Wednesday, September 5, 2018

The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination: The Rule of Law or the Rule of Man

We are uncertain how the judge will vote in specific cases on specific issues, but we have a fairly good idea, as we did with the recent nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Are you Pro Choice or Pro Life? Pro Life yea and Pro Choice no. Are you for or against environmental protection? If for, then no and if against yea. How about gun control? In favor, then no. If against, then yes. Illegal immigration? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. The Chevron Doctrine? If in favor of keeping, then nay. If against, then aye. Are you in favor of capital punishment, or against it? If in favor, then yea and against, no. How about affirmative action? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. Are you opposed to a nominee described as “friendly to big business or hostile to labor?” Then nay How about diversity in universities? Do you want diversity on the Supreme Court, or are you satisfied with Harvard and Yale? Do you want a liberal justice or conservative justice? Republican or Democrat? None of these are the right questions. Another round of ObamaCare? What about antitrust? Haven’t thought about that one? All these questions and answers mean you want a political justice who will ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The question is if you believe in the Rule of Law or the Rule of Man? The Rule of Law means we are all equal under the law. The United States was founded on the Rule of Law. It’s called the Constitution The law, the Rule of Law, is the glue that holds society together. Faith to the Constitution has held our republic together for 229 years, but it’s starting to fray. The alternatives to the rule of law are anarchy, despotism, or mob rule, none of which follows the rule of law. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires all federal and state judges to take an oath to support the Constitution. Members of Congress also take an oath to the Constitution. The oaths are to the rule of law – not to an individual or organization. Obviously some judges and justices ignore their oaths, believing the Constitution is a living constitution, which they can change as they deem fit to pursue their notions of social justice. Many progressives would like the Supreme Court to be a mirror image of the activist Ninth Circuit, which does feel bound by the Constitution or laws. A constitution which can be rewritten by activist judges is not a constitution or even a roadmap. It is meaningless. The Bill of Rights will no longer be a safeguard of the people against the government. We are experiencing a breakdown of the rule of law. Antifa often resorts to violence against those it disagrees with. Conservative speakers and voices are silenced on compass, often with the tacit agreement of administrators. Protestors against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh attempted to break up the confirmation hearing, an example of mob rule. Would you prefer a Senate hearing on the merits and substance or one of theatrics, histrionics, talking points and hissy fits?

No comments: