mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
the high court
After Gorsuch
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • QET

    I don’t think it’s accurate to call a Justice who refuses to discover unwritten Constitutional rights lurking in the shadows of the emanations from the penumbras “ideologically extreme.” The Right is still pretty much where it has always been; and the fact that the Right appears to be extremely far from the position now occupied by the Left owing to the Left’s continual movement outward does not therefore make the Right “extreme.” And if the Left is going to send paid child rioters into the streets every time the Court refuses to further mangle the Constitution, then let it.

    • Andrew Allison

      Consider the source.

    • Boritz

      The TAI penchant for declaring anything to the right of the Jack Kemp or Angela Merkel tradition to be extreme right is led by Peter Berger who has imported this nonsense from Europe and regurgitated it here.

  • Jim__L

    This was inevitable after Obergefell.

    • f1b0nacc1

      This more than anything else. The court didn’t even try to pretend that it was doing anything other than making new law. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the results here is irrelevant, it was the way that they were arrived at that creates so much rancor.

      • Andrew Allison

        We could (and probably will [grin]) debate when the Supreme Court embarked upon the dangerous path of making, rather than applying law. My own view is that the rot started with Roe v. Wade, which was clearly a State’s Rights issue. That decision has resulted in a multi-generational civil war with no end in sight. BO’s clearly ideological appointments simply made a bad thing worse.

        • Josephbleau

          I would take the rot back to the Democratic court win in Dred Scott and some of the Democrat Fugitive slave law. The Supremes have always enforced a political agenda at the expense of the majority, and have always been respected since Jackson.

          • Andrew Allison

            I don’t know enough US history to respond properly, but it seems to me that the real issue is States Rights. i.e., if it’s something that should properly be decided on a State by State basis, it should be. Dred Scott was, IMO, a moral and humanitarian issue and as such subject to Federal jurisdiction. I acknowledge that “humanitarian” is subject to interpretation but, while respecting the opinions of those who think otherwise, don’t think that it covers right to life. At the end of the day, I think we must go back to the Constitution, as amended, and think long and hard about the reach of the federal government. The beauty of the federation of States (something which we should be careful not to lose sight of) is that if you don’t like the laws of the one in which you live, you can move to another. The logical extension of this, of course, is that if you don’t like any of them, you should either gather enough support to change the law, or find somewhere else to live.

        • f1b0nacc1

          While I agree with you in principle that Roe was where the fuse got lit (some put it further back than that….remember “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers?), I suspect that Obergefell made it inevitable in a way that Roe never did. The best metaphor that I can use is the Civil War. The conflict was simmering for decades, but it took John Brown to make it inevitable…

          • seattleoutcast

            Yep, we are in a Fourth Turning. This is when the fuse finally hits the dynamite.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Explosions are ugly things, never to be welcomed….

            I wish that we were both wrong about what is coming.

        • Disappeared4x

          Multi-generational civil war indeed. The road to Roe v Wade started in 1873, with “The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”. … In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.

          Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships.[15] Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

          My grad school paper on this is far more interesting, but, it started with a federal law, and state laws, which led to the judicial strategy…and wiki got the chronology correct, without mentioning the penumbra on the right to privacy in Griswold. The right to privacy started in the 1920’s with Brandeis.

          • Andrew Allison

            Wow, just wow! Thank you so much for this background. However, there’s a danger that we may lose sight of the real problem, namely the Supreme Court’s infringement upon State’s rights.

          • Disappeared4x

            YW. Apologies for not being up-to-date on 10th Amendment court cases. Perhaps education, or the Chevron doctrine are is a better track than Roe v Wade.
            Sanger tried to get states, esp. NY and Mass, to reverse their Comstock Laws, but the Catholic Church was too influential. Today? Roe is the neon red line for Dems.

        • Frank Natoli

          Roe v Wade is the most lawless decision in living memory, but the issue goes back much further than that.
          In Robert Bork’s “The Tempting of America, the Political Seduction of the Law”, Bork provides an anecdote of the then young Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who had just entertained the elder Justice Learned Hand for lunch. Hand had mounted his carriage, and began driving away. In a moment of exuberance, Holmes ran alongside shouting “do justice sir, do justice”. Hand jerked his carriage to a halt, glared at Holmes, and said “that is not my job, I do the law”.
          This is THE MOST CRITICAL POINT denied by all Democrat appointed justices, most certainly including Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. They, in good conscience, to what they think is justice, but that is NOT the law. And if it is not the law, then it is lawless.

          • Andrew Allison

            Exactly. However, IMO the reason that Roe v Wade was and is such a disaster is that it turned an issue which should be decided by the individual States into a nation-wide civil war.

          • Frank Natoli

            Agree abortion should be decided by the states, which of course is exactly how it was decided prior to Roe v Wade.
            Pardon this digression but…
            Now at page 650 of Volume I of “Fall of Giants”.
            Very clearly, Follett wrote every Socialist or Communist as a hero, and every Conservative as a bastard. Curious about Follett’s politics, I did some research online, and came upon the following:
            “On 15 September 2010, Follett, along with 54 other public figures, signed an open letter published in The Guardian stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI’s state visit to the UK.”
            Yes, of course, no surprise!

    • Andrew Allison

      With respect, I don’t think it has much to do with Oberefell v. Hodges pe sce. President Trump (interesting is it not how the MSM neglects the title) made it perfectly clear while running what he wanted in a Supreme Court justice, namely, a conservative to replace a deceased one.

  • f1b0nacc1

    Gorsuch is about to shake up the ‘norms’ far more than simply that. His position on Chevron is perhaps the most important threat to the administrative state’s dominance in the last 30 years, and it is one reason why I think at least some of the Left are going to be far more motivated to fight than might otherwise be the case. I am pleased to see this of course (I am not great lover of our ‘norms’ for their own sake), but I am not fool enough to believe that it will come without a very big fight….

  • Andrew Allison

    Good grief. It’s hard to know where to begin to deconstruct this nonsense. Let’s start with the fact that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court does, in fact, have the final word. Then there’s the fact is that the Supreme Court has been doing just fine while swinging slightly from side-to-side. There’s also the fact that if the Dimocracts try to stop the apparently quite moderate Gorsuch, the next appointment will be wide open to an extremist of one side or the other. This post is not simply sophomoric, it’s juvenile.

    • Disappeared4x

      My first read was positive, “escalating norm-breaking” being a fine observation. Second read? “escalating norm-breaking on both sides” means, back to defining whose Norms are really Norms.

      Did you recommend Follett’s “The Century Trilogy”? just bought Vol 2 & 3 remaindered, and wanted to make sure before I look for Vol. 1. TY!

      • Andrew Allison

        Don’t you understand that the norms are those of the brainwashed products of what is supposedly “higher education”. That aside, I highly recommend reading Vol 1 first.

        • Disappeared4x

          The legacy of 40? years of higher ed brainwashing, especially at the ‘elite’ colleges, concerns me the most.
          TY on Follett. ABC is making 10-hr mini-series based on Vol 3.
          Wonderful read here:
          https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2017/01/30/fake-news-failed-states-and-america-first/

          • Andrew Allison

            The sad fact is that the socialists figured out how to win. I can’t overemphasize the importance of reading all three volumes. It’s a magisterial survey of all that went wrong in the 20th Century

          • Boritz

            …figured out how to win…

            Would not be surprised if the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that there are numerous technological civilizations out there working hard to produce hunger and privation instead of conquering space.

          • f1b0nacc1

            My theory about the Fermi paradox is that most technical civilizations tend to discover VR and direct neural interconnections fairly early on, then immediately implode as their most productive members spend the rest of their lives hooked up to machines addicted to incredibly realistic internet porn….

          • Disappeared4x

            Agree. Also agree on starting with Vol 1, just have to find a copy. $4 remainder too good to pass for Vol.2&3.
            I just corrected myself above: the mini-series starts with Vol. 1, The Fall of Giants

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Justices should be chosen by the States and the People, whose Rights and Authorities are being usurped by the power hungry politicians of the Executive and Legislative Branches.

    That feeling when…..you’ve spent the last 8 years weaponizing the Federal Government, just to give it all to Donald Trump. Maybe the Government is way too big and powerful, if you’re now afraid of what Trump will do with it?

    • Andrew Allison

      You are on dangerous ground here. Recall that, superficially (CA actually provided 156% of her popular vote plurality, Crooked Hillary won the people’s vote. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers had the sense to ensure that a single State or two couldn’t choose the President. Given the amazing effectiveness of the Constitution, shouldn’t we let it work?

  • FriendlyGoat

    There is no point in Democrats rolling over for the first one with the idea by being puppy dogs that effective ammunition can somehow be saved for the second one or third one. If America needs to see Republicans roll over the filibuster, let ’em see it now. We have elected over-reach and there is no cure for it but for people to get REALLY sick of it. Gorsuch is not somehow a more “decent” or “qualified” man than Garland. So there is no point in falling for that sort of rhetoric about who was stonewalled for what purpose, who is being nominated now for what purpose and how little regard Republicans have for those famous checks and balances. The proper argument against Gorsuch is that he is a corporate toady being put there to eat your kids’ lunch in the business cases for two or three decades—-not to mention disregard of any environmental concerns in the mold of his mother. This, not Roe, is what the Garland delay was about and what the nuclear option threat is about. Everyone should be told loudly so that they clearly understand what is going on when McConnell performs a flip-flop away from his so-called principles concerning the Senate.

  • Old Gunny

    Who writes this stuff? “But this extraordinary deference afforded to the Court is probably dependent on the fact that, since polarization started to rise in the 1970s, the judges have been unpredictable, offering important victories to partisans on both sides.” Prior to any decisions from the Court, most sane people can tell you how the liberal wing will vote EVERY TIME.

  • Frank Natoli

    Democrats and Republicans alike have always felt that they have a stake in preserving the institution’s legitimacy.
    Baloney. Democrats claim a “living” Constitution, which are weasel words for a dead Constitution. It means what it was written to mean, at time of enactment, period. If you don’t like it, change it, the mechanism is there. The fact that the changes that Liberals demand would never obtain the 75% of state legislatures, never mind 2/3 of both houses of Congress, is precisely how it’s supposed to work. No Constitutional changes without a substantial super-majority of the STATES, not the population of California.

  • Defenestrate the Democrats! From the highest office to the lowest gutter, they have proven their malignancy and, in the end, failed to destroy the nation they hate so powerfully. They are the enema within. No mercy. No nicey. No paychecks. No trade. No deals. No regrets. No nothing. Let them eat their bile and tears. They went all in and so did we. Now they want to extort the house. We ARE the house and will remain so given their electoral non-existence. #Winning.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service