NY Times: Kavanaugh Wouldn’t Represent The Will Of The Majority Or Something

There are plenty of other hot takes at the NY Times alone, such as the editorial board finding that Kavanaugh should not be voted to the Court because he got mad and upset during the hearings where he defended himself from scurrilous, false allegations. This is the same editorial board which hired a confirmed racist in Sarah Jeong, and went forward when the allegations were proven. Then you have Michelle Goldberg claiming a cover up in the FBI report which Democrats demanded.

But the one by Michael Tromsky, who is a very far left Progressive/Socialist, takes the cake

The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis
It’s not about Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority.

Test your Supreme Court knowledge: In the entire history of the court, exactly one justice has been

a) nominated by a president who didn’t win the popular vote and

b) confirmed by a majority of senators who collectively won fewer votes in their last election than did the senators who voted against that justice’s confirmation.

Who was it?

If you’re like me, your mind started leapfrogging back to the 19th century. After all, this sounds like one of those oddities that was far more likely to have happened when our democracy was still in formation. (snip)

No — it turns out you don’t have to go back very far at all. The answer is Neil Gorsuch.

Donald Trump won just under 46 percent of the popular vote and 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. And Mr. Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote of 54-45. According to Kevin McMahon of Trinity College, who wrote all this up this year in his paper “Will the Supreme Court Still ‘Seldom Stray Very Far’?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America,” the 54 senators who voted to elevate Mr. Gorsuch had received around 54 million votes, and the 45 senators who opposed him got more than 73 million. That’s 58 percent to 42 percent.

And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh soon, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed, respectively, by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.

And he goes on and on and on and on regarding this line of thought feelings. Which misses the point that Supreme Court is not there to represent the will of the majority, but to determine Constitutionality and rules of law. Equal justice for all. Not be mouthpieces for who got the most votes.

Further, Trump did receive the most votes per the way the Constitution lays out the election of the president. The Senators who voted for Gorsuch received the majority of individual votes in their state races to win their seats. It doesn’t matter how many Dianne Feinstein may have received in California vs how many Richard Burr received in North Carolina.

And, we should never forget that there are ways and means to protect the minority in Congress, the legislative branch, up to a point. We do not live in a majority rules nation.

These illogical, illiberal, anti-Constitution, Trump Derangement Syndrome (would be the same if Rubio, Jeb!, Cruz, or some other Republican won the presidency, though, perhaps the derangement would have been a 9/10 instead of a 13/10) infused Democrats should be pissed at Hillary for her campaign season failures, and, just suck it up. Trump’s president. Get over it.

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

9 Responses to “NY Times: Kavanaugh Wouldn’t Represent The Will Of The Majority Or Something”

  1. Jethro says:

    As has been pointed out many times, this is a result of the GOP long game of how a minority rules a majority. The GOP is smarter and more stable than the Dems, who flit from issue to issue. The Repubs set out years ago to suppress votes, gerrymander districts – to work from the ground up, district by district, state by state, taking the necessary time to construct their system.

    Feinstein (D-CA) has 39,000,000 constituents, Barasso (R-WY) has fewer than 300,000, yet their votes count the same. The GOP plays the system better than the bumbling Dems.

    They rule statehouses, Congress, SCOTUS and the White House, and will continue to increase their power by law.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      1. Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans.

      2. Three of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts are in North Carolina.

      3. Indiana and Nevada stand out as states with the least amount of gerrymandering.

      4. Maryland and North Carolina are essentially tied for the honor of most-gerrymandered state.

      From what I see here it seems like both parties are fully and squarely involved in gerrymandering and in fact democrats won districts the GOP gerrymandered. Strange that.

    • formwiz says:

      Some day little Jeffery will actually sit down and read the Constitution of the United States and maybe, maybe, figure out that one house of Congress was to represent the people proportionately and one was to represent the states equally.

      And, of course, little Jeffery conveniently forgets 7 million fraudulent votes were cast last time, so Trump probably did win the popular vote, but who cares since the Beast’s “husband” never won the popular vote, either.

    • McGehee says:

      Which is why the Democrats hate laws.

  2. Mangoldielocks says:

    IF they ever rid this nation of the Electoral College there will be civil war and this nation will divide into three separate nations. I would never abide personally the tyranny of the majority who reside in 5 states lording it over the other 45 states.

    The entire fuking constitution was written to deny TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

    checks and balances to keep the government looking out for EVERY AMERICAN with no institution MORE POWERFUL THAN the other. Today we have a government in disarray which then turns to the supreme court for a decision forcing them to make political legal rulings.

    WRONG. This was never intended. The legislature makes laws, both bodies pass the law and is signed or vetoed by the president. If someone thinks that law passed with the will of the republic is deemed unconstitutional then it is taken to the supreme court to rule on the validity of the law within the confines of the constitution.

    NOT….we can’t agree on everything therefore we will take every thing to the supreme court and make them decide. Wrong.

    but because the tripod strategy of the democrats is legislate, litigate and regulate then the supreme court becomes uber important and very political. in order to pass their agenda into law they litigate which goes to the supreme court. They regulate which goes to the supreme court and they legislate which ends up in the supreme courts lap.

    They democratic party has a plan and that plan most certainly is the necessity of a packed supreme court with leftist judges to keep their tripod strategy viable.

  3. Bill589 says:

    Leftists lie as always:
    Hillary won the popular vote.
    Donald won the legal popular vote.

    • Dana says:

      As was the case in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote, the entirety of Mrs Clinton’s popular vote plurality came from California. Mrs Clinton received 65,853,514 total votes to 62,984,828 for Mr Trump, a margin of 2,868,686 votes. In the Pyrite State, Mrs Clinton won 8,753,788 to 4,483,810, a margin of 4,269,978. In the other 49 states, Mr Trump won 1,401,292 more votes than Her Inevitableness.

      California, the state of my birth, has descended into utter madness. The government values illegal immigrants over American citizens, homosexuals over normal people, and the mentally ill over people who know what sex they are. If the Big One came, and threw the Pacific seaboard into the ocean, the state would be much improved.

  4. Dana says:

    One of us wonders whether Mr Trotsky Tromsky was similarly appalled when Sonia Sotomayor said, in effect, that her votes would be determined by the fact that she is an unwise Latina and not a white male.

    No, he probably liked that.

    It would be unChristian of me to hope that Justice Ruth Ginsburg is suddenly called to her eternal reward, and President Trump then nominates Amy Comey Barrett to replace her, so I won’t hope that. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_unsure.gif

  5. Rodney Stanton says:

    This is the same America hate “news” paper that the KGB front Pulitzer awarded the Pulitzer Prize for KGP propaganda reported as “news” by the KGB agent Duranty in ’32!

Pirate's Cove