President Trump will announce his pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy tonight on live TV at 9 p.m. EST. Leave it to him to know how to turn this normally solemn duty into the highest-rated TV special of the week.
Until then, most of the media will be filling hours of air time by combing through the backgrounds of judges who are considered to be the most likely picks but may not even be contenders. Or as that’s also known, “filling hours of air time.” Meanwhile, the Democrats have already prepared their apocalyptic statements about what a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, clock-turning-back Nazi the pick is, so that they simply have to “insert name here” once Trump reveals it. But I think I’ll do something really radical and wait until we know who the nominee is before commenting on the choice.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Democrat insanity is coming
I do have a few things I’d like to say, though, about the hysteria on the left over Trump being able to pick a second SCOTUS Justice. First of all, to quote the greatest President ever, Barack Obama, “Elections have consequences.” One is that the winner gets to nominate SCOTUS Justices, something to bear in mind when you see those stories circulating today about Hillary Clinton possibly plotting a third stab at the White House by running against Trump again in 2020. (Note: in 2020, Stephen Breyer will be 81, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 87, which is 22 years – more than a full legal gun buyer’s age in a blue state – beyond most people’s retirement parties.)
Second, as with most hysterical jabbering from the left, the talk of Trump cementing a conservative activist Court majority is nonsense, for a variety of reasons. For one, you never know how a judge will rule once he or she is in office. Previous Republican Presidents appointed Justices who supposedly respected the Constitution, only to see them vote with the liberals to ignore that document (in Washington circles, this is known as “evolving.”) For instance, Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, but he upheld Roe v. Wade and somehow found a hitherto-overlooked right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution that the Founders must’ve hidden really well.
There’s also the fact that “conservative activist judge” is an oxymoron. It’s in the very nature of liberalism for judges to replace the law and the Constitution with their own feelings and opinions and attempt to legislate from the bench. In all the recent SCOTUS decisions so reviled by the left as “conservative,” the majority didn’t force its views onto Americans; it ruled in favor of protecting individual rights and limiting government power. If you’re promoting “fascism,” that’s a pretty ineffective way to go about it.
Finally, the idea that Trump’s pick will eliminate the “swing vote” isn’t true. Even if Trump nominates the staunchest originalist possible, the “swing vote” will just switch to Chief Justice John Roberts, who has shown a disturbing willingness to pull “creative” rulings out of thin air in order to avoid doing the Court’s most important duty, which is overturning unconstitutional laws. He seems to think it’s the SCOTUS’s job to find a way to justify whatever Congress passes – remember how he bought the excuse that the blatantly unconstitutional Obamacare insurance purchase mandate was okay if you called it a “tax,” an argument so flimsy and contradictory that not even the Obama Administration’s lawyers tried to make it.
No, I’m afraid that no matter whom President Trump names tonight, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will not be completely safe from judicial activism and 5-4 decisions. The best we can hope for is fewer insane 5-4 decisions – at least until after 2020, when Trump is reelected and maybe gets to nominate a couple more SCOTUS Justices to replace Ginsburg and Breyer.
I’m sorry, I just had to toss that in. I enjoyed the fireworks so much last week, I wanted some more, so I figured I’d make some heads explode over at MSNBC.