Tag: Supreme Court

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Pushing Past Protest

Jane's Revenge, abortion, Supreme Court

A group called Jane’s Revenge is on a rampage against organizations known to oppose abortion.

“We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures,” the manifesto declares. “Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti. From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season.”

We don’t know how Jane’s Revenge is constituted. Maybe it will turn out to be just one woman with a keyboard. Whatever its form, though, it has acolytes, persons willing to damage the property of churches, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, and other anti-abortion organizations.

Jane’s Revenge has claimed responsibility for vandalizing the Agape Pregnancy Center in Des Moines this month. In Olympia, St. Michael Parish was spray-painted with the words “abort the church.” Dozens of similar incidents began in early May, when Wisconsin Family Action was damaged by arson and vandalism. (Family Research Center maintains a list of the attacks; Wikipedia curates a page about those attributed specifically to Jane’s Revenge.)

The Biden administration has finally made a pro forma objection to the violence being perpetrated by pro-abortion protesters. Too often, though, government officials and others have been conspicuously silent. Could it possibly be the case that they’re OK with violence as a means because they agree about abortion as an end?

This is tantamount to encouraging violence by the angry left — and not just when it comes to this particular controversial issue.

Thankfully, though there have been protests nationwide against the Supreme Court’s overthrowal, last week, of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), there has so far been no “Night of Rage.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Shut Up, Spouse

Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court

“Stand down and let your better half do the job,” was the specific advice syndicated-columnist Kathleen Parker recently offered a woman, explaining that this woman’s “biggest mistake is that she thinks she’s important.”

Adding for emphasis: “She is not.”

Parker is not writing about Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, or Dr. Jill Biden. Her subject? Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Recollecting Ginni attending her writing seminar decades ago, Parker describes Ginni then as a “sweet, eager-to-learn 40-something,” who was “quite likable.”  

“But,” claimed Parker, “something has happened to the Ginni Thomas whom I knew then.”

What exactly? 

“Today,” we are told, “she’s entrenched with various hard-right conservative groups” and is “anti-feminist, anti-affirmative action, and, perhaps worst of all to her critics, pro-Donald Trump.”

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! . . . seems Ginni Thomas dares to hold opinions with which Parker disagrees.

Moreover, explained the columnist, Ginni “has not been idle in politics, advocating for issues that, importantly, could come before the court on which her husband serves” — as virtually any issue under the sun could. Parker connected Ginni’s political participation to calls “on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases in which his wife has been active.”

Every spouse of a Supreme Court justice has (or arguably should have) political views of his or her own. And the right — and propriety — to act on them. 

Though Parker’s whole column is rich, the cream of the irony has to be first listing Ginni Thomas as an “anti-feminist” and then suggesting she shut up and leave politics to her husband.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Packing Unpacked

Supreme Court, Justice, court packing

The “court packing” notion that progressives itch to implement has obvious flaws — which have been addressed (but not settled) in the recent report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, initiated by the Biden Administration last April. 

The report, just out, did not give progressives what they want. “Opponents contend that expanding — or ‘packing’ — the Court would significantly diminish its independence and legitimacy and establish a dangerous precedent that could be used by any future political force as a means of pressuring or intimidating the Court. The Commission takes no position on the validity or strength of these claims.” 

Not a few Democrats wanted the Commission to take a very negative position on those claims. Democrats currently maintain a shaky hold on power in the Legislative and Executive branches. Had the Commission given them the green-light to push progressives onto the Court — to overwhelm the current “conservative” majority — they might have consolidated power.

The report is inconvenient for that political move — as is Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s opposition. Damon Root, at Reason, summarizes Breyer’s case: “It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance.” Breyer fears that court-packing would undermine Court authority, and liberalism itself would suffer.

By “liberalism” I take Breyer to mean the order that is defined by the Constitution itself: separation of powers, basic rights, citizen control of government. And there is a way to save this kind of “liberalism”: fix the size of the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

The very opposite of court packing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary property rights

Landlords Defended, Sorta

Supreme Court, property rights, rent

In late June, the Supreme Court declined to end an unlawful CDC-enacted national moratorium on evictions.

Things have apparently changed. The court just ruled — in a 6-3 decision — that the “balance of equities” has tilted in favor of qualified deference to property rights and letting landlords try to financially survive.

Now it will be easier, or possible, for many beleaguered property owners to maintain properties — on which they depend for their livelihoods and tenants depend for things like heat as well as their residencies.

The three dissenters on the high court say that the “balance of equities” still tilts the other way, in favor of violating the property rights of landlords to help tenants unable or unwilling to pay the rent.

The court’s decision does not mention property rights. It does cite a 1972 precedent that cites other precedents “[requiring] Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.”

Of course, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority to violate individual rights at will — even if it uses exceedingly clear language to do so. The Constitution does not say it’s OK to violate the Constitution.

What now? 

Many landlords are still subject to state or municipal restrictions on evictions that this decision does not overturn. But the ruling may help them press for relief.

And we must hope that the U.S. Congress doesn’t get around to intelligibly re-revoking the rights of property owners.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary term limits

Term Limits or Death?

Supreme Court, packing

“The only responsible choice for Justice Breyer is to immediately announce his retirement,” contends Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, “so President Biden can quickly nominate the first-ever Black woman Supreme Court justice.”

Not merely pushing identity politics, Fallon is warning of the risk of “Democrats losing control of the Senate before a Biden nominee can be confirmed.” 

No retirement announcement yet from 82-year-old Stephen Breyer, who recently advised Democrats against court-packing. Having served on the High Court for the last 27 years, he is the oldest justice and second-longest serving.* 

“Democrats’ fears about Breyer come after [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg refused to heed calls from liberals and former President Barack Obama to step down,” notes Forbes, “which ultimately resulted in Trump appointing conservative-leaning Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed her when Ginsburg died in September.” 

It is painfully obvious: life terms at the highest court have produced gamesmanship — not on the Court, mind you, but in Congress, that cesspool of even longer tenure where our supposed representatives do anything but.

And why allow personal circumstances or the vagaries of death to decide such potentially critical matters in our republic? 

To prevent politicians from politicizing the Supreme Court of the United States, put the number of justices (9) into the Constitution and term-limit those justices to a single 18-year term. No renomination. With nine justices, cycle one out and a new one in every two years. 

There are other matters to consider and settle. Do so in constitutional form, so the whole country is engaged and the Court is hereafter more secure and independent of that branch most in need of term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * On the all-time Supreme Court longevity list, Breyer thus lags ten places behind Justice Clarence Thomas, who has served 10,767 days on the court and currently ranks 16th.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Constitutionalize the Court

Supreme Court, court packing

“To undo the damage Republicans did by stealing multiple Supreme Court seats,” argues Demand Justice, “we should immediately add seats to the Supreme Court and appoint justices who will restore balance.”

“Stealing”? That’s hyperbolic, to say the least. The Senate used its constitutional prerogative by refusing to approve President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 and four years later by swiftly voting to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The group’s proposal? Add four new justices. 

Facing a 3 to 6 justice deficit (Dem-nominated vs. GOP-nominated), many Democrats and groups like this one have settled on adding four.

For “balance.” 

Which means, to them, going from the minority to the majority.

And you thought Democrats weren’t good at math!

Last week, President Biden announced a commission to look into this “court packing” notion, as well as other possible changes to the High Court, including term limits. 

“My colleagues and I need not wait for the findings of a commission,” offered Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). It is “obvious,” he added, “we must expand the Supreme Court, before it’s too late.”

That is, before the next election or a resignation or tragic death of a single D-Senator might flip the Senate to Republican control. 

“Adding seats is straight-forward and easy,” reminds Demand Justice, correctly explaining that the Constitution specifies no number, “so Congress can change it at any time.”

Yes, even with the slimmest of congressional majorities Democrats could completely re-make the High Court. Without a single Republican vote. 

A partisan takeover of the Supreme Court is way too “easy” — until we place the number of justices firmly in the Constitution, away from poisonous partisan politicians. 

It’s the most urgent reform of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Ghost of an Argument

Amy Coney Barrett, ACB, ,Supreme Court

On the 73rd anniversary of the birth of Hillary Clinton, the United States Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Clinton, the former Democratic presidential candidate, looms in the background of the issue as a sort of éminence grise, a specter of the politics of the left. Had she won in 2016, late luminary RBG would have been replaced by a progressive woman. Not ACB.

For what would have been Hillary’s, count ’em, third nomination.

Not a specter, or grisey eminence, is Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Joe Biden’s partner in procuring 2020’s big prize. 

“I’m on my way to the Senate floor to vote no on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Harris tweeted, yesterday. “Health coverage for millions of people hinges on who fills this seat. It’s clear that this nominee has the potential to do great harm to the American people.”

Note that this complaint has nothing to do with actual judicial qualifications. It has to do with a policy that Democrats insist upon: socialized medical billing. But as ACB made clear in the hearings, her judicial mindset is about legal process, as it should be, not government policy.

An hour later, candidate Harris asserted that Senate Republicans had “denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.”

Illegitimate?

Well, you see, “more than 62 million people have already voted.” That is it. Harris pretends that since there is an election next week, and some people have already voted, the normal, constitutional business of Congress should not go on.

Anything to rescue their broken policy, Obamacare. 

Next week’s election sure will have consequences, but ACB’s stint on the Court resulted from Hillary’s quite legitimate loss.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Biden’s Court-Packing Scheme

Joe Biden, Supreme Court, court packing, election, Democracy

Hold on! What scheme am I talking about?

Joe Biden hasn’t said that he agrees with other Democrats (including former Democratic presidential candidates) who propose that the U.S. Congress act to dramatically expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Joe Biden hasn’t said that at all. 

In his first and so-far-only debate with President Trump he refused to say, because if he did then that would become the issue.

“The issue is the American people should speak,” he said, and then turned to the camera. “You should go out and vote. . . . Vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. Vote now. Make sure you in fact let people know.”

Know what, precisely? To vote to allow a Democratic administration to seize control of the Court, overcoming any constitutional objections to his (or her) socialist schemes?

But then Biden turned against the voters, when asked on Friday, whether voters deserve to know where he stands on court-packing: “No, they don’t deserve” to know. “I’m not going to play his [Trump’s] game. . . .”

So, officially, we “don’t know” whether Biden supports packing the High Court the way FDR tried in 1937.

Do voters deserve better from Biden? 

They do not! 

O, those voters — always demanding to know positions and agendas and things. Playing right into the hands of the opposition. 

Come on, man! Ya gotta vote for the guy to know what’s in him.

I know what’s on your mind. You’re asking, “Are you saying that Joe Biden’s coy covertness toward the imposition of one-party authoritarian government exemplifies a crude disdain for voters’ legitimate desire to know what their vote will get them and is even more disqualifying than his stealth court-packing scheme?”

Please. Don’t put words in my mouth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Yes, We Can

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, RBG, Supreme Court

“She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not,” a visibly saddened President Trump offered reporters upon hearing that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had passed away. She had “led an amazing life,” he added.

Not amazing enough, however, to nudge Mr. Trump to wait and let the next president nominate Ginsberg’s successor — either himself or a coin toss between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris should Democrats win. 

That delay was reportedly the justice’s dying wish.

The president’s opponents would certainly prefer that, too, but Trump vows to quickly name his third High Court replacement. 

And why not? There is a vacancy; he has the constitutional power. 

Sure, Republican senators will be charged with hypocrisy. And accurately, because they blocked President Obama’s 2016 pick of Merrick Garland, claiming the voters should decide by choosing the “next president.” Just as Senate Democrats will be orating the opposite of what they said four years ago.

Hypocrisy is as close to half-right as folks in Washington ever seem to get.

But what should you want your so-called representative who currently takes up space in the U.S. Senate to do now?

Same as always: The right thing. 

Unfortunately, not likely. 

Always hyping violations of “democratic norms,” it may be the Democrats threatening (again) to blow up the democratic norm of a stable Court. In a Washington Post op-ed, attorney and journalist Jill Fillpovic urged Democrats to “pack the court” if Republicans move ahead in confirming a justice and Democrats win the White House and Senate this November. Though, she advises, “if they’re smart, Democrats will find a more palatable [term].” 

How about a more palatable approach than a Year Zero re-making of the SCOTUS every time party control of the White House and Senate changes?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary

Exhibit A+

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court,

“Do you really want me to rule the country?” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch pointedly asked CNN’s Ariane de Vogue.

“It is not a judge’s job to do whatever he or she thinks is good,” Gorsuch added, in response to her concern that judicial activism might sometimes be “needed.” 

“We wrote a Constitution; we put down what we wanted to put in it,” explained President Trump’s first SCOTUS pick. “We can amend it when we wish, and it is not up to nine people to tell 330 million Americans how to live.”

Gorsuch is making the media rounds promoting his new book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It — borrowing Ben Franklin’s famous quip when asked about what form of government the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention had produced. 

Gorsuch follows the judicial philosophy of originalism, criticizing interpretations that jigger the Constitution with the times. “You know, the living Constitution is going to take your rights away,” the justice argues, “and it’s going to add ones that aren’t there.”

And defending the rights actually in the Constitution means, Gorsuch believes, that judges must enforce limits on government. Last weekend in The Wall Street Journal, Kyle Peterson noted that Gorsuch has been true to that mission, pushing back against the High Court’s longtime deference to the administrative state. 

This philosophy puts him beyond partisanship. “Gorsuch voted with liberal justices on important decisions on surveillance and sentencing,” Jonathan Turley writes in The Hill. “He also joined in key decisions supporting free speech against the government. . . .”

All this makes Neil Gorsuch the best justice on the Supreme Court. Perhaps the best in my lifetime. 

And surely Exhibit A in Mr. Trump’s case for reelection.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts