| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Supreme Court's days as a super-legislature are over, and Democrats aren't happy about it |
| 2018-09-06 |
| [Wash Examiner] On Day Two of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a number of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to be sizing themselves up for black judicial robes. If they weren’t doing that, they were lamenting the fact that someone of their own great wisdom couldn’t sit on the Supreme Court ‐ the highest legislature in the land, they seem to think ‐ and rule the country from their lifetime position. Democrats placed themselves one after another into Kavanaugh’s seat on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to second-guess rulings, which is only natural for those who think the courts are there to make policy decisions. Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., complained that Kavanaugh had, in an opinion on D.C. gun control laws, deemed that semi-automatic rifles are in "common use" and thus not, under Supreme Court definition, something the D.C. government could ban. Feinstein was weirdly outraged about this characterization, given that private citizens in the U.S. own something on the order of 50 or 60 million such rifles, and possibly more. Sen. Dick "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., complained that Kavanaugh had dissented from an emergency ruling that ended up rushing a minor migrant girl in the care of the U.S. government off to get an abortion without parental consent. Durbin also complained about Kavanaugh’s interpretation of a complicated Supreme Court case that had deemed illegal immigrant workers unable to vote in workplace unionization elections. For Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the problem was that Kavanaugh had written an opinion favoring two mergers in the grocery and health insurance industries. All these opinions about Kavanaugh’s rulings have one thing in common: They come from politicians who seem to think judging is a lot like what they do for a living. But judges don’t make policy, and the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature. That’s why a good judge who decides cases based on law and precedent will not like all the outcomes of the cases he hears. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #4 Yeah. But http://Moveon.org is raising lots of money off Kavanaugh from the idiots who actually believe he can be kept off the SCOTUS. |
| Posted by: Creling Pelosi3622 2018-09-06 17:48 |
| #3 Yep. Several federal circuits have been filled with non-legislative judges as well. Trump gets two terms and you can expect the most liberal circuits to get flipped as well. The left knows that it is the Supreme Court where the buck stops and Trump is ending that dream as well. If any libtard judges go down in the next 2 years expect full revolt and violence to keep the seats from being filled with a non-legislative judge. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2018-09-06 12:58 |
| #2 They DO think that legislating from the bench is what the Supreme Court does. After all, when you can't get things done democratically, you resort to the courts. Judges make political decisions and work backwards to justify them. Coming to an end, though, and don't expect them to like it one bit. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2018-09-06 12:36 |
| #1 Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., complained that Kavanaugh had dissented from an emergency ruling that ended up rushing a minor migrant girl in the care of the U.S. government off to get an abortion without parental consent. Durbin also complained about Kavanaugh’s interpretation of a complicated Supreme Court case that had deemed illegal immigrant workers unable to vote in workplace unionization elections. His first name is appropriate. |
| Posted by: gorb 2018-09-06 11:41 |