Kavanaugh Hearings Show the Choice That Has Been Coming for You

trump-featured

Maybe it’s a small thing, but among the more peculiar assertions I’ve seen floating around over the last week is that the American people should be impressed by the fact that a bunch of college professors signed a letter opposing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  For many of us on the political right, that letter is a sign that he must be confirmed.  An essay from Rod Dreher, last week, comes to mind:

… this Kavanaugh thing has focused my mind sharply. Look at the Yale Law School professors and students. These people are the enemy. That is undeniable now. It’s not that they oppose Brett Kavanaugh. It’s that they are so ideologized that they will stop at nothing to destroy him, or anybody else who gets in their way. They have turned him from a human being into a symbol of something they want to destroy.

Dreher has seemed to lean on the Never Trump side of things and was more sympathetic to the late attacks on Kavanaugh than other conservatives, but he appears to be coming around to the conclusion of those who supported Trump before the election, writing, “I have been driven by the liberal elites into believing that whatever their sins and failings, the Republicans are the only thing standing between me (and people like me) and the destruction that these highly ideologized left-wing elites would happily wreak on us, for the sake of their idea of Justice.”

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

Would any of the other Republican options have stood up to the Left like this?  Maybe Ted Cruz would have done so, which might explain why he was the last non-Trump candidate standing in that Republican primary.  But I’d bet more and more are willing to make a stand as it becomes clear that compromising with the Left is only ever a delay in their death blow, as they wait for you to weaken.  Progressives simply don’t believe in the basic principles required for a truly pluralistic society that honors a right to disagree.

So, Dreher writes about Kavanaugh:

I look at him, and what’s being done to him, and see my sons, and even my daughter. If they were nominated for a position like Kavanaugh’s, I would want them to have a fair hearing. I don’t think that’s possible any more in America, not for the kind of people identified by the cultural Left as the Enemy. And make no mistake, if my daughter grows up to be a believing Christian and a social conservative, she will be the Enemy, as sure as my sons will be. These cultural elites would eagerly destroy the character of my children, as well as myself and most of my friends, to pursue their political goals.

President Trump and the GOP Senate forced things to this head.  They stood up to the Left, and everybody is able to see what progressives have been slowly doing to people with whom they disagreed on the margins.  The choice between capitulation and vitriol was and is coming for you.  Fortunately, another thing we can see, at this political moment, is that there’s still a chance to turn it away.



  • BasicCaruso

    “Look at the Yale Law School professors and students. These people are the enemy…”

    Wait, Yale Law School only? I thought we finally agreed on something.
    https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700×450/47/182147-004-69F9560C.jpg

  • Rhett Hardwick

    Academia does seem out of joint of late. Perhaps it is not new. A couple of generations ago, Ivy League professors were proud of being “card carrying communists” I remember looking that one up once, it seems the Communist Party USA issued membership cards.

  • Merle The Monster

    Vice President Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election to Republican Bush when the Supreme Court voted with the five Republicans in the majority to end the Florida vote count and in essence hand the election to Bush. Secretary of State Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election to Republican Trump. US Senate held by Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings for then President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for Ten months until the KGB ‘s candidate won and Obama left office. Do you notice a pattern? The will of the people has been thwarted by the Right not the Left as you would have it. The majority of voters voted for two different Presidential candidates that did not become President. When voters did get their choice elected , Senate Republicans blocked his nominee to the Supreme Court sort of like standing in the schoolhouse door. I’ll tell you how the Left has pursued its goals. They have convinced a majority of voters to vote for their Presidential candidates in four of the last five elections.

    • Mike678

      Ah, the recount was in Bush’s favor. You are delusional.

  • Joe Smith

    Merle – I was troubled by the Garland issue; both parties have abused their time in the majority when it comes to executing the Senate’s advice and consent role. I would support amending the Constitution to put an age or term (say 75 or 20-25 years) for SCOTUS justices, which would be in line with most every state supreme court, as well as putting a requirement for a vote within 6 months of a nomination otherwise the Senate’s consent is assumed to be given (with an exception for time of war or declared national emergency).

    While the implied “lifetime” appointment (good behavior maintained) was designed to increase the independence of the judiciary from the political gatekeepers into the court, I suspect the drafters never assumed justices would have 30 year tenures (same with people making Congress a lifelong career path). It’s too bad after Marbury v. Madison that Congress and the states didn’t move to put some more checks on the SCOTUS given the expanded powers the court awarded itself in that case.

    However, the “majority of the voters” argument is like the losing team in say football going “yeah, but we had more first downs, less penalties, less turnovers, etc.” Nice, and often associated with winning the game, but not what counts in the end.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      Since the inception of the Republic the SC has been used as a retirement benefit for various politicians. But I think the real politics began when the SC refused to allow several of FDR’s “recovery acts”. FDR then attempted to “pack the court” by expanding it’s size and adding his appointments. I think it was about then the full power of the court was realized and appointments heavily scrutinized. I suppose there has always been minor politics such as maintaining the “Jewish seat” since the 1920’s. Mr. Smith is correct about Marbury v. Madison. It could be said that the court gave us the Civil War with the slave decisions (Dred Scott, etc). But, it could also be said that their hands were tied by the Constitution and they hadn’t yet determined that they could invent rights. I always admire the Court for not rising when the President enters for his Fate of the Nation speech, they recognize that they are a “co-equal branch of the government” and need not rise.

      Let us not lose sight of the fact that it has worked pretty well for over 200 years.

    • Merle The Monster

      Point taken about winning the popular vote but losing the election but the point was in response to Katz and his assertion that Progressives don’t believe in the principles required in a pluralistic society. By the way he uses terms like progressives , the left, Democrats, atheists ,social elitists interchangeably he may well as name all that disagree with him as enemies and be done with any appearance of being non partisan.
      The point about the refusal of Senate Republicans (including Maine Senator Susan Collins) to hold hearings for Judge Garland was that it was a naked exercise of power because the Republicans controlled the process and had the votes. Forget principle. This was all about the power to turn the Supreme Court into a reliably conservative court rewarding weathly conservatives and Republican donors and religious conservatives who reliably vote Republican.
      I don’t know about making reforms to the Court though. Possibly the reform should be aimed at the Senate and clarify its role in its ‘advise and consent’ duties so that that process cannot be controlled solely by one political party

      • Justin Katz

        I think this part of your response is important:

        The point about the refusal of Senate Republicans (including Maine Senator Susan Collins) to hold hearings for Judge Garland was that it was a naked exercise of power because the Republicans controlled the process and had the votes. Forget principle.

        The Republicans controlled the process. The additional step that the Democrats have taken is to create a circus and (it increasingly appears) destroy an innocent man because they do not control the process or have the votes. They are working outside the process for their own political and ideological gain, and that is what destroys a nation.

        This is important, too:

        This was all about the power to turn the Supreme Court into a reliably conservative court rewarding weathly conservatives and Republican donors and religious conservatives who reliably vote Republican.

        That is not the emphasis of conservatives. We want a court that rules according to the law, without using the court to change the laws in a way that the legislative system won’t. Again, conservatives want to use the process: enforce the law as written and, where citizens decide they don’t like the laws, change them through the appropriate means. Progressives, by contrast, want to stack the court with judges so that they can change the law outside of the process.

        • Merle The Monster

          Please explain what you mean by stacking the court in the instance of the Merrick Garland. The elected President nominated him to fill a vacancy. Is that not what the constitution requires?
          And if Democrats work outside the process can you explain the Gorsuch confirmation

    • Mike678

      Garland was DOA–no way the Senate would confirm, so just another circus if the nomination was voted on. As Pres Obama said, elections have consequences.

      • Joe Smith

        Mike- true, but it becomes a slippery slope. So what is the standard – within 9 months? 12 months? Alito was confirmed by almost a strict party line vote (Bryd and Nelson – two red state D voted Yes and of course Chafee the only R to vote no). The main reason cited by Sen Kennedy – “Alito’s refusal under persistent questioning to give a clear statement
        about his views of the Supreme Court’s key abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade.” Conveniently he forgot Ginsburg (whom he of course supported) own answer about not giving specific answers to how she might rule on a future case. She said to look at her years of opinions/rulings – “It is the most tangible, reliable indicator of my attitude,
        outlook, approach and style. I hope you will judge my qualifications
        principally on that written record spanning thirty-four years.”

Quantcast