By Senator Ben Sasse (NE) • Wall Street Journal
Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water. He’s been declared an existential threat to the nation. Alumni of Yale Law School, incensed that faculty members at his alma mater praised his selection, wrote a public letter to the school saying: “People will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.”
It’s predictable now that every Supreme Court confirmation hearing will be a politicized circus. This is because Americans have accepted a bad new theory about how the three branches of government should work—and in particular about how the judiciary operates. Continue reading
By Cameron Cawthorne • Washington Free Beacon
Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) on Wednesday praised President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee for having “all the right qualities.” But he stopped short of giving a full endorsement, saying he will listen to his constituents about their opinions of the nominee.
Manchin appeared on West Virginia MetroNews, a statewide radio station, where host Hoppy Kercheval asked him whether he was going to to support nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
“Do you have a lean today?” Kercheval asked.
“No, I don’t have a lean. I think he seems to be a very fine person of high Continue reading
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s new nominee for the Supreme Court, is a whip-smart legal conservative. As a judge in the highest-profile appeals court in the nation, he has shown an exemplary dedication to the rule of law. He has defended the separation of powers against threats coming from multiple directions. He has repeatedly cautioned his colleagues on the bench not to attempt to play a legislative role. He has also insisted on enforcing constitutional structures of accountability on government agencies. He has vindicated the right to free speech (against certain campaign-finance regulations), to bear arms (against the D.C. government’s attempts to implement sweeping bans), and to religious liberty (against a version of the Obama administration’s “contraceptive mandate”). And he has followed Supreme Court precedents even when gently suggesting they should be rethought.
His decisions have also been influential, with the Supreme Court repeatedly adopting his analysis and in one case running several block quotes from his opinion. Some conservatives have faulted the reasoning of a few of his opinions, but usually have not disagreed with the decisions he reached. His ruling on a Continue reading
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement is inarguably a game-changer. It will take some time and depend on who President Donald Trump picks as his replacement to see just how much.
For years now, Kennedy’s been the swing vote on a court closely divided along ideological lines. That only matters infrequently but it’s vitally important when it does, which is why conservatives are jubilant and liberals fearful. Both believe Trump’s next pick will give the court a solid majority composed of five strict constructionists, as they are sometimes called, who would alter American jurisprudence for at least a generation and probably more.
What both sides should remember is there are no guarantees. The right was in relatively the same boat in 1987 when Lewis Powell, a justice appointed by Richard Nixon, stepped down. Like Kennedy, Powell was a swing vote on the Burger Court. It was presumed the man everyone expected to replace him—former United States Solicitor General Robert Bork—would move the court to the right, cementing the victories of Reagan’s Revolution. Continue reading
By David Harsanyi • The Federalist
It’s odd, isn’t it, that so many of the folks who warn us about the authoritarianism of the GOP also happen to support an array of policies that coerce Americans to do things they don’t want to?
Take, for example, the four reliably liberal Supreme Court justices, all of whom believe it’s OK to compel Americans to pay dues to political organizations they disagree with, to coerce them to say things they abhor, and to compel them to create things that undermine their principles.
For some, myself included, the prospects of a court run by people who ignore the Constitution was the best argument for Donald Trump in 2016. The question was, “What’s scarier, a Trump presidency or a progressive Supreme Court?” I imagine the answer is becoming a bit clearer for many conservatives.
In three cases this term — the rulings Continue reading
Taxes: Whatever you think about the issue of taxing internet sales, the simple fact is that the Supreme Court has just guaranteed that people across the country will now be paying more in state taxes. It’s hard for us to see how this is good news.
In its 5-4 decision on South Dakota v. Wayfair, the court overturned two previous rulings that prevented states from taxing sales of out-of-state companies. That meant a catalog company based in Maine didn’t have to navigate 45 state sales-tax laws to figure out how much each customer owed, and then remit that money to the right states.
Brick-and-mortar stores have been trying to lift this ban for decades, because, they say, it unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of catalog and online retailers. According to the Government Accountability Office, this break cost states up to Continue reading
By Kyle Sammin • National Review
Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, which concerns gerrymandering in Wisconsin. Gill is the latest of many instances in which progressives have taken to the courts to advance their electoral cause when they couldn’t win at the polls. The plaintiffs in the case advanced a novel theory, the “efficiency gap,” which purports to varnish their old arguments with a fresh coat of mathematical certainty, replacing politics with math, whether the people agree or not.
One problem with elevating recently invented theories to the level of constitutional law is that they are found nowhere in the Constitution. But even if you are willing to overlook that important detail, there is also the lack of evidence that the “efficiency gap” theory is true. It works for the Gill plaintiffs because they think it would achieve the result they want: more Democratic state legislators. But, as the 2017 House of Delegates elections in Virginia have recently shown us, the theory has serious flaws.
There are many factors that go into the construction of legislative districts, some of which are necessarily at odds with one another. Since the 1840s, Congressional districts have in general been single-member and geographically contiguous. The same typically applies at the state level. There are also Continue reading
By Peter Roff • USNews
My high school biology teacher, Dudley Davis, used to like to remind us all that “figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.” How right he was, especially when politics is somehow involved in the equation, as it is every time districts lines are redrawn for seats in Congress and state legislatures.
The Democrats have suddenly decided this is a problem – and have come up will all kinds of mathematical analyses and formulas to back their assertion up. Their target is Justice Anthony Kennedy who, they hope, will side with the Supreme Court’s Obama and Clinton appointees in a forthcoming case challenging the way the lines were drawn in Wisconsin because the Republicans are allegedly over-represented in the state legislature when compared with the total number of votes they received in the last election. Continue reading
By Peter Roff • USNews
It’s not clear when the Senate started playing politics with Supreme Court nominations. Some say it’s been that way all along, going back at least as far as the time of Chief Justice John Marshall and Marbury vs. Madison.
Others say the confirmation process only became truly venomous after President Ronald Reagan selected federal judge Robert Bork, a former U.S. solicitor general, to fill a seat that would shift the high court’s delicate balance of power in a rightward direction.
Bork was ultimately defeated, not because he was unqualified for the post – according to the standards in place before he was nominated he could only be described as supremely qualified – but because Senate Democrats feared how he would rule. Continue reading
By Ronald A Cass • USAToday
Smart people often say stupid things. #MistakesHappen. But it takes a certain special orientation to repeat obviously false and ridiculous statements over and over. That’s a talent peculiar to politicians.
This talent is frequently on display during Supreme Court confirmation fights. Since the 1970s, every nominee from a Republican president has been attacked, among other things, as hostile to women’s rights and civil rights.
That includes Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter — justices who often have been as zealous as any in finding, creating and expanding rights for women and minorities. Constantly being wrong, however, doesn’t prevent the same trope being trotted out as soon as the next nominee is announced. Continue reading
By Gregg Jarrett • Fox News
Some Democrats, still seething over the stalled U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, are trying. But their dream of delivering political retribution has, thus far, fizzled. That is not likely to change.
Gorsuch’s credentials are too impeccable, his intellect too keen and his temperament too even to fall victim to the kind of debasement that felled Judge Robert Bork and coined an infamous phrase.
If the Gorsuch confirmation hearings have proven anything, it’s that his opponents have no powder in their guns. Try as they may, there is little in the record of Neil Gorsuch that can be faulted. His rulings have been fair, his legal mind agile, and his fidelity to the law unimpeachable. Continue reading
By Nicholas Griepsma • The Federalist
Now that the Supreme Court is poised to add a ninth Justice to its ranks, many are anxiously awaiting the court’s next move on a controversial topic: the Second Amendment. If the court decides to evaluate the concealed carry question, is there a legal framework to support a right to concealed carry in public? The answer is yes, if we look to the court’s own precedent for guidance.
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, holding 1) the Second Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense within the home, and 2) the sort of weapons protected are those in “common use” for lawful purposes. In 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that citizens are protected not only from federal government attempts to infringe the right, but also from state government attempts.
Since 2010, lower federal courts have disagreed over practically every conceivable aspect of Second Amendment law. Many have incorrectly argued that the individual right in Heller does not extend beyond the home, and even if it does, it does not include a right to concealed carry in public. The time for the Supreme Court to step in and guard the principles established in Heller has come. Continue reading
by Lachlan Markay • The Federalist
Tom Steyer wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow the government to regulate religious sermons, tap the phones of the American Civil Liberties Union, seize phone record and Internet search histories on a whim, and give bureaucrats veto power over the content of The New York Times.
If that sounds like hyperbole, you need only read the text of Proposition 59, the California ballot measure Steyer endorsed last week. Billed as an attempt to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the measure is actually far broader and more dangerous: it seeks to eliminate all constitutional rights for incorporated entities—for-profit companies, but also nonprofit groups, labor unions, charities, churches, and any other association given an official government imprimatur.
Steyer has focused of late on the ostensibly pernicious effects of money in politics as he pours more money than any other individual into federal elections. But for all of Prop 59’s focus on Citizens United, it never even mentions the separate Supreme Court case that has allowed Steyer to almost single-handedly finance one of the wealthiest political groups in the country. Continue reading
by Peter Roff • U.S. News
The armchair constitutionalists who have lately been about the business of trying to nullify the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United case are so full of ardor for their cause they are no longer thinking clearly.
They believe passionately to the point of distraction that money is a singularly corruptive influence on the American political process – as long as it is corporate money which, to them, means it comes from General Motors, Microsoft, Goldman-Sachs and other really big repositories of wealth.
There’s so much wrong with this thinking that there isn’t enough bandwidth available on the internet to explain the errors in one place. Suffice it to say, their passion for the subject has led them in directions that threaten the constitutional integrity of the American system. Continue reading
Says administration usurped Congress’s power of the purse
By Tom Howell Jr. • The Washington Times
A federal judge dealt President Obama and his health care law a major blow Thursday, ruling in favor of House Republicans who said the administration broke the law and trod on Congress’ fundamental powers by paying Obamacare insurers without permission from Capitol Hill.
An appeal is certain, but should U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer’s ruling be upheld, it could spark the economic “death spiral” Republicans have predicted and Democrats feared would doom the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
But the ruling has implications far beyond Obamacare, signaling that federal courts may begin to play a more active role in reeling in executive powers that many legal experts say have grown far beyond what the country’s founders intended. Continue reading