Their Concept Is Correct, The Patriotism Is Lacking

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about some recent comments by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin.

The article reports:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was pressed on this “dilemma” that Democrats face as the 2018 midterms approach during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Staying united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you red state senators. Not fighting it as hard might allow the red state senators to get re-elected and get Democrats in control of the Senate. That’s your dilemma,” host Chuck Todd posited on Sunday.

Durbin conceded that it is a dilemma “in one respect,” but made that case for how it is a trade off Democrats are willing to make.

“It is a dilemma in one respect, but not in another. I will tell you, the men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously. They understand it’s an historic decision. It’s about more than the next election,” he said, adding that the issue is about setting the future course for the country.

The balance on the Supreme Court has been slightly left on social issues because of the views of Justice Kennedy. Replacing Kennedy with a conservative justice who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land might change the court for generations. That might change many things. The main thing the Democrats are worried about is Roe v. Wade.

In 2013 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting comment about Roe v. Wade (article here):

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

What the frantic pro-abortion people are not telling you is that overturning Roe v. Wade would not end abortion–it would simple give the states the right to decide the issue for themselves (in accordance with the Tenth Amendment) as was the case before 1973.

What the hysteria over this judicial pick illustrates is that we have wandered from the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government–they were not elected and theoretically had little power–they did not make laws–Congress did. In 1803 Marberry v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, and the courts assumed power they were never intended to have. It is telling that American law students do not study the U.S. Constitution–they study case law.

President Trump has every right to have his nominee for the Supreme Court approved. Hopefully the Democrats will respect that right. Candidates should be judged on their qualifications–not their politics. Democrats pushed through some very left wing judges under President Obama after invoking the nuclear option. The Democrats demanded that the Republicans vote on qualifications rather than politics. It’s time for the Republicans to demand that same courtesy from the Democrats.

One Decision, But Not Really A Resolution Of The Issue

In 2012, Jack Phillips refused to bake a wedding cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig. In 2012. Same sex marriage was not legal in Colorado, and the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the issue. It was a very different time. The State of Colorado charged Mr. Phillips with discrimination, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled today. The Washington Times posted the story today.

The article in The Washington Times reports:

Mr. Phillips had argued as a Christian, he could not be forced to create a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple, citing his First Amendment rights, though he said he offered to sell one of his standard cakes to them.

Colorado said his refusal broke the state’s public accommodation law prohibiting businesses from refusing service to anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation and national origin.

During proceedings before the state’s civil rights commission one commissioner complained that freedom of religion had been used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” The commissioner called Mr. Phillips‘ beliefs “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric.”

Justice Kennedy said those statements undermined the state’s case against Mr. Phillips.

The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Mr. Phillips. The two judges who ruled against Mr. Phillips were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. Phillips is essentially a cake artist. The question becomes whether or not a person can be forced to use his art for something he fundamentally disagrees with. Artists are usually commissioned. If the charges against Mr. Phillips were allowed to stand, does that mean that an artist does not have the right to refuse to do a commissioned work? I think that is the ultimate question–does a person running a business have the right to choose their clientele?

This Is What Civility Looks Like

Yahoo News posted an article yesterday that included the following statement from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about the death of Justice Scalia:

Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

Politically, you could not have found two people that were more ideologically opposed, yet they respected each other and were good friends.That is a wonderful example that I wish all of those in government (or aspiring to be in government) would follow.