As I've stated in the past.
"Any time you talk to a 'Conservative' adjudicator (which I have done), they will tell you it's not their job to legislate from the bench (jus dare), only to interpret the law (jus discere). Which is true. The problem with this, however, is that they consistently fail to distinguish between judicial activism and restoring constitutional governance. So what happens is, when a leftist gets appointed to the bench, they impose illegitimate and unconstitutional laws. And then when a Republican gets appointed to the bench, they enforce those illegitimate and unconstitutional laws, simply because they're now deemed 'established.'" - Me.
And this is basically what Brett's been saying he will do all along, that he will uphold precedent established by the Supreme Court, even when it's wrong. And thus we see that GOP adjudicators, much like Democrat adjudicators, do not seem to understand that the job of a justice of the SCOTUS is first and foremost to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold the errant precedents established by other (activist) judges.
Which prompts an observation in general. It should tell you a lot about someone when they refer to activist rulings as "the law of the land." Every time some court goes crazy, and legalizes something like "same-sex marriage," all the idiots of our society immediately start referring to it as the "law of the land." No, it's not actually. The courts do not make law! And there is perhaps nothing more indicative of a court fabricating law out of thin air, than its establishing or affirming a practice that never existed before, as it did with "same-sex marriage." And what will Brett, the alleged "Conservative" adjudicator, do about this? Well, if he is to be taken at his own word, nothing. He will uphold the "established" precedent. Which in this instance will be the precedent of 2015, predicated upon the ridiculous "modern" interpolation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as opposed to the precedent established by the same court in 1885 which explicitly states."Judicial Officers [...] of the United States [...] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." - United States Constitution, Article VI.
"No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."When Brett Kavanuagh says it's "all about precedent for me," in this instance he would almost certainly be talking about the precedent established in 2015 (3 years ago), and not the precedent established in 1789 (229 years ago), in which every state held sodomy to be a crime malum in se. What else could I conclude based upon his comments regarding "abortion?" Brett Kavanaugh has stated he will honor the precedent established in 1973 (45 years ago), as opposed to that established by Commonwealth v. Nesbit (159 years ago) for example, in which the court declared the Founders established no "civil justification" for "infanticide," or any other "disgusting and corrupting rites of the [...] festivals of Greece and Rome."
Thus we see that it be no hyperbole on my part, when I make the distinction and assert that it is indeed the objective of most GOP judicial appointments, to uphold leftist precedent. No one thought the Fourteenth Amendment established or protected "same-sex marriage" for 147 years. But now it does according to the SCOTUS. If that's not the definition of a court legislating from the bench I don't know what is. The courts are not empowered to simply declare a law into existence as they now commonly do under leftist adjudicators. And the problem with Brett Kavanaugh, and GOP court appointees in general, is that they commonly and openly profess their solemn intent to affirm these bogus precedents and illegitimate laws imposed through judicial fiat. Indeed, they must vow to do so to even be considered for appointment.
If you're not sure of to what I'm referring, this is the gist of how the American judiciary currently works.
1: Leftists appoint judges who use the courts to unconstitutionally pass laws from the bench.
2: Republicans appoint judges who pledge not to overturn those unconstitutional/illegitimate laws because they're "established."
3: Return to Step 1 and repeat ad infinitum.
Basically, leftists aggressively advance their agenda when elected, and Republicans do little if anything to reverse it when elected. It's kind of like building a Lego tower of tyranny. The left continuously adds blocks to the tower (of Socialism) when in power, and when Republicans get elected they refuse to take any away, typically out of fear of the consequences for their own political careers.
This has been the paradigm for many years at this point, serving to interminably slide the country ever farther left. And this paradigm is precisely what Trump continued when he said abortion wasn't a litmus test for his nominee, that he wouldn't even ask them about it, and selected a nominee who, in his 2006 confirmation hearing for the D.C. circuit court, stated he considered Roe V. Wade to be binding under stare decisis. The implications of this model, which is the model under which we are currently operating, should be obvious. Were the Supreme Court to rule pedophilia legal, a Brett Kavanaugh would be inclined to uphold that ruling, because it's now "established." And people will argue that could "never" happen, despite the fact that's precisely how we got, and continue to have "same-sex marriage."
The mindless partisan shills will of course claim (just as they did with Trump) Brett is "just saying that" to get appointed, without any cognizance of the problem with that statement. They'll openly concede they support a liar, who will say anything to procure a position he wants, utterly oblivious to the inherent ramifications. They supported a president who said anything to get elected, and that president naturally nominated a justice who will say anything to get on the bench, and what that nominee said is essentially that as a justice he'll preserve the leftist status quo. Which if true makes him useless from a Constitutional perspective, but none of the GOP shills seem to see the problem with that.
Quite to the contrary, when pointing this out to GOP shills, their response is basically the same argument they used in support of Trump. You should take what Brett says with a grain of salt. He's just lying to get on the bench at which point he will become a staunch Conservative. Just as with Trump, you're told to ignore his statements, to ignore his personal history, etc., in favor of some partisan shill conspiracy theory, in which he's a secret hardcore Conservative sleeper who will come out of the closet once appointed to the highest court in the land. His history of questionable statements/rulings was all a charade to confound and disarm the left, and that the real Brett will adjudicate as a strict constructionist once appointed to the SCOTUS. Never mind the fact that Brett's openly stated, throughout the process, that will not be the case. He's lying, claim his supporters, when he says that. And you should just place your blind trust in Trump, and Brett, because they're our liars.
This is the problem with GOP shills. And it's the same problem endemic to, and constantly on display, in Democrat shills. They support ostentatious liars, and defend abject duplicity, purely to spite their political rivals. And when I say "political" rivals, I'm using that word deliberately, to draw a distinction. Because there is a difference between political rivals and ideological rivals. And the present day Republican party is to the Democrat party the former and not the latter, and Republican loyalists place people in office based upon the extent they are perceived to be the former as opposed to the latter. They choose and prefer unproven and blatantly unscrupulous candidates, purely because they believe their political rivals don't like them, over candidates with verifiable records and Constitutionally compatible rhetoric. They are just as if not more motivated by keeping someone they personally dislike out of office, than whether or not the person for whom they voted is ideologically or morally worthy of the position to which they aspire. At this point, just like Democrats, there's scarcely any credible discernible concern for the latter whatsoever among GOP voters. When you press Trump supporters about such, like Democrats they outright reject the notion that the morality of their candidate should be a determining factor at all, and openly defend their candidate's impropriety. And they incessantly excuse their own candidate's misconduct by citing the misconduct of their political rivals.
The result is a GOP under Trump which has become, much like the Democratic party, a spectacle of impropriety and mindless contradiction. Why would a guy (Trump) who campaigned on repealing Obamacare, nominate a guy (Kavanaugh) whose judicial opinion was cited to affirm it? Was Trump lying when he said he'd repeal Obamacare, or is he just an idiot, who appoints people whose opinions have been used to validate an unconstitutional bureaucracy he claims to want to abolish? (Though not so much, if at all, anymore it would seem.) I'd like a Trump supporter to provide me with a logical explanation for that. If my own experience is any indicator however, having been asking Trump supporters to explain their abject contradictions for a solid three years at this point, I won't get one in this instance either. Most of them are amnesiac lemmings who probably don't even remember he pledged to repeal Obamacare.
As I've said repeatedly over the years, I don't want justices that will uphold leftist court precedents, I want Constitutionalists that will defy and strike them down. But Republican appointees won't do that. That's the problem. The left has no problem ignoring precedent to advance their agenda; that's how we got "same-sex marriage," Obamacare, etc. But self-professed Conservatives are perpetually hamstringing themselves, by appointing judges who pledge they will neither advance the interests of the right, nor do anything contrary to the interests of the left as adjudicators.
It needs to be understood that Constitutionalism is an agenda. That truth is an agenda, just like any other. And truth should have, indeed must have its partisans and zealots, that the opposite does not go unopposed. And truth's partisans and zealots must be greater than those of its opponents; lest truth, left in the hands of the servile or timorous, be prostrated before its opposite. And that is precisely what we see thanks to a servile and timorous GOP. Truth prostrated to untruth, freedom to tyranny, holiness to depravity.
It must be understood that Conservatism cannot hope to survive, operating under a paradigm in which leftist adjudicators are free to subjectively define and create new precedents at whim, and Conservative adjudicators are bound by, and must swear a blood oath, to honor them. There can and will be no return to a limited form of government, to the federalism of our pious patriarchs, without Conservative judges rendering rulings that nullify those judicial decrees on which the current unconstitutional monstrosity is erected. We will never return to the Republic of our Founders through judges who pledge not to defy "established" precedent, when so much of "established" precedent is ostentatious departure from, and at odds with limited government and liberty. To be a true "constructionist" adjudicator not only allows, but requires, defying revisionist "precedent."
And furthermore it needs to be pointed out that if GOP nominees have to lie to get appointed, then the left plainly control who sits on the courts, and we've already lost. Why are Democrats, blatantly, still the gatekeepers to the courts under a Republican administration? Because, as just stated, the GOP is thronged with cowards. They can't seem to get anyone on the SCOTUS without first placating their leftist masters through issuing a de facto vow to be complicit in the leftist agenda. If that's the best the GOP can do, they're garbage, and as I've been saying for some time they need to go. It should be obvious to any person with a functioning cerebral cortex, that a party nominating judges that vow to support the leftist agenda if appointed, is not an "opposition" party.
This isn't all merely a product of my own imagination either. The policy of Republican judicial appointees reliably affirming leftist judicial activism is a reality, and has even been acknowledged by others, some of which openly infer a justice Kavanaugh will continue that tradition. (And why wouldn't they? That's what he said he will do.)
As Trevor (correctly) observes.
"The reality is that gay marriage isn't going anywhere, Roe v. Wade will probably not be overturned, and a court with a Justice Kavanaugh could help rein in an executive branch that has become too powerful. [....] There's no justice on the court that Kavanaugh resembles more than Roberts. Roberts' controversial vote upholding the Affordable Care Act could be explained as a vote to preserve the perceived legitimacy of the court. [....] Kavanaugh is perhaps the most mainstream conservative of any judge that Trump could have picked. [....] If you're a liberal, a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh is certainly going to disappoint you sometimes, and he'll disappoint me, too. But if he is confirmed, don't be shocked if you're pleasantly surprised by many of the rulings that get his vote."Anyone who doesn't live with their heads perpetually ensconced within their own posteriors, will immediately recognize that the justice to whom Kavanaugh is above likened, is the traitor Roberts who gave us Socialist medicine. But Trump shills, who blindly support the party and its leader, will argue this assessment based upon Brett's own statements and judicial history, is a lie or misconstruction. They will argue it's a lie or error to assert or conclude that Brett Kavanaugh, will do what he has said he will do and/or has done in the past. They will argue you should base your position on partisan rhetoric as opposed to Brett's own statements or actions.
Well, I'm not going to do that.
The leftist leadership knows Brett, like Trump, is a moderate. That he's the nomination of a man, Donald Trump, who was himself a leftist Democrat and friend of the Clintons until but a few years ago. While he may not be their ideal candidate he's hardly the judicial cataclysm they're portraying him to be. That's merely the paradigmatic partisan posturing. Speaking of Trump. I like how he ordered an FBI investigation of his own judicial nominee, but not Hillary Clinton, whom he explicitly pledged to investigate as a presidential candidate.
The response I received when pointing this out to a Trump supporter? "Meh." Just one more in the sundry list of utterly nonsensical Trump contradictions, to which they turn a blind eye or pass in silence, or which if they acknowledge at all, attempt to excuse with abject non sequitur nonsense. It's never been more apropos than it is currently, to observe that party loyalty trumps all else to Republicans no less than it does Democrats, and that "Trump derangement syndrome" is a malady that afflicts Trump supporters no less than Democrats. The disposition of Trump Republicans is clear. Party first. Limited government and liberty second. They will support abject centrists and even leftist Republicans, to preserve and advance the interests of the party, blithely allowing the interests of liberty to fall by the wayside in the process.
Kavanaugh no doubt, just like Trump, will by his supporters be deemed the best of all possible choices regardless of the actual outcome. Even when he doesn't live up to his word. Even should he prove perfidious, and render rulings that ostentatiously facilitate the leftist agenda, Republican shills will tell you he was "better" than the alternative. And again I ask how? How is a Republican appointment that won't overturn court legalized "same-sex marriage" or infanticide, "better" than the alternative? I'd have gotten the same from any Hillary appointment.
It needs to be observed, also, because no one else will do it, that the nomination and appointment of Brett Kavanaugh proves that neither he nor Trump were the best choice, and that Ted Cruz has been vindicated. Ted Cruz described, in detail, this process during his campaign.
And this is precisely what we're getting under Donald Trump; Trump chose Kavanaugh for exactly the reasons Ted articulates above. Ted Cruz by contrast would have done precisely what he said; his choice for the vacancy being a man with a 100% Conservative rating.
This is revealing on multiple levels. Not least of which is the direct contravention it provides, of the common Trump shill excuse, that they support leftist Republicans because no one is 100% Conservative. Clearly, there are people that are 100% Conservative. The problem isn't that there aren't "full" Conservatives for which to vote, the problem is that Trump supporters aren't Conservatives, and therefore do not want a Conservative in office. (I still remember Trump shills referring derogatorily to genuine Conservatives as "purists" during the elections, in some asinine attempt to make genuine Conservatives look bad, serving far more to illustrate their own disparity from Conservative values.) And the last election irrefragably proved that. Ted himself was no slouch having about a 90% rating during the election. And we now see a President Cruz would have picked a man even more Conservative than himself, arguably one of the most Conservative men in all of government, for the SCOTUS. But the inept and benighted GOP constituency didn't want that. They, just like their political rivals, wanted the crass, insipid, immoral demagogue. They wanted the rambling vagina grabber, because they believed their political rivals disliked him the most, as opposed to the guy with cogent rhetoric and a verifiable record. And the result is a judicial appointment who openly professes he will do as little as possible (if anything at all) to threaten the leftist establishment during his tenure.
The simple reality is this. If Brett Kavanaugh is an honest man, which all the Trump shills will assure you he is, then as a justice of the SCOTUS he will merely be a cog in the leftist machine. He has, prior to even assuming his position, validated leftist subversion of the Constitution and declared it irrevocably binding, and essentially taken a vow of non-obstructionism. When he upholds precedent, by his own declaration, it will be the modern leftist precedent that discards all history and precedent prior. Because that's what leftist judges do. If they don't like a law, or feel there should be a law where one doesn't currently exist, they simply strike it down or invent a new one. And then they demand that GOP appointed judges honor those decisions. And stupidly, Republicans keep appointed judges that agree to do so.
The accusations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford, as farcical as they were, were a golden opportunity to ditch a potential wildcard like Brett for a superior, more Conservative alternative. But Trump/GOP shills are an easily inveigled and goaded lot. In identical fashion to the presidential election, all it took was the ostensible dislike of their political rivals, to once again induce them to lose sight of everything that matters and go all in on an ostensible moderate. Who cares he if says he won't reverse the left's subversion of governance? Who cares if he won't stop a racist eugenics program that's exterminated exponentially more people than the genocide of the Nazis? The Democrats appear to hate him, and that's the only qualification they need.
Trump supporters like to pretend they were saving the country with their vote. But the evidence is plain and undeniable. They screwed us all. They ruined what might have been our best, and last, chance to have a legitimate Conservative in the White House in our lifetimes, and consequently our best and last chance to get legitimate Conservatives on the SCOTUS. And they should be blamed for it, because they are to blame. Donald Trump is a leftist Republican, and they're the ones that put him in office, over two other guys with ratings hovering around 90% from Conservative scorekeepers.
No comments:
Post a Comment