Demand Justice, a far left group run by former Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon that has become the left’s voice on judicial nominations, came out with their “short list” of potential liberal Supreme Court nominees.  The list is extreme to say the least.  How extreme?  As Carrie Severino points out:

Amazing: there must be hundreds of federal judges Obama put on the courts, and only 4 make this list. This list would have been way too liberal for Obama.

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) October 15, 2019

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:

In an interview with the dean of Georgetown University Law School on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed her dismay with the Court’s recent decision regarding partisan gerrymandering, even going so far as saying that she will “never accept” the Court’s decision. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions and are, therefore, beyond the reach of federal courts.

On Tuesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg again praised Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s commitment to advancing women in the Judicial Branch, highlighting a rare moment in which Democrat appointees on the Court recognized their Conservative counterparts in advancing equality, and this time, the role of women. The comments were made during a panel at Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute, where Ginsburg commended Kavanaugh for “making history” by appointing an all-female staff.

“There is a very important first on the Supreme Court this term and it’s thanks to our new justice, Justice Kavanaugh, whose entire staff, they’re all women, all of his law clerks are women … it’s the first time in the history of the United States that there have been more women clerking than men.” 

On Wednesday and Thursday, NBC hosted the first presidential debate for candidates competing for the democratic nomination. The candidates did little to hide their extremist positions on a wide array of issues including healthcare, the environment, gun control, immigration, and abortion.

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.

Few things inflame Democrats more than Supreme Court Justices with whom they disagree.  On the eve of the last days of the Supreme Court term, and on the eve of the first Democrat Presidential debates, we thought it worth revisiting an issue that is certain to be brought up again by Democrats in their effort to outflank each to the left: court packing.  The master of Senate procedure, attorney Marty Gold, has a great new article on the topic that delves into the history of the issue.

In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court allowed the Bladensburg Cross to stand in Maryland.  As the Daily Signal described the case:

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Thursday that a cross-shaped war memorial on public land in Maryland doesn’t violate the Constitution.