Thoughts on judicial views


Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett set up a fascinating non-partisan litmus test that enticed others to reveal their beliefs about American institutions of government.

Should a judge, A) set policy or, B) simply decide whether a given law reaches beyond the limits agreed to by the states when they created our republic?

Barrett’s question is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” — labels journalists use to obscure the warped way political parties view our Constitution’s checks and balances.

Thirteen American colonies agreed to a Constitution that set up three branches of government with separate functions, powers, and limits:

• Representatives in the powerful Legislative Branch write laws to set policy and, so, are immediately held accountable by voters every two years.

• An Executive Branch charged with implementing those laws is held accountable every four years.

• But, since Supreme Court judges in the third branch have lifetime appointments, the Constitution severely restricts their ability to set policy.

That is, it did until recent activist judges expanded the Constitution beyond what was written on parchment.

Barrett is neither a “liberal” nor a “conservative” justice — as Democrats and their compliant media widely portray her. Democrats, without knowing how she would vote, paint her as anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and anti- any other judicial activism that Democrats support.

Despite what others claim, Barrett is humble enough to simply oppose black-robed tyrants setting policy. She’ll apply the Constitution, then decide.

Good for her. Good for the country. And good for President Donald Trump for nominating Barrett regardless how she might deal with policy issues should they come before her.

Which brings us to those politicians who oppose her nomination to the Supreme Court. They show either profound ignorance of our Constitution and/or an inclination to subvert it for their own immediate political ends. Some of them threaten to pack the Supreme Court to reach those selfish ends—a move that would threaten our two-hundred-year Great American Experiment.

The timely nomination of Barrett reminds us of other institutions being co-opted:

• We no longer vote for congress members to set policy in the House. Instead we vote for a House Speaker to rule as she alone deems.

• When we vote for a President, he fights an entrenched bureaucracy that secretly runs to the House to impeach for the flimsiest reasons.

• We don’t vote for an “intelligence community” so secretive it makes partisan decisions about who to investigate and what to cover up.

• We don’t vote for the mainstream media that regularly spins what it decides to write, peppered with adjectives, verbs, and clauses designed to sway us according to their personal opinions.

• Nor do we vote for the “reforms” politically correct educationists who, across fifty years, have been pushing programmed attempts to re-mold children away from the American institutions Barrett rightfully reveres.

Marshaling all her 20 years teaching law, justice, and principle, Amy Coney Barrett reminded Americans over her three days of testimony we need to preserve American institutions if we wish our children to enjoy the civic benefits our parents and grandparents bestowed on us.



No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here