By David Harsanyi
Wednesday, December 09, 2020
The Supreme Court this week rejected a Republican bid to
undo the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania. No one on the
Court dissented — and “no one” includes the newest associate justice, Amy Coney
Barrett.
This is somewhat confusing when we consider that one of
the central accusations leveled against Barrett by Democrats and liberal
pundits was that she would — when not banishing cancer-stricken minority
children from hospitals — steal the election for Donald Trump (whose tweets
certainly did not help matters).
It was not just the typical adjective-laden melodrama
from Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern — a “sinister argument from Bush v.
Gore returns with a vengeance!” — or from New York magazine’s
Jonathan Chait, who confusingly asserted
that Trump’s tweets were a “confession that the Supreme Court has a serious
conflict of interest that prevents it from adjudicating any election case
fairly.” Barrett had no more a conflict of interest than the justices named by
Barack Obama who ruled on issues related to Obamacare, or the dozens of other
justices who have adjudicated cases involving the president who nominated them.
This was simply another new standard invented by people who are under the
impression the system exists solely to buttress their partisan goals.
Unable to smear Barrett as a sexual predator or as a
cultist, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats were left to either intimate or,
often, explicitly accuse Barrett of corrupt behavior. Nearly every senator
suggested the judge recuse herself from cases involving Trump, though they had
produced not a scintilla of evidence that she had promised him anything or ever
betrayed her ethical obligations or judicial philosophy for partisan reasons.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse — who, to be fair, may be off
his rocker — alleged that Barrett was a party to some kind of secret
corporatist “dark money” quid pro quo arrangement to steal the
presidency. “Republicans want to rush Barrett through in time to deliver what
could be the key vote on behalf of the president who chose her,” he wrote in an
op-ed for the Washington Post, where many columnists peddled similar
paranoia. Dana Milbank found
it “chilling” that Barrett told senators she would “need to hear arguments”
before offering an opinion on some far-fetched theoretical scenario concocted
by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. (Note:
Feinstein is no longer in this post, because she wasn’t hard enough on
Barrett, by her own colleagues’ standards.)
Whenever Republicans nominate justices to fill Supreme
Court vacancies, reporters adopt an anxious tone regarding the controversial
nature of the nominee and the partisan makeup of the Court. They never
seem alarmed by the prospects of liberal judges weakening constitutional
protections for their partisan allies — on free speech rights, religious
freedoms, and the Second Amendment, or what have you.
Without fail, though, they offer appeals to authority.
“In light of Trump’s public statements, it will reasonably appear to the public
that Trump offered [Amy Coney Barrett] the job with the implicit understanding
that just weeks later she would help him keep his,” claimed Stephen Gillers, an
“expert on judicial ethics” at New York University Law School in an interview
with the Washington Post. An “understanding” implies some consensual
acknowledgment. And yet Gillers, who knew well that the president makes many
outrageous claims on Twitter, offered no evidence of an existing arrangement.
That’s to say nothing of the fact that, if we’re to believe polls,
the public believed Barrett should be nominated by a healthy margin.
When a Pennsylvania election case ended up deadlocked 4–4
in the Supreme Court in October, Democratic senator Dick Durbin told reporters
that it “was a disturbing demonstration of what’s at stake if the Republicans
have their way and fill this vacancy.” Some people might find it more disconcerting
that a senator — the second-highest-ranking Democratic senator, at that —
functions under the assumption that the only virtuous outcomes in the Court are
ones that favor Democrats. Then again, the entire case against Barrett was mass
projection.
We already know that liberals like judges who ignore
constitutional rights and rely on “empathy” and race and wealth when making
their decisions — basically, undermining every judicial tenet of blind justice.
You will notice that every liberal above simply assumes Donald Trump should
lose every case he’s involved in, without seeing any evidence or knowing the
contours of the dispute. They all demanded that of Barrett publicly, without
her seeing a case. So make no mistake: It is Democrats who favor judges who
will deliver predetermined partisan outcomes.
The next time Republicans nominate a justice, maybe years
from now, they too will be tarnished as illegitimate or unethical or criminal —
and reporters will dutifully echo whatever accusations are floated by the Left.
And one day soon, when Barrett rules against some liberal infringement on
individual liberty, Democrats will dust off all these attacks.
Then, as is the case now, it will largely amount to
cynical political posturing. In reality, it isn’t Barrett’s alleged partisan
pliability that bothers them, but rather, the exact opposite: her adherence to
originalism, a judicial philosophy that undermines their partisan objectives.
After all, the attacks on Barrett say far more about them than they do about her.
No comments:
Post a Comment