Washington Post Makes Case To Block Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee

Linda Hirshman thinks she’s being wise in stating why the Court needs to go to the left, but unintentionally makes the case for the GOP Senate to refuse to consent to any Obama nominee

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do

Nothing separated the odd couple of the Supreme Court — the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his best buddy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — more than their visions of the Constitution they both loved. Scalia saw the Constitution as a “dead” document, limited to the meaning of the original words at the moment the ink was dry, a moment when white, propertied men ruled. Ginsburg’s Constitution, by contrast, is the expansive charter of an evolving society. She celebrates “the extension (through amendment, judicial interpretation, and practice) of constitutional rights and protections to once ignored or excluded people: to humans who were once held in bondage, to men without property, to the original inhabitants of the land that became the United States, and to women.”

In other words, a liberal Court will rule by feelings and beliefs, rather than law and the Constitution. One which will manufacture “rights” out of the air, giving some people more rights than others. Hirshman yammers on for a long time about “inclusiveness”, as well as building up unions, removing all rules regarding abortion, and other measures, but, if you read between the lines, what we see is about using the Supreme Court to massively increase the power of the Federal Government over our lives, over our Free Speech rights, our ability to protest, our ability to practice our religion. It’s essentially a screed against the 1st Amendment, and, I’m sure if she had more time, against the other 9 original Amendments. Remember, the Bill Of Rights was never about what rights were assigned to citizens: it was about limiting the power of the Federal Government, telling it what it could not do.

An evolving view would diminish those limits on the federal government, perhaps even removing them. Lord knows, the federal government has worked hard to do this for a long time. A fully activist, hardcore Progressive court would do immense damage, and Democrat supporters should remember the old adage “be careful what you wish for. You might get it”, meaning these same losses of freedom could bit you in the rear.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Washington Post Makes Case To Block Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee”

  1. Jeffery says:

    In other my words, a liberal Court will rule by feelings and beliefs, rather than law and the Constitution.

    There, fixed it for ya’.

    It’s all politics. Scalia and his ilk cleverly used the “law” to justify his/their political decisions.

    The America we have today was built by 45 years of conservative SCOTUS rulings and 35 years of dominant conservative political policy. Corporate domination. Jobs overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Increased poverty. Deregulation.


    if you read between the lines,
    In my admittedly biased opinion…

    There, fixed it for ya’.

  2. John says:

    the ruling of a liberal court that the right fears most is a ruling on the gerrymandering of congressional districts
    That will be devastating to the GOP
    The way that they are divided up now is grossly unfair to Blavks and Hispanics
    Look at your own state to see how unfair it is
    In a statecthatvis about 1/2 dem they only get 3 seats

  3. John says:

    Liberal Congresses accepted conservative judges nominated by Republican POTUSs
    Why won’t GOP congress do the same for a dem POTUS ????

  4. Jeffery says:

    This ain’t rocket surgery. We get it. Far-right extremists want only far-right justices and will do anything to further their cause, including ignoring the Constitution.

    Paraphrasing Sam Bee, “Conservatives are wiping their asses with the Constitution they claim to cherish”.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    We get it. Far-right extremists want only far-right justices and will do anything to further their cause, including ignoring the Constitution.

    – the little guy who exaggerates often and likes to type ‘we get it’ and ‘There, fixed it for ya’.

  6. Jeffery says:

    … shortly after the inauguration, he argued that the Republican president should be given a free hand to shape the courts. At a June 26 Judiciary Committee hearing, he noted his long support for this principle. “My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate.” He added that the “appropriate role of the Senate is largely… to judge the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench.”

    — Senator Mi

  7. Jeffery says:

    sorry, the quote is from Senator Mitch McConnell in 2001

    I guess he’s “evolved” since then…

    It’s. All. Politics.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10569 access attempts in the last 7 days.