Roberts’ Court

Aside from the misnomer of the title, which is implied by the thrust of a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the hoo-raw surrounding that, Chief Justice John Roberts has a problem with the perception of the Supreme Court—according to Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin, the authors of the piece.

“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process,” CJ Roberts…2016.

The Court can’t worry about perceptions, though.  It can—should—only rule on what the Constitution or law actually says.

“Every single one of us has an obligation to think about what it is that provides the court with its legitimacy, to think about how we can be not so politically divided as some of the other political institutions in the nation,” Justice Elena Kagan said[.]

No.  What provides the court with its legitimacy is its rulings based on the text of the Constitution or the law. A Justice’s empathy, or the particular wisdom of Latinas, or the concept that a judge should take account of…the climate of an era, have no place on the bench. Nor does an automatic reach for the middle.

The handling of any of those things—and they are important (as are the social climate generally; the wisdom of non-Latinas, also; empathy)—can only be done politically, not judicially.

Credibility

This. Is. Facebook.  Sorry, I don’t have James Earl Jones’ impressive, deep voice.  But here is Facebook’s MFWIC on a most serious incident that occurred during the Ford/Kavanaugh sort of joint hearing a little bit ago.

Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg told a packed room of employees Friday that the company should embrace diverse views, but he expressed frustration that a senior executive had attended Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s highly politicized hearing….

These are mutually exclusive claims, particularly since all Kaplan—that evilly miscreant employee about whom Zuckerberg speaking—did was sit in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s gallery with other of Kavanaugh’s friends and family.

Zuckerberg needs to understand that when he spouts nonsense like this—be diverse, but only with approved diversees—he has no credibility.

Although Kaplan has done his own credibility no good by cravenly apologizing for doing a moral thing, for supporting his friend.

Partisanship

Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) on his Fox News Sunday program last Sunday.

Here are some of the claims Cardin made.

The change that Senator McConnell made to the rules on the Supreme Court really caused us to be much more partisan in this[.]

And

I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh’s in the mainstream of judicial thought.

And

Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts at risk “the progress we’ve made on health care issues, on women’s Constitutional rights, and on protecting the Mueller investigation.”

Not quite, although this is America, and Cardin is entitled [sic] to his spin.

However.

Filibustering confirmations is by design partisan. Absent overt filibustering—courtesy of Cardin’s erstwhile Leader Harry Reid; McConnell only completed Reid’s program—engaging in character assassination and smear as the preferred means of blocking a confirmation is especially, despicably partisan.

Not mainstream?  In Cardin’s fetid imagination and that of his fellow Progressive-Democrats, “mainstream” is judges with feelz and Latina wisdom. “Mainstream” also is the Constitution meaning whatever a judge thinks it should mean instead of what its text says.  No, Kavanaugh is in the heart of the envelope: the text of the Constitution and of a law is what should be adhered to.

Regarding what Cardin is pleased to call “progress,”—health care issues, women’s Constitutional rights, and protecting the Mueller investigation—these are political matters, not judicial ones.  Cardin and his fellow Progressive-Democrats need to make their case in the political branches and quit hiding behind judges’ robes.  If these politicians are unable to impose their political views on the rest of us, they need to accept that us unwashed masses disagree with them, and move on.

The Party of…Something

The editors of the Wall Street Journal warned us last Sunday to be heads up: the Progressive-Democrats are not going to let this Kavanaugh thing go, even now that the confirmation is done.  Shamefully, neither are they going to let Dr Christine Blasey Ford go.

The Minority Leader made clear that Democrats are going to use accuser Christine Blasey Ford as a campaign prop from here to November and beyond.

Schumer, Feinstein, Hirono, Gillibrand, Durbin, Spartacus—all of these, and each of them, have abused Dr Ford nearly as badly as did her unknown assailant all those decades ago.  So has nearly every member of the Progressive-Democrat Party up for reelection this cycle.

And they intend to go on abusing her.

Dr Ford isn’t an abused woman in these Progressive-Democrats’ eyes; she isn’t even a human being. She’s just an inanimate gear for the Progressive-Democrat vote creation machine. She has expressed her desire to go back to her private life and her anonymity; these Progressive-Democrats won’t even let her do that.

The Party is utterly despicable.

The Dangers of Welfare

These are illustrated by a Letter to the Editor in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.  The letter-writer wrote of a pay raise his company gave its employees and a bit of Panic of 2008 history:

Despite high unemployment rates [during the Panic], we still struggled to find well-qualified employees. We were competing against the federal government’s repeatedly extended subsidy for unemployment programs. We interviewed dozens of people who flatly told us they were only interviewing to obtain another log entry to remain qualified for unemployment benefits, and that they didn’t need to work for us when they could get paid almost the same to not work at all—for 52 weeks or more.

This is one contributor to an abominably slow recovery.