The Supreme Court is Broken
by Louis D. Thorpe
The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court threatens to challege the timeless legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and places the legitimacy of the court in jeopardy.
Republicans think that the appointment of a conservative ideologue like Barrett can be used to bypass the will of the people and give the Supreme Court the opportunity to do their dirtywork, (like repeal the Affordable Care Act) and that is certainly a blatant attempt to do no less than to corrupt the judicial process for political purposes.
It is time for the myth that democrats have the right to appoint liberal judges and republicans have the right to appoint conservative judges, to die. In fact, a judge is supposed to be intelligent AND competent, not liberal or conservative, and that is only distinction that matters.
The hypocrisy of the "night and day" predictable appointment of 'Little Scalia' has been widely condemned by every knowledgeable, legal commentator, including Jeffrey Toobin, who citicized (October 12, 2020) the '180 degree' contrast between Barrett and Ginsburg in the following terms;
"By confirming Amy Barret they are undermining absolutely everything that Ruth Ginsburg stood for -and -and you know who thought that? Ruth Ginsburg. Ruth Ginsburg understoosd the stakes of this nomination. That's why she wanted this put off until the next election. Whether it's abortion, whether it's gay rights, whether it's voting rights, whether it's civil rights, -eveybody knows that she and Anthony Scalia were great friends, but on controvesial issues they voted against each other all the time and Amy Barrett as she vey explicitly said is a protege and a follower and a believer in Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy -so that the idea that it is somehow an honor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg to see Amy Barrett nominated to replace her is just an obscene revocation of histoy -I mean they could not be more different."
The fact that Barrett is motivated to undo Ginsberg's legacy sets the stage for a serious confontation between people who are grateful and reliant about the human rights Justice Ruth Ginsbug championed and expanded and the lunatic fringe obsession to take them all away through politically bulldozed tactics that clearly ignore the will of the majority.
The history behind the conflict between those who take away rights and those who fight to grant or to restore them is ideological, it is not judicious, and when that is the case, the majotity always wins because in the final analysis, history and justice trumps bigoty and hatred, one way or the other.
Amy Coney Barrett subscribes to the Scalia legacy, which means that she would intepet the Constitution in the terms that its framers back in the 18th century understood it, and this static, originalist approach which denies the opportunity to apply rights and the privilleges in the Constitution to everybody, means that judges like Ginsberg support things like same sex marriage whereas people with restrictive views pretend that is acceptable to deny human rights that intellectual growth and awareness inevitably grant. It is simply not appopriate to restrict the 'good trouble' freedoms that are still being challenged for politically motivated reasons.
Like most people, Ginsberg believed that we must expand rights and liberties in the Constitution to fit the dilemmas of the day. The theories that ideologues like Scalia and Barrett champion and embrace mask ignorance and bigotry through the veneer that the rule of law is applied, but the poof that it is extremely biased, selective and unequal is in the pudding.
The homophobic and hysterical Scalia claimed that democracy was under threat when he delivered his ascerbic, 2014 dissent opposing same-sex marriage, and the nature of his argument betrays his peculiar ideology rather clearly, in his own words;
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as 'due process of law' or 'equal protection of the laws'—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification."
That's Scalia's "contextual interpretation" practice.
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote: “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”
To which Scalia responded:
"(Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."
The bizarre ideology behind Scalia's ascerbic rants exposes eveything.
We all miss Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, don't we?
With a staight face, Amy Coney Barrett claims that she will apply the law as it is written, but if she was in fact intelligent enough to understand what that means she would be Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Next: For the first time in history, the Supreme Court is absolutely irrelevant without Ruth.
Look who's talking It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox. Message Board -Click Here !