Justices who actually believe in the Constitution are now a majority on the Supreme Court and could maybe hang in there for a couple of decades. And some leftists are scared to the point of wanting to redefine the institution into a mud puddle.
After all, it’s now going to be trickier for ideological supremacists to sidestep the rule of law, and yes, some of the proposed revisions would do just that. But the disabling project still must go on, the bold and dangerous say, and, if that requires an eviscerated republic, please understand that, in some minds, a more nagging issue is to assure unhampered, socialistic, big-government power.
The fear of the moment emanates largely from Brett Kavanaugh squeezing through Democratic mania to get on the court. The Democratic senators violated every other rule in the book in the early going as they kept the committee chairman from even completing a sentence. Then came the last-minute allegations, including the assertion that, 36 years ago, Kavanaugh as a teenager had attempted rape of a teenage girl.
The woman making the charge elicited sympathy with her surely sincere tearfulness, but she had been callously manipulated by political activists. A vital document was kept secret, the story did not add up and evidence was lacking.
Since the hearings, it has been maintained that Kavanaugh lied even though the particularities have been refuted to the degree possible. It is said we saw a terrible temperament in the last session, but imagine you and your family were standing at cliff’s edge, that a bevy of sword-swingers was closing in, that you were armed with just a stick and poked them occasionally. I am not horrified.
The fact is that Kavanaugh’s exemplary life and professionalism have been praised by just about everyone who has known him well and that he is nowhere near the extremist some pretend he is. In a sterling speech, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine made as much clear, noting that he had testified he would support rulings on gay marriage, Obamacare, Roe v. Wade and checks on presidential power. In his 12 years on the D.C. Court of Appeals, she observed, he had voted the same as Judge Merrick Garland 93 percent of the time.
Garland, of course, was President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee who did not even get a hearing from the Republican-controlled Senate for almost a year. And it’s not as if a 7 percent difference cannot be significant. But that hardly justifies a pronounced wish to impeach Kavanaugh, thus wrecking our checks-and-balances system. The Constitution allows the proceeding only for misdeeds committed as a justice, and if you get into a back-and-forth game, the court could soon be little more than a political tool.
It would be hard to pull impeachment off, but, with Democrats in control of both congressional houses and the presidency, an easy possibility would be packing the court, as in adding justices to put your druthers in command. The Constitution does not prohibit as much. What does is avoidance of havoc, keeping court politics at a minimum and love of America.
Jay Ambrose is a syndicated columnist.