Supreme Court

Liberals Are Super Sad About the Supreme Court. Good.

Kurt Schlichter, Townhall

The Democrats are lying on the ground, howling like banshees and wriggling around on their backs like cockroaches. But, despite their best efforts, they still have the potential of getting back on their feet again. Let’s not let that happen. Let’s kick them (figuratively) while they are down, win it all in November and in 2020, and not be satisfied until the Supreme Court is 9-0 for liberty.

The judicial mindset of Brett Kavanaugh

Cal Thomas, Washington Times

Rush Limbaugh had a good suggestion for Republicans. On his radio show, Mr. Limbaugh said Republicans should dispense with a lengthy confirmation process and visits by Judge Kavanaugh to the offices of individual senators (they know him because he has visited before during his previous confirmation) and get right to a confirmation vote. If Republicans stay unified and if they can pick off two or three Democrats who are up for re-election in states where Mr. Trump won handily in 2016, Judge Kavanaugh, with his stellar credentials, should be easily and properly confirmed.

Democrats’ Anti-Catholic Bigotry On Kavanaugh Will Cost Them In November

In the near term, months of televised Anti-Catholic bias from Democrats as they try to block the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh could solidify the Catholic voting trend demonstrated in the 2016 election, giving Republicans a huge advantage in the 2018 midterm and 2020 presidential elections.

What Kind of Supreme Court Will We Have Now?

Ben Shapiro, National Review

If there’s one proposition that distinguishes Kavanaugh from his more militant colleagues, it’s his unique capacity to write specific, detailed decisions that knock down trees while leaving forests intact. Kavanaugh’s opinions tend not to be ringing endorsements or rebukes of the Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas type; they tend to be narrowly tailored decisions that recall Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist. It means those waiting for the ground to shift when it comes to major decisions from the Court might be waiting in vain.

From a Kennedy to a Kavanaugh

George Neumayr, The American Spectator

Contrary to the carping of the Never Trumpers, who never give up a grudge, Trump can be discerning and magnanimous in moments of great consequence. He doesn’t let pettiness cloud his judgment and looks for quality wherever it exists. He takes his core presidential responsibilities seriously and has kept his campaign promise to choose judges from the Federalist Society list. He has given official Republican Washington more than it could have ever hoped for and yet some of its quarters still treat him shabbily. Trump decided to go with a seasoned jurist whom the Democrats can’t Bork but who could still push the court’s pendulum back to originalism. Kavanaugh looks like another Gorsuch.

The lesson for the Right: Trump picked a conservative judge because he had to

Editors, Washington Examiner

Trump provided his list and his promise because conservatives were willing to support him if he would make that promise, and to oppose him if he would not. Trump kept his promise because he suspects that still, many conservatives will support him for keeping it, and would oppose him if he broke it. The lesson is obvious. Conservatives should remain independent from the president and shouldn’t let the man determine their views, one way or another. The commentator or activist who gets on the Trump Train, and the one who declares he will never give any support both sacrifice their leverage.

Trump Appoints Kavanaugh Liberals Go Nuts

While liberals are going nuts making Judge Brett Kavanaugh out to be a rightwing ideologue, his record tells a different story of a judge committed to applying the law and the Constitution as written. That may be a radical idea to liberals and Democrats, but it is the view that held sway in our judiciary for almost 150 years.

Is a Trump Court in the Making?

Patrick J. Buchanan, Creators

Clearly, the advisers to George W. Bush and President Trump looked back at the successes and the failures of previous GOP presidents, and have done a far better job of vetting nominees. They reached outside for counsel. It was Trump's 2016 pledge to draw his nominees to the high court from a list of 20 judges and scholars supplied by the Federalist Society that reassured conservatives and helped him unite his party and get elected. On the issue of judicial nominees and justices to the Supreme Court, Trump has kept his word.

Why Should a Single Federal Judge Be Able to Make Law for the Whole Country?

John Fund, National Review

Confusion about the proper role of the courts extends to many of our sitting judges. Last month, while the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the so-called Trump travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas raised an issue that the next Supreme Court justice may have to weigh in on. Why is it, he asked, that a single federal district judge can impose an injunction blocking a presidential executive order in all 50 states even if none of his colleagues (599 district judges) thinks it’s a good idea?

Even abortion enthusiasts know Roe v. Wade is a legal abomination

Charles Hurt, Washington Times

The fact of so many 5-4 decisions lays bare the truly shocking and stunning reality that the high court has become infected by at least four Supreme Court justices who have no idea what they are doing. They have never grasped the Constitution. They have no understanding of the Separation of Powers. They are totally unaware of the limitations of their own powers. They are, to be blunt, constitutionally illiterate. So many 5-4 decisions simply means that there are at least four justices now on the court who think that the court — not the elected legislature — makes law.

‘Don’t You Dare Touch Roe!’ — Judicial Confirmation Silly Season Begins

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

Regardless of a jurist’s legal position on substantive due process, or of the jurist’s moral or policy positions on what it has wrought, Roe is part of a doctrinal edifice. To reach out and try to overrule it, particularly in a case in which it is not necessary to do so, would be seen as an attack on the entire edifice. The Supreme Court is not going to take that on. A more conservative Court would reject the promiscuous language of Justice Kennedy’s “liberty” musings and admonish that the polling station, not the courthouse, is the place for working out most clashes between the individual and society. It is not going to turn back the cultural clock.

Why the Preemptive Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett?

David Catron, The American Spectator

President Trump would be wise to ignore the preemptive Borking to which Judge Barrett is being subjected and nominate her to replace Justice Kennedy this afternoon. This will force the Democrats to publicly slander a well-qualified female nominee just before the midterms, when many voters are deciding how to vote. And it will also force Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Heidi Heitkamp to support her confirmation in an effort to save their Senate seats. Amy Coney Barrett will be the justice that keeps on giving.

The Irony of the Left’s Opposition to Barrett

George Neumayr, The American Spectator

The left’s visceral opposition to Barrett as a possible Supreme Court nominee makes for a curious spectacle: liberals screaming at Senate Democrats to keep an opponent of the death penalty off the Supreme Court, while many conservatives urge Trump to put her on it. In another era, the sides would be reversed. The Democrats have gone so far to the left that they can’t even tolerate pro-lifers who oppose the death penalty.

Trump Narrows SCOTUS Choices To Three

The nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice may be the most important decision of the Trump presidency and will define President Trump’s legacy for generations to come. We urge President Trump to choose a nominee who will be not just good, but great in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the potential nominee who most fits that profile is Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Roe v. Wade and the Confusion of Sen. Collins

William Murchison, The American Spectator

How useful to note Sen. Collins’ confusion between the abiding principles of law and the politics of the moment. It is a very modern kind of confusion, making the stakes in Supreme Court confirmation hard to discern. It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.

The inevitable search for the litmus test

Wesley Pruden, Washington Times

The size of the Republican majority in the Senate, such as it is — one vote, which the Republicans can afford to lose because Vice President Pence can break a tie — might tempt a senator such as Mzz Collins to hold a nomination hostage until she gets a nominee she thinks she can trust to vote her way. But there are several Democratic senators, on the run in the November elections, who could adjust their moral convictions in the interest of personal survival. That’s the genius of Mitch McConnell’s determination to hold a vote before the November elections.

The Supreme Court and the ‘Travel Ban’

Doug Bandow, The American Spectator

In Trump v. Hawaii the justices did their duty. I don’t like the policy result. But if our liberties are to be secure, the law and Constitution must mean something. They must be more than empty vessels into which the next Supreme Court appointee can pour his or her biases. Otherwise our liberties will be constantly at risk, dependent on the rule of men rather than of law.

Obama Minions Poised To Attack Iowa’s Conservative Senator Chuck Grassley

Obama has trained 40,000 Far Left agitators to disrupt Republican townhall meetings this summer. We encourage all our CHQ readers and friends in Iowa to attend Senator Grassley’s townhall meetings today and tomorrow to counter the Obama, Soros, Holder disruption planned by Indivisible Iowa.

Court Decisions Provide GOP With Midterm Rallying Cry

Caitlin Huey-Burns, Real Clear Politics

The high court's ruling upholding the travel ban, along with another equally narrow decision overturning a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide patients with abortion literature, underscored the consequences of elections. And given recent voting patterns, Republicans feel they’ve been given a rallying cry for the November elections. Tuesday’s focus on the Supreme Court also highlighted for voters the large number of federal judge vacancies, and the impact party control of the presidency and Congress can have on lower courts across the country.

Justice Kennedy Retires: Beware The Souter Mistake

Justice Scalia was noted for upholding the rule of law, respecting the proper role of the judiciary, and acknowledging the separation of powers. Unlike Justice Souter, he was never sidetracked by trying to appease or please his progressive colleagues in their pursuit of political correctness over the constitutional rule of law.