This has been a stunning week and it’s only Wednesday.  The full consequences of the 2016 election finally appear to be descending on Democrats.  It isn’t why they’ve become fully unhinged, but it can only escalate the madness.

First were the defeats in the Supreme Court over Trump’s travel ban and mandatory union dues for public employees.  At 5-4 decisions on both, it was Gorsuch who was critical.  Under normal circumstances, the travel ban should have been a 9-0 decision in favor of the president’s authority to restrict travel from terror-prone nations, but it’s the Trump Era.  So, you know.

I don’t disagree.  Sotomayer’s dissent was a rant that was about as poorly thought out as my typical blog post. It was also shorter than some of my rants about Star Wars.

It came down to whether or not the president has the authority to restrict travel from any country using the power granted to him by law.  He does.

That’s right.  In America, your feelings don’t count.  The law does.  You can hate what Trump does, fear what he wants to do, and protest as you must but Trump is enforcing the law and it’s only because he was elected to appoint Gorsuch that the rule of law is still held above the personal feelings and politics of certain judges.

One of the most interesting facets of this decision was Justice Thomas’s grumbling about the over-broad power of district courts to behave as super-presidents who can veto anything the actual president does.  As I read it, he’s sending a very clear warning to certain Hawaiian federal judges that if they don’t rein this practice in, SCOTUS will do it for them at the first opportunity.

If this happens, the Resistance will lose a powerful weapon that it has been applying to stall Trump’s agenda.

The current Court won’t last much longer in its current composition with the next bit of shocking news.  Justice Kennedy is retiring and with him goes the end of unpredictability in the most controversial Supreme Court decisions.  He was always a “conservative” justice, but you never knew which way he would go.  His replacement, who will doubtlessly be swiftly nominated and pushed through the Senate, will be more, shall we say, reliable.  Reliably originalist, constitutionalist, and fuckyourfeelingsist.

It’s not just about emotions with the liberal judiciary, but also politics.  The Court’s decision in Janus will have serious consequences for union donations to Democratic causes.  The liberal justices weren’t happy about it.  Can’t imagine why.

How much longer will Breyer or Ginsburg last?  Or even Sotomayer, with her health problems?  The horror Democrats are experiencing over Kennedy’s retirement is a whisper compared to what a true, permanent realignment of the Court’s ideological balance will do once a liberal justice retires on Trump’s watch.

I mean, the threat that Obama would get such a shift by replacing Scalia and that Clinton would get to fill one or two future vacancies was enough to lead millions of Republicans to vote for Trump who otherwise might not have.

What will it do to Democrats when President Donald J Trump is building the Supreme Court in his own image, especially when they’re already adopting mob tactics, screaming and tweeting “FUCK” everything at every opportunity, and experiencing a dwindling faith in American institutions as the Court sides with Trump and the Blue Wave diminishes.

I’m not mocking anybody today.  Maybe I’d be half-crazed too if Clinton had won and was on the verge of appointing a 6-3 liberal majority on the Court with either Garland or somebody she picked replacing Scalia, a justice to replace Kennedy, and maybe replacing Ginsburg and Breyer with younger justices who would ensure a liberal majority for the next generation.  It’s thinking of that scenario that has me being more measured in my cheefulness than I might otherwise be.

Of course, all of these happenings are coming at the worst time.  The Left is already on the verge of embracing complete lawlessness and, worse, its loony behavior is going to hurt the Democrats in the midterms, particularly if anybody gets hurt between now and then because of it.

As much as I would like to see the GOP maintain control of the House (the Senate should be a given) after 2018, I am already dreading the possibility that it will and because of it, the Left will still refuse to bury its anger and work toward the common good.  Will it accept the outcome of the 2016 election and put these paranoid Russia fantasies to bed?  Will it quit running on fury and put postitive policy positions on the forefront of its platform?

I’m not confident.  By now, all of those changes should have come, but Democrats are still in an incoherent and largely impotent rage.  I don’t have much reason to think they’ll embrace anything but the rule of the mob, anarchy, and intimidation.

They want to fight Trump but Trump is the law.

newest oldest
Notify of

Sotomayor’s dissent is crystal clear evidence of why she should have never sat on any bench, let alone the Supreme Court. She flat out stated that she was not dissenting based on the text of the executive order, or the law. She should be impeached.

Can that really be done? waht are the requirements.?

Zurvan

Can that really be done? waht are the requirements.? Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House in 1804, and acquitted by the Senate. Ironically, he was impeached because they thought he ruled based on his political ideology instead of the rule of law (they viewed it as an attack on the Constitution itself). What the hell would the Congressional members then think of the liberals on the court today? It’s essentially the same process as the President or any other Federal office as outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution. The House decides to Impeach, and… Read more »

Zurvan

The Left (including Democrats in office) seems to be railing en mass against the nomination of a replacement for Kennedy based on the grounds of the Senate holding off the nomination of that idiot Obama nominated. They appear to be missing the point that the President nominates the person, and the President isn’t up for re-election this year. Regardless of what we think about Obama’s nomination to replace Scalia, the situations are not the same. They didn’t tell Obama to hold off on nominating Kagan in August of 2010, less than 3 months before the mid-terms. I don’t recall anyone… Read more »

CMNZ

Regarding the SCOTUS ‘anti-union’ decision – I wanna go on record again making it clear that I strongly oppose compulsory unionism. IMHO it’s a RIDICULOUS concept. We got rid of it years ago here in NZ.

CMNZ

At 5-4 decisions on both, it was Gorsuch who was critical.

In the alternative universe which way did Garland vote on them? 😉

The good news is, Trump has the opportunity to pick somebody relatively young. Most of the current crop of Justices, however good they may be, are past retirement age.

CMNZ

As an outsider it seems very strange that the most significant decisions in a country are largely determined by whichever team had the right amount of power at the right (random) time.

CMNZ

This would seem the ideal time for North Korea to upgrade a nuclear research facility.

I wanna go on record again making it clear that I strongly oppose compulsory unionism. The issue was not “compulsory unionism”, it was whether unions could charge non union members dues as if they were union members. There is a lot of misinformation going around about this decision, like it will somehow destroy the middle class or will be the demise of all unions, ridiculous. In the past, unions have served a vital role in securing better working conditions and better benefits for it’s members, nothing has changed in this regard. Now they have to dance for their dinner. If… Read more »

What will it do to Democrats when President Donald J Trump is building the Supreme Court in his own image This is most definitely not true, and it’s bigly to Trump’s credit. The judges and justices Trump is appointing are not populist, outcome-focused blowhards, they are, to a person, constitutionalist, textualist, classic judicial conservatives. A Trump version of a Harriet Miers nomination is almost inconceivable at this point. Trump knows where his bread is buttered, that a fundamental pillar of his support comes from conservatives who laud his approach to the SCOTUS. He deserves massive credit for the open and… Read more »

CMNZ

Wasn’t one of Trump’s explicit pre-election promises that he’d appoint anti abortion judges? How does that differ from having an anti death penalty judge?

CMNZ

But if a judge is picked explicitly because they’re anti-abortion and anti-gun control, doesn’t that make a mockery of what follows? Sure you can always just claim each time that their subsequent decisions ‘are consistent with the Constitution’, but that’s surely going to ring very hollow. They’re being primarily picked to make certain decisions on certain things. The Constitution seems secondary. Which is what you’re complaining about.

I wonder if the new judge will be subjected to the one-on-one ‘pledge loyalty’ talk with Trump.

CMNZ

You’re too focused on a justice’s positions. It’s irrelevant.

Is it though, when Trump repeatedly and explicitly promises in an election campaign that he will appoint anti-abortion and anti gun control judges (and presumably will do so, purely for political reasons)?
Come on now.

CMNZ

Right, they’ll use their “originalist” beliefs to bring about making abortion harder or illegal, and to stop any further gun control. They are chosen based on the result they will achieve, and how they get there is secondary. That’s basically the problem with any democratic institution anywhere in the world. I’m not sure I agree with that. I haven’t really seen any of that here. if it does exist, it’s somewhere deep behind the scenes. But then I guess most things like abortion and the death penalty are well settled. The issue was not “compulsory unionism”, it was whether unions… Read more »

CMNZ

Richard Rorty, Achieving our Country, 1998

CMNZ

BTW Trump University was the best of both worlds – you got a degree and there’s no chance of you ever being accused of being an “expert” in anything.

%d bloggers like this: