The liberal mainstream media is using the opening of the Supreme Court’s term this year as an excuse to attack its conservative members in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy. As Mark Paoletta writes in the Wall Street Journal:
The ascendant originalist approach at the court is more faithful to the Constitution, but it is less welcoming to the liberal policy-making many have come to expect from the court since the Warren era. Expect to see many more baseless attacks on the court’s conservative members in the future.
As Peter Roff points out this effort has been somewhat successful in swaying surface level public opinion polls of the Court.
The undermining of the court’s legitimacy is part of the political process, not the legal and certainly not the democratic one. Everything from the references to its poll numbers to the way the current majority is described – conservative, far-right, hard right – rather than originalist, constitutionalist or even as justices favoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning rather than an expansive one – are all notes in the same song. Progressives want to restore the court’s position as the final word on liberal causes it’s been since FDR and are not especially concerned about how they do it. They reject the idea it should function as the referee in disputes between the branches of the federal government, the states and, on occasion, the people.Read more
Moderate No More: Biden on Court Packing
Some say Democrat Party Nominee Vice President Biden is a moderate or center left. Whether he was once or not, he is now going as far left as he can. In the past Joe Biden was adamant against adding Justices to the Supreme Court, also known as Court Packing.
Biden stated in October, 2019:
"I would not get into court packing … We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."
After Ukraine and the Russia-hoax, it seems likely the Democrats in the U.S. House's quest for Donald Trump’s tax returns is just the latest effort to damage the President politically. During oral argument over President Trump’s tax returns, USA Today sums up that point as follows:
On the other hand, all the conservatives and some liberal justices wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking a decade of private data involving not only the president but members of his family. They suggested such extensive probing could harass and distract both Trump and future presidents.
. . .
“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?" Kavanaugh asked House general counsel Douglas Letter. . . .
But even liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer noted the subpoenas "go way, way beyond tax returns," a concern voiced by several conservative colleagues.Read more
As the DNC Chair Tom Perez calls for a recanvass of the Iowa Caucus goes, advocates for the Equal Rights Amendment are even more “math confused.”
As Wikipedia describes it(emphasis added):
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is or was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.
There should be no doubt, the life of the ERA has expired. As National Review writes:
When Congress originally submitted the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972, it gave it a March 1979 deadline. Deadlines have been a common feature of amendments, one the Supreme Court unanimously declared permissible in 1921. The ERA didn’t get enough states to ratify it before that deadline. Congress then, by a simple majority, purported to extend the deadline for three years — an act declared unconstitutional by the only court to review it. (It takes a two-thirds supermajority, the kind the ERA got in 1972, to submit an amendment for ratification.) The ERA didn’t get ratified by the new, dubious deadline, either. At that point, in 1982, everyone — including the Supreme Court — acknowledged that the amendment was dead.Read more
On the Presidential Primary debate stage and in general, Democrats and their liberal base have gone so far left that they are regularly getting called out by liberal-icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is because, while Justice Ginsburg is still very liberal and no friend of moderates or conservatives, she is looking at least rational and realistic. Let’s run through a few issues and items.Read more
If Ben Franklin were alive today, he would amend his famous quote on Death and Taxes to say the only things certain in life are Death, Taxes and that liberals will attack any judicial nominee of President Trump. Today we will briefly go over that the fallout over the defamatory attacks on Judge Brett Kavanaugh continue, the latest outrageous attack on a Jewish nominee, and a bit of news on the future.Read more
There is a new, troubling trend among 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates this cycle: advocating and promoting a “litmus test,” or judicial philosophy benchmark, for judicial and Supreme Court candidates if he or she happens to be elected President of the United States.
Such a trend goes against the history of judicial nominations and threatens the principle of judicial independence. Some even call the implementation of a judicial litmus test as breaking the “political taboo.”Read more