Lex Anteinternet: Exercising the 1950 Soviet Option. So what should the Democrats do?

I just published this the other day:

Lex Anteinternet: Exercising the 1950 Soviet Option. Democratic bl...: S enate Republicans, as we recall, held up, or actually prevented, the vote on Barack Obama's final Supreme Court nominee. Now some..

So what should the Democrats do?  That is, assuming holding their breath and turning filibuster blue isn't the proper option.

Rediscovery the electorate and democracy would be a good start.

As a conservative textualist what Gorsuch will bring to the court is fairly simple.  It was the same thing, but perhaps a bit more so, than Scalia did. He'll bring intellectualism, which is needed on the Court (Justice Kennedy, are you listening?).  More than that, he'll bring something that's a simple proposition which is sorely needed.

And that's just this.  The law means what it says, nothing more, nothing less.  It means only what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less.  If you don't like it, go see your representation in Congress.

Shocking, I know.

Democrats really don't like this as they really don't like democracy much anymore.  They quite liking it sometime in the 1960s.  Around that time, misunderstanding the lessons of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which was to allow those who had been extended basic human (civil) rights to exercise them, they went on to discover new "rights" only  they could find.  Rights that "emanated from the penumbra" from the Constitution.  I.e., they made them judicially up.

That approach has been the liberal "progressive" approach for forty years and its done tremendous damage to the law and respect for the law.  It's also converted the Democratic Party from one that vigorously defended the franchise to one that's opposed to in a real sense.  It's made the party lazy as its come to rely on the courts to get what it wants, which also gives the court license to do what it wants.  Democrats who complain about what they perceive as right wing judicial activism have no real complaint, as they've already established the principal that its okay for the courts to just make stuff up.

Well, the court really isn't the body of Plato's enlightened rulers and most people don't really want to be ruled on social issues by nine elderly lawyers.

So the lesson there is that the Democrats need to relearn to pitch what they're pitching at the ballot box, and not in the courtroom.  Put another way, acting like President Obama did as a supporter of the traditional definition of marriage when first a candidate and then lighting up the White House in rainbow colors after the Supreme Court rules is, well. . . .chicken.

Conservative textualist are not the same as conservative jurists.  There are conservative jurists of other stripes.  Gorsuch will not be arguing for the straight application of the natural law, and while the natural law appeals to me, and did to the United States Supreme Court for many years, such a justice would truly be radical in context.  Gorsuch is far from that.

So, what should the Democrats do?  Participate and support him, and then, if they have a point go out and stump for it.