Aggregated From: The Federalist
Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh, They Fear The Constitution
The other day Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Israel to receive an award for her commitment to tikkun olam (“to heal the world,”) a spiritual concept that progressive Jews have wholly distorted so that their malleable religious views can now be indistinguishable from their Leftist orthodoxy. It’s the sort of convenient alteration that allows traditions to be subsumed by the vagaries of contemporary politics.
So it is also with an increasing number of Democrats and the Constitution; a document they believe should bend to the will of their policy preferences rather than preserve legal continuity, limited government, individual liberty or enlightenment ideals.
Sure, some of the anger aimed Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is partisan bluster meant to placate the activist base. Still, most Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking. For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool – forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, stripping them of due process when it’s convenient, and so on — that’s a big problem.
Some, like former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, indulged in the histrionic rhetoric we’ve come to expect in the Trump era. claiming that Kavanaugh would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” But almost none of the objections coming from leading Democrats were, even ostensibly, about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a jurist or, for that matter, with his interpretation of the Constitution.
“Specifically,” prospective presidential candidate Kamala Harris argues, “as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Surely the former Attorney General of California comprehends that “health care” is not a constitutional right, but rather a policy concern whose contours are still being debated, and probably will be for decades, by lawmakers.
What Harris probably means is that Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the practice of forcing Americans to buy products in the private marketplace against their will. Kavanaugh, incidentally, upheld Obamacare as an appellate judge for jurisdictional reasons even though it displeased him on policy grounds (he wrote that the law was without “principled limit.”) He did this because he has far more reverence for the law than Harris.
Leading presidential contender Bernie Sanders, whose collectivist doctrine clashes directly with Constitution’s goal of restraining the state and empowering the individual, worried about “workers’ rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection and gun safety.” He should.
Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a critic of Chevron deference, the practice that allows administrative agencies to ignore their charge and have free rein to interpret statutory authority in virtually any way they please. Few things undermine the socialist agenda more than limiting our regulatory agencies’ ability to lord over the economic decisions of Americans.
Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another potential presidential hopeful, says Kavanaugh “can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.” To “safeguard” the rights of women means keeping abortion legal on the federal level, without any genuine restrictions. While invented rights are sacramental, other precedents, like stopping the “flow of corporate money” – which is to say, the right of free expression codified by the Citizens United decision – should be conveniently discarded. There is absolutely no guiding principle to any of this other than political preference.
It seems to me that with another originalist justice we inch closer to a time when the majority of the Left will simply dismiss the court as an antiquated impediment to progress. We already see this happening. Not only from progressives, but from supposed moderates. It’s why flip-flopping partisans like Ezra Klein are now lamenting the “anti-democratic” position of the court. By “anti-democratic,” he doesn’t mean the court had legalized abortion or gay marriage without the consent of states, but rather that it has recently stopped the federal government from compelling individuals to act in ways he, and many others, approve of.
Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics or progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to Barack Obama, who in 2008 promised to nominate justices who shared “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” The Left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their own worldview.
Of course there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. Of course all justices aren’t political on all issues – nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the Left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And it’s why the Left is about to go nuts again.