The Thomas Court is Coming

The first thing I want to do today is to welcome back my former (and future?) cooblogger Jessica Hoff back to her first current affairs post in a bit more than four years. I have missed her sense, her humor (or is that humour), her British take on American affairs, and her ability to read my mind. Welcome back, dearest friend 🙂 xxx

With her remarks last night after taking the oath as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett gave us a master class on what a US judge is supposed to be, here it is:

This, like the entire speech, is both remarkable and heartening.

I have spent a good amount of time over the last month at the Senate; both in meetings with individual senators and in days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The confirmation process has made ever-clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate, and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences; in fact, it would be a dereliction of duty to put policy goals aside.

By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences.  It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty; the rule of law must always control.

That is exactly like the founder’s intended. As for her personally, I like the way Jessica put it this morning.

Amy Coney Barrett did it without sacrificing her womanhood. She did not do what so many career women have had to do, which is to choose a predominantly male way (job first) over her kids. Not only did she adopt two black orphans, she has a Downes syndrome child whom she chose not to abort. What’s not to like? You’d have thought that feminists everywhere would be throwing their bras over the windmill (no, don’t go there, a lady never tells), so why the hoo-hah? It’s that last bit. She didn’t have an abortion. Not only that, she is an actual practising Catholic, not a Pelsoian/Biden Catholic (that is one who wants the vote but not the faith).

Well, except that I doubt Justice Barrett, or Jess for that matter, is any sort of feminist that we see in the 21st Century. Neither of them either needed or wanted anything other than a chance to let their light shine. I’m quite sure that either of them is quite content to be rewarded for what they do, not because they are women, but because they are the best at what they do. And that is at it should be

It was fascinating that Justice Thomas swore her in, for at least two reasons

First, he is the very man that Joe Biden when he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to, in Justice Thomas’sown words, to lynch in the hearings. To see him sweary in Ms. Coney oh Hillary’s birthday had to hurt.

When President Bush nominated Justice Thomas, he called him the most qualified for the job, The left loudly dissented. But as The Daily Signal says:

Bush was right. Thomas was the best qualified, because he was a fiercely independent thinker with an unwavering commitment to decide cases based on what the Constitution said, not what he or the public wanted in the moment. Bush knew that Thomas had these qualities because he had watched Thomas go through fire during the Reagan administration.

As a black conservative intellectual, Thomas has been an existential threat to the liberal ruling class since he joined the Reagan administration in May 1981. As chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Thomas earned the very public enmity of the civil rights establishment for opposing quotas and racial preferences.

On the court, Thomas is an originalist, a justice who believes that the Constitution’s provisions must be interpreted consistent with the original meaning when they were ratified. Liberals do not believe a black man can legitimately hold these views.

In his 29 years on the court, Thomas, even more than Justice Scalia, has written the originalist canon. Some 700 opinions, combined with a willingness to revisit precedent when necessary. This makes a generational change in the court, at least as long as we hold the Presidency and/or the Senate.

Imagine that, judges who rule based on the law, not politics or whatever they think might work. It’s not a new day exactly though. This is exactly what the Federal courts were from the beginning until they lost their nerve at Franklin Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court.

If they do little but force Congress to again legislate, we will start to improve.

 

Vote next Tuesday, for America

ACB

I seem to be in a small minority among my friends in being delighted that Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court. That doesn’t surprise me. I’m a feminist in my thirties (okay, let’s be honest, pushing forty, but don’t tell anyone) and until I got with my partner I worked’ I worked in areas where the usual political views were of the leftist variety.  I think the example set by Justice Barrett is marvelous. I wish, when I was a little girl or an adolescent, there had been someone like her to whom I could look up.

Amy Coney Barrett did it without sacrificing her womanhood. She did not do what so many career women have had to do, which is to choose a predominantly male way (job first) over her kids. Not only did she adopt two black orphans, she has a Downes syndrome child whom she chose not to abort. What’s not to like? You’d have thought that feminists everywhere would be throwing their bras over the windmill (no, don’t go there, a lady never tells), so why the hoo-hah? It’s that last bit. She didn’t have an abortion. Not only that, she is an actual practising Catholic, not a Pelsoian/Biden Catholic (that is one who wants the vote but not the faith).

I am sickened by the reaction of some of my “sisters” to Judge Barratt. She’s the “wrong sort” of woman. Only women, and for that matter ethnic minorities, with the “right” (that is the “left”) view should be promoted. To me, that’s the epitome of intolerance. The showing the left is making at this time makes me fearful. Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.

I am not a lawyer. What I know of Judge Barrett is what I saw on the news – a poised, super-intelligent (and yes, beautiful) woman dealing with second and third-rate politicos the way a fly swatter deals with the fly. The spectacle of “lazy Masie” asking her about whether she’d ever sexually assaulted anyone was one of the most crass pieces of questioning ever seen; how can that Senator look anyone in the eye after that? But they could not lay a finger on her – or hold a candle to her. Amy Coney Barrett went through all that because she believes in her country and the rule of law.

I know that here I am preaching to the choir, but at home, well, I might as well get my handmaid’s dress and bonnet out – I am sure my other half will approve. In the meantime, God bless Justice Coney Barrett and God bless America!

Sunday Funnies; Awesome Notepad

The awesomeness of an empty notepad

Meanwhile Outside Alys’s Restaurant

And of course

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed a strange feel in the air, like a ginger is trying to steal my soul

 

Confirmation

Neo will roll his eyes but I have to mention the television series, West Wing. I learned so much from that series about which I had known nothing.

We’re watching the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and I never understood what that entails. Fortunately, West Wing covers some of that and I always operate under the assumption that if I don’t know something, other people may not know either. I think it’s a fair assumption.

The process takes far longer than you may expect it to. There’s generally one person in charge of the confirmation process, usually the ‘policy guy’ (I don’t have to type ‘or woman’, do I? I think we’re all adults here). He’s the guy with the ‘check list’. Amy Barrett allowed that she submitted 1800 pages for the confirmation team. Several people will have been chosen to read all or some of those pages, depending upon what topic the page covers. They read to see if the nominee for Supreme Court Justice has any legal writings detrimental to the policy of the current administration. They look for any mention displaying bias, discrimination, defamation, and/or disagreement with the current administration. They look for malfeasance and any hint of scandal.

If the written collection holds nothing that red flags the nominee, they begin the interviews of friends, co-workers, family, neighbors of the nominee. They go to previous employers. They sniff out every possible wrong the nominee may have participated in.

If there are still no red flags, the confirmation team will meet with the nominee and have a few face to face meetings, and the person’s work record is questioned and uncertain ground can be clarified and cleared. If the confirmation team finds no issues that require further inquiry, the team will then inform the president of that administration of their findings. If the president has reasons of his own, he may turn down the potential nominee and ask that another person be looked at using the same process.

If the president accepts the recommendation of the confirmation team, he then meets with the potential nominee to decide for himself whether or not he thinks the possible nominee meets whatever his personal criteria may be.

Having gone through this process and passing all the attendant laser focus of this background check of all time, the president will then announce to the press his nominee for the seat of Supreme Court Justice. And from that second forward, the members of the ‘other party’ begin the same process in regard to that nominee, considering the other party has other interests and policies that they are concerned with.

The actual hearing for confirmation, as we have learned – large and in our faces on the major networks – is a mud flinging, party boosting, scandalous innuendos, aspersions casting attempt to both ruin and/or elevate the nominee, depending on the party asking the questions.

This is what we need to understand. In this particular case, in this particular place and time, the hatred for the President of the United States is such that there is no depth of disgusting to which the Democrats will not delve. According to the Democrats, Amy Barrett has been nominated by the President to INSURE that what He wants gets done to the DETRIMENT of millions of Americans. You’re all very nice people so all I’m going to say to that is ‘stuff and nonsense’! Should she be confirmed, she will be one of eight Justices. [Nine including the primus inter pares Chief Justice*] So when they repeat – ad nauseum – that her decision will kill Roe v Wade, Obama Care, any of the cases that will come before the Court – they are lying. Pure and simple.

*The Chief Justice has no control over any legal decision made by any Justice, he does assign the writing of opinions with which he agrees and has a fair amount of administrative control of the court. admin.

Full tilt Bozo

Or, that’s what I thought anyway. I suspected that the Democrats would load up, rifles and hip waders, to question Judge Barrett. Instead, what we’re seeing now was once modeled by Jesus. Tis a strange year, 2020.

The Democrats can not come against Judge Barrett because she’s 1. a woman 2. a mother and 3. has two adopted black children. If they say anything against her, they are going to offend even their own constituents. How can they hate her (oh, sorry, Pelosi said she doesn’t hate anyone) for being a practicing Roman Catholic? Pelosi herself is “Roman Catholic”, as is Joe Biden (he tells us). I suspect the difference is Barrett is devout and the others are Chrinos, or RoCainos (either Christian in name only or Roman Catholic in name only). If they come out against her, they will be lifted by their own petard.

So – the Jewish religious leaders and followers were questioning Jesus. As usual. They asked some question and Jesus said, “Before I answer, let me ask you a question: the baptism by John – was it of man or was it of God. The leaders talked among themselves and decided they were in a no-win situation. If they said ‘of man’, the crowd would riot and if they said of God, they would be supporting Jesus. No win scenario. (Jessica has an excellent post on All Along the Watchtower in regard to this conversation between Jesus and the religious leaders – wander over and give it a read!)

And that’s where the Democrats find themselves now. If they say she’s no good, they will prove they do not support women (of course we know they only support ‘certain women’), if they say she’s ok, then they will be seen as supporting President Trump’s decision (shock and horror!!!) No win scenario. They know it. The stance they are taking is that they will not ‘legitimize’ the process. When did they ever? Be that as it may, it’s a long time between now and confirmation for Judge Barrett. I feel badly for her family and I have to admire her – takes a lot of guts to stand up before the Democrats. I understand kevlar helps.

Pretty clever, that Jesus guy. He was in no way full tilt Bozo.

 

Sunday Funnies; The Nomination and More

And so, now we know

Keep this in mind, it is not Ginsburg’s seat nor is it a liberal seat. It belongs to the American people, and we long ago gave the President the power to nominate and the Senate to advise and consent on whom we allow to sit in it. They are doing what we said.

 

The Redhead of the week will never be as beautiful as this one. Right, Jess? Although I can think of one candidate.

Heh! My kind of Governor

But be careful fishing!

And of course

%d bloggers like this: