By which they mean apply it as written.
A good argument can already be made that the Constitution is heavily damaged, if not wrecked, by a string of liberal justices that have contempt for the law as written. The Constitution was not meant to be a "living" document with its life breath only being liberal causes. It wasn't meant to be a conservative one either. It was meant to be a law. The Supreme law of the land, but a law none the less. It no more has a penumbra or is subject to sweeping evolution than your local traffic ordinances are.
Indeed, people would regard a judge who held that a 30 mph speed limit was now a 40 mph speed limit as cars had evolved and therefore social concepts of speed. Or, perhaps more accurately, people would be horrified by a judge declaring that a 30 mph speed limit caused the judge to find that nobody could drive at all, as evolving social norms are headed towards less driving and the use of automobiles is dangerous to the planet. People might think those things, but we all know that if the law says the speed is 30 mph, that's what it is. For the most part interpreting the Constitution is only slightly more difficult than that.
But for decades now a liberal tilt on the court has allowed the justices of the Supreme Court to simply make up law when they chose, and they've come very near wiping out spelled out Constitutional rights that don't fit the liberal world view. That's trampling on the Constitution, and at some point an instrument that's trampled on enough is wrecked by the foot traffic.
Liberal politicians know that Kavanaugh is likely to return the court to where it has not been for decades. . . five justices who will read and apply the law whether they like it or not, and leave it up to the voters to change the law if they don't like it. Liberals fear that as they have general contempt for the electorate and would prefer that law be imposed by a learned liberal band.
The irony of all of this is that a written Constitution itself came out of just such a scenario. The drafters of the Constitution had historical experience and memory of the recent period of English politics in which the unwritten English constitution was changed by fiat. Henry VIII had put the English church into schism due the church's denial of his aim to dump his wife, deciding the religious fate of an entire nation without the common man's vote. That would change again and again over the next few decades leaving a situation in which the rights of religious minorities would be totally repressed even to the point that the adherents of the original Faith were lucky to be regarded as third class citizens. The framers wanted a democracy, but they wanted a governing law that covered as much of its powers as possible and purposely decreed that the states, to which they were reserving the balance of power, must do the same. The hope was that a written constitution, unlike the vague British concept of an unwritten constitution, might better hold up to the times. It generally has.
But it hasn't perfectly. There have been a lot of things that liberal politicians have found that people oppose, and some specifically spelled out rights that people support, that they disdain. Therefore they've come to vest their trust not in the people, and not in the legislatures, but in the court, which they've heavily influenced over the years.
Now they fear that the court might revert to its actual role.
They shouldn't, as at some point a dictatorial court, and there could be a right wing one, politically, just as easily as a left wing, can turn around and oppress you. And that's worth recalling.
The Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, a progressive beacon in his day and a real bad guy. And, in temperament, the sort of judge that Schumer and his pals would advocate for, even though they don't realize it.
No comments:
Post a Comment