot lose sight of one simple point. We — those of us left of center, who believe that the role of the courts should be to protect the weak from the powerful and not the other way around — are right and conservatives are wrong.

The New Republic isn’t as petty but they believe that the court should have a more democratic representation

Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either.

Final Thoughts

The 9th Circuit Court has a terrible batting average with when it comes to the Supreme Court upholding their rulings. And that batting average is sure to crumble even lower seeing that the next SCOTUS session has multiple cases where the 9th Circuit Court is in conflict with the rulings of other appellate courts. If any court isn’t legitimate, it’s the ultra left 9th Circuit Court. Yet the issue of the Supreme Court reveals a substantially different view of the Court’s duties. The Left, dating back to FDR, believes that the Court’s job is to uphold their agenda. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs. In contrast, Conservatives believe that the court should uphold the Constitution in its original form. These are the foundations for which one from either side would determine a legitimacy crisis.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Rep. Seth Moulton enters the Democratic nomination race

Published

on

Rep Seth Moulton enters the Democratic nomination race

The clown car continues to fill up as a new Democrat announces their presidential campaign seemingly every week. This time, it’s Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA), marking the third politician from Massachusetts to vie for the top spot. He joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former Republican governor Bill Weld as hopefuls from The Bay State.

An Iraq War veteran from the U.S. Marines, Moulton led efforts to replace Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once the Democrats won back control of the House last year. His politics are pretty much indistinguishable from other candidates as he favors Medicare-for-All, gun control, and other common leftist notions.

Moulton has a tall mountain to climb on the fundraising side if he hopes to make it to the main debate stage. There’s still time, but he’ll need to get some heavy attention very quickly to be able to make a serious run.

Twitter Response:

Continue Reading

Democrats

How NOT to beat AOC: Run a big-dollar GOP candidate against her

Published

on

How NOT to beat AOC Run a big-dollar GOP candidate against her

There is some excitement coming out of the Bronx because of an alleged “big money donor” with connections who wants to defeat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) so badly, he or she is willing to fork over tons of dollars and influence in a campaign to turn the deep blue district red. This won’t happen. It will be disastrous if they try.

The only thing that could possibly work for the GOP to upend the hyper-leftist radical progressive would be to find the ideal candidate and run a purely grassroots campaign against her. Otherwise, they’d only be playing to her strengths.

If the GOP is serious about beating her, they need to forget the money angle. That’s not to say they don’t need money, but it needs to be money from within the district comprised of small donors who are targeted starting as soon as possible. They don’t need to appeal to the few Republicans in the district. They need to go after the independents and Democrats.

Their message must be simple, something to the effect of “The only candidate from the Bronx who is actually interested in the Bronx.” They have plenty of ammunition available to demonstrate how Ocasio-Cortez has her sights very clearly set on the national arena in which social media and battles with other Democrats is making her a nationwide star. They need someone who attends city council meetings, community meetings, and is 100% focused on the issues that concern the people of the Bronx instead of the grand ideas of Green New Deals and Medicare-for-All.

Then, they need a PAC that hammers away at the detrimental effects losing the Amazon deal has had on the Bronx. This is a gimme.

If their plans to go after AOC with money is the strategy that plays out, she’ll destroy them. It won’t be close. Every dollar spent will literally have the opposite effect. They can’t beat her with money. They need to hit doorbells.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Is Beto’s campaign already crumbling?

Published

on

Is Betos campaign already crumbling

Yes. Yes it is.

You won’t see any in mainstream media talking about it, not because they’re all trying to hide the reality (though some are) but because they probably haven’t noticed. This isn’t an analysis of what we’re seeing. The proof of Beto O’Rourke’s campaign demise can be seen in what’s absence.

Betomania isn’t taking hold as many (including me) predicted. He was actually getting more attention and interest from mainstream media before he officially announced his candidacy. Now, he’s struggling to get positive headlines. Even neutral stories, such as a pair of campaign aides leaving but still volunteering for the campaign, is being positioned in a negative light. The Hill’s headline was truthful and not spun, something they’re not known to do with headlines about candidates. Instead, it’s “Key aides leave O’Rourke’s campaign: report.”

Another story that’s making its rounds is his use of lobbyist campaign contributions. A favored candidate would get a plethora of headlines excusing this action with whataboutisms and claims of nothingburgers, bug so far, nothing. “O’Rourke faces question about acceptance of lobbyist money” is the type of headline we’re seeing.

In fact, we’re even seeing some negative opinion pieces coming from leftist publications. Radical progressive site Mother Jones didn’t take kindly to O’Rourke’s claims that his lack of charitable giving was due to him giving himself to the people.

So, where’s the Betomania we were promised? Some of it is being sucked away by a concerted effort underway by some progressive groups who really, really want a woman to be at the top of the ticket, and not Hillary Clinton. With Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand all having favorable genders to some of these groups than someone like O’Rourke, the need to chop him down is important if they’re going to have a chance against the two old white guys, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders.

But the primary reason Beto is flailing for attention is because so much of it is going to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Like O’Rourke did with his 2018 Senate campaign, Buttigieg came out of nowhere to suddenly be rising in the polls and raising an unexpected amount of campaign funds. He’s also getting a sustained level of attention from the media as compared to O’Rourke’s hills and valleys.

Little by little, Buttigieg is getting attention from everyone on the left. He’s omnipresent in the media, which is very difficult considering the number and popularity of his competitors.

So far in April, he’s drawn many more searches on Google than O’Rourke. Most of this can be attributed to people simply not knowing who he is, but the consistency of his media dominance is worth noting.

Very few saw Scott Walker’s climb and sudden fall in 2015 during the early days of the GOP primary. He went from the frontrunner to pulling his name from contention seemingly overnight. Are we seeing the same with Beto O’Rourke?

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report