As we celebrate Constitution Day today, it is worth remembering that the Founders carefully wrote the Constitution to ensure that our third branch of government was independent through mechanisms such as life tenure, the prohibition against diminution of salary, and the nomination and confirmation mechanism itself, and that judicial independence is what preserves the Constitution and our system of government.  

Yet many liberals now want to undermine the independence of the judiciary because judges do not always reach the outcomes they desire to advance their progressive policy goals.  

Or perhaps more accurately, they are attempting to redefine judicial independence to mean a judiciary that advances progressive policy goals and interests.  

The Democrats of the 2010s have become the Party that refuses to respect results or the rule of law.  While the most obvious example is their continuing efforts to undermine elections, the most recent example, and most troubling to those who practice law, may be the recent threats of Senate Democrats to the courts.  As we wrote last week, Senator Whitehouse threatened the Supreme Court in an unprecedented amicus brief.  Today, Senate Republicans responded.

For years liberals have used the courts to get what they could not get from voters, the President or Congress.  President Trump and Senators like Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham are doing a great job of nominating and confirming judges that respect the rule of law and not liberals' political wishes.  So now liberal politicians are taking to threatening the courts to get what they want.  As the Wall Street Journal opined last week:

Last week Attorney General Bill Barr announced that the Department of Justice would resume enforcing the law regarding the federal death penalty.  As Fox News reported:

The Supreme Court issued two opinions with direct implications for redistricting this morning, on the last day of the October 2018 Term.  In a consolidated opinion for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, the Court held that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."  In Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court remanded the "census" case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its rather confusing opinion that held both that it would be permissible for the the Department of Commerce to ask a question regarding citizenship on the census and that the Department did not provide an accurate reason for the question's inclusion.

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rucho v. Common Cause, a partisan gerrymandering claim against North Carolina's congressional map, and Lamone v. Benisek, a First Amendment retaliation partisan gerrymandering claim against one Maryland state legislative district.  Both cases were before the Court last term and were sent back to the district courts for further proceedings.  As in the past, today the justices continued to search for a justiciably manageable standard for considering partisan gerrymandering claims:

Today was the testimony of expert panelists regarding the confirmation of the Honorable William Barr to become Attorney General of the United States. Republican witnesses offered testimony explaining why Mr. Barr is the right fit at the U.S. Department of Justice. Meanwhile, the Democratic witnesses failed to present any real concerns about Mr. Barr or his past tenure as Attorney General in the early 1990s but rather focused on other, systemic issues they perceive in the laws and justice system. Some of most noteworthy testimony for Republican witnesses included:

Last night, President Trump addressed the nation on the crisis at the southern border by outlining the violence, harm, and security threats that are occurring, and praising the border agents who are risking their lives everyday to keep America safe. As evident by Speaker Pelosi’s and Minority Leader Schumer’s response, the Democrats are continuing to let partisan politics control these issues and are failing to acknowledge the humanitarian and national security crisis that exists, and are refusing to provide support to border patrol agents who protect our nation. The Democrats are the sole cause for the partial government shutdown and are ensuring that there are a lack of resources at the southern border.

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed the Obama-era power grab commonly called "net neutrality," returning to the statutory-based regulatory regime in place prior to 2015.  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was viciously attacked for his efforts to restore the rule of law to internet regulation, including receiving death threats to him and his children.  Yet a year later, the internet is still thriving.

Today, Jeff Sessions resigned as Attorney General of the United States, and President Trump announced that Sessions' Chief of Staff, Matthew Whitaker, will be the Acting Attorney General.  Under Attorney General Sessions, the Department of Justice has returned to respecting the rule of law and enforcing and supporting the law as written, instead of pursuing a partisan agenda as it did under President Obama.