Categories
Bill Whittle Now

Who’s Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett? The Danger to Democrats of a Textualist-Originalist Judge

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem mystified and terrified by President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Who's Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett? The Danger to Democrats of a Textualist-Originalist Judge

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem mystified and terrified by President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. In her confirmation hearing, they can’t seem to grasp or accept that Judge Barrett’s method of deciding a case is to read the actual words of the law and of the Constitution and strive to determine what those words meant when the legislation passed and the Constitution was ratified.

Who’s afraid of a textualist-originalist? What’s the danger of that judicial philosophy?

Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. Join us today.

Listen to the Audio Version

Bill Whittle Network · Who’s Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett? The Danger to Democrats of a Textualist-Originalist Judge

41 replies on “Who’s Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett? The Danger to Democrats of a Textualist-Originalist Judge”

Does it bother anyone that the democrat senators just assume that the rest of the Justices’ votes are predictable without anyone’s having heard anything yet from litigators? That they say,”You are the deciding vote!” is so insulting!

I think it bothers anyone not a Democrat, and it bothers those Senators because they think they can predict her opinions and they don’t like them. Of course, they only don’t like them because they cannot pass the laws they want that would change her opinions, and they’re tired of sitting between those two rocks.

This situation with Democrats not understanding that someone might do something that in their version of reality is inconsistent with the thing they might want to do … amuses me.

I served in the Marines and I’m very proud of that service but I had to do a lot of things that were not necessarily what I wanted to do. I had to go overseas to foreign lands and I would have happily remained Stateside instead.

In the Marines you have to shoot who they tell you to shoot, and you have to not shoot the people they tell you not to shoot. To oversimplify, the Marine Corps says “Shoot all those people over there who are carrying weapons and are not on our side and don’t shoot any of the people over there who are not carrying weapons or are on our side”. And then they put you in jail if you break either one of those instructions. They’re not messing around either, they will put you in jail for a long time if you break those rules.

The Corps isn’t particularly understanding about breaking those simple rules for any reason. Because … those are the rules.

In the same way, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate set of rules for Americans There is a mechanism for changing those rules if you really think you must, but you have to get the rest of us to agree with that change or you are not allowed to make it. There is no “personal right and wrong” or “my truth is not your truth” involved in this. That document is fairly straight forward and easy to understand for very good reasons. In fact, it’s so easy to understand that I fully grasped what I was swearing to protect and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic when I took my Oath of Enlistment three days after my 17th birthday. So I have neither patience nor sympathy for a much older and presumably wiser person who doesn’t “get it”.

Then why do Democrats try to ignore the U.S. Constitution? Because they have convinced themselves that the rules are arbitrary and only apply to them when doing so advantages them.. Which of course is a recipe for the complete breakdown of our society. Democrats of that ilk should be very glad that the Constitution protects then from people like me and that I honor that protection even if they don’t. Which means that they should be overjoyed that there are people who do not practice the blatant hypocrisy they themselves indulge in constantly.

That said, they want to be very, very careful about doing things that remove them from said protection. It’s probably best if we all agree to follow those basic Rules for Americans and act within that framework.

Because they’re not going to like what happens if they manage to defeat that set of rules and step outside of the protection afforded to them thereby. 😉

Unfortunately that whole “do what you don’t want because someone said so” isn’t just in the military, though being fired instead of shot is something of an upgrade. As documented in places like Dilbert and Office Space and a host of others, I imagine it is very nice to be able to set the rules of your own company and act like you’re the boss while in the Senate, until you lose the majority and the rule you removed is what is now eating your butt like a piranha.

I didn’t say anything about “being shot” for disobeying an order, you really have to work at it to find yourself standing in front of a firing squad … But I get your point. Being court-martialed and doing time in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary isn’t really on the same scale as being fired.

… and that was my point, or part of it anyway. As a former Federal Employee (which is what Marines are, the paycheck comes from the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury) I have no issues at all with following the rules.

Democrats have a problem with following the rules and prefer to make up their own to their own advantage as they go along. Like Harry Reed’s “nuclear option”, which I assume is the sort of thing you’re referring to.

The reason the Democrats hate the U.S. Constitution is that it’s a darn hard set of rules to creatively re-interpret to their own advantage. Which is not surprising as it was designed exactly to stop people like modern Democrats.

If I were a Democrat I’d feel exactly the same way but … If that were the case I’d be an Oath Breaker and like most of the Democrats in power I’d be acting in bad faith. Which would be a serious problem for me but doesn’t seem to bother them at all.

Taking everything into account I don’t think it’s too much to ask that our Supreme Court abide by the letter and meaning of the U.S. Constitution so I’m all for originalist judges. That protects Democrats equally as it does Republicans, something the Democrats do not seem to fully appreciate. Being as they have found the means to completely ignore those butt-munching piranhas and all.

Yeah I tried to save words because I was tired and lazy. Reed’s option was what I had in mind, though that is biting them in the ass and has been for the last 3 years or so, as judges have been processed through without a stop and now a third justice.

I think the Democrats not seeing a textualist judge as their defense is part of the same reason they do not understand that feeding the crocodile so it eats you last still results in you being eaten. Far better to kill the thing or go somewhere else.

… and another problem with feeding the crocodile so it eats you last is that you end up with a very strong and healthy crocodile by the time it gets around to you.

Wicked Smart – Check
Accomplished – Check
Attractive – Check
Cares for those born into lesser circumstance – Check
Devout Catholic – Check
No wonder that the left must destroy – can’t have all that in one person. They will need to add 5 justices just to make up for those five check marks.

Life has to beat the stupid out of you. But that can only happen when you become responsible for your own self and your own life. As long as you are a snowflake who is still living off your parents’ largesse, you will stay stupid. I think a lot of the rioters are such.

So many consider their generation as the beginning of time, that no one before could in any way have the wisdom and knowledge they have, that human beings evolve so much in such a short time that what was before is now irrelevant. This is simply foolish. Mans proclivity for power and control has never changed in thousands of years of exstence, but I believe our system of government is uniquely written to control and combat this yearning for absolute power…if we can only keep it.

Amendments needed?
1) set SCOTUS justice count, as Bill said; and 9 is good enough: large enough to provide for diverse examination of legal, social, and constitutional interpretations, but not so large as to become a parallel Senate. Maybe an explicit statement concerning the role of judicial review?? A provision that would force Congress to re-address a law declared unconstitutional and either repeal it or revise it would also be nice – put the legislative monkey on them where it really belongs.
2) balanced budget, with or without war time relaxations; plus some time limits on debt acquisition (say 20 years?) to provide a check and balance against one generation indebting the next one immorally.
3) mandatory convention of the states every 50 years unless an intervening COS has already occurred, in which case the clock is reset to 50 years hence. COS does not have to make any changes, but must be convened to at least consider if changes are currently at least worth considering. 50 year interval: short enough that most people would have a chance to influence a COS at least once in their lifetime; long enough to not be simply responding to short term passions; short enough that only two “generations” might pass before potentially needed changes are addressed. Also re-emphasizes that the People are sovereign, not the government, which is basically their servant.

Quite a few more amendments can be dreamed up and there are advocates for many of them (repeal Roe, tweak the Kelo decision, fix the Wickard decision vis a vis interstate commerce?, repeal the 17th?; etc.) but these 3 strike me as core right now.

Thanks. I was able to just turn around and (surprise!) find and pull my copy off of my shelf. Checking my spreadsheet of books bought or “to buy”, I see that I read it once before in August 2015. Probably merits a re-read as I don’t recall any specific details from back then (except that he did have a book out on that topic).

Is it better to blame memory lapses on getting older, or on medications being taken? Asking for a friend.

I just read thru the 10 pages at the end summarizing his proposed amendments (but did not read the supporting textual discussion). I have quibbles with several of his ideas or at least his details, and believe some of them really should be merely legislation rather than amendments, per se. While not iron clad, I gather constitutions should direct HOW the government should operate more than WHAT they should end up legislating (while also clearly enumerating what they cannot legislate!). Too many state constitutions (including Florida’s) contain (or attempt to add) stuff that various interest groups could not get passed in the legislature, so seek the amendment route instead.
Perhaps re-reading the actual text in Levin’s book will revise my opinions, and clearly a multiple person diverse set of viewpoints will help shake out issues and concerns, plus promote merits and justifiable limitations.

Bill at 16:10: the Dems need the courts because they can’t get their agenda passed via legislation. Well, they can’t get legislation passed ANYMORE, but the New Deal, Great Society, and even ObamaCare were all successful as legislative initiatives (oh, and the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments). That they have now grabbed all of the low hanging fruit of Progressivism and are now seeking true leftist totalitarianism may be the problem they are facing. Give them more time in academia and maybe they can indoctrinate “everyone” and then that hurdle will also be jumped. Fortunately resistance is growing in that venue.

Interesting to reflect that US (and world?) Progressivism has been around for 100 to 150 years (depending on your views of history) and that the Communist USSR only lasted 70 years. On the other hand, the CCP is still going strong at 70, too. And Thomas Sowell has identified in his book Conflict of Visions that people with an unconstrained vision of human perfectibility have been publishing such nonsense since at least the mid to late 1700’s. But of course the Founder’s understanding of human nature was sufficiently sophisticated that they did not buy into that view.

Responding to Larry’s comment on character, Law & Liberty has a nice discussion of George Washington’s character and history here: https://lawliberty.org/podcast/losing-washington/ . But can you gain a reputation for having such great character that you in fact become treated as a character (i.e., an odd ball)? Aside from possibly Lincoln (and there are questions there) can any other president or SCOTUS justice be considered to have the reputation for integrity and character that Washington has?

…”the only thing that endures is character…” Horace Greeley. The Left lost its concept of “character” a long time ago, and cannot comprehend Judge Barrett’s calm, sincere, and understanding approach to the challenge before her. She will be a great addition to the Supreme Court.

The left is incapable of thinking in principles. To them, everything is entirely new and unique and unprecedented and has no connection to anything else. To use Bill’s example, the left sees the internet and says, “What can this new miracle [and they do think it’s a miracle because they’re unable to comprehend how such things come to be] possibly have to do with words written 250 years ago by people who had no inkling that such wonders could exist?”

When everything is new to you, if you can’t think in principles then you think that nobody could ever have foreseen these “new” things (or old things, or anything) and that you are the first and only one to discover it and so are the only one capable of dealing with it. And you invent new ways to do so that have nothing to do with any other things or with reality itself because you can’t imagine how this never before experienced magic might relate to anything else. Those ways are uninformed and short-sighted, and usually contradict everything else you’ve ever thought.

A few months ago, I wrote an essay entitled “Money Is Life,” explaining the connection between your life and the cash you have in your wallet. (In brief: time, talent, and toil add up to life, you expend life and “convert” it into money, in that sense money is life.) The essay was in response to my son’s claim that the rioting that was just beginning in Minneapolis was justified and that “[he doesn’t] care about ‘stuff.’ They have insurance.” I wanted to show him how “stuff” is more than mere stuff and that real lives were being destroyed. He answered the essay with “All I see is ‘But…the money!'”

If you can’t think in principles it means you don’t think conceptually, therefore you can’t integrate any of your existing or new knowledge with any of the rest of it, nor see how concepts and thought must be rooted in actual, independent, objective reality in order to successfully serve your life.

Thus you end up with my son. And Corey Booker at a Supreme Court nomination hearing.

Don’t despair too much about your son and his outlook. The evolving consensus is that 60+% of a person’s character/nature (intelligence, etc.) /behavior is determined by the respective genetic contributions of his/her parents (over which the parents have no control in terms of gene mixing, etc.), a small fractional influence from the family environment and nurturing, and the rest of what influences them comes from peers and general society. You can only do your best by them and hope they turn out as well as you were aiming for.

The idea that “society made him (the criminal) do it” is getting shorter and shorter shift as these studies continue. The same aspect applies to the hubris of the “elites”, in that it pays to pick smart wealthy parents. Your genes have supplied a lot of their good fortune and “smarts”, even before all of “their hard work” in achieving their position of prominence, eminence, and control.

He is more rational than a lot of his peers, I’ll give him that. We were discussing the Michigan governor and I mentioned how she said that Michiganders owe her loyalty. (Yes, she said that.) He said, “Um…no. This is America. We don’t do that here.” And he is always willing to discuss – he’s not one of those who go straight to screaming.

And I did raise him with excellent taste in music. 🙂

Money is life. Read D’Anconia’s speech at Jim Taggert’s wedding in Atlas Shrugged. You will love it, as you have already come to these conclusions yourself.
And, I am being serious here, how can your son think this way when he has such an intelligent, thoughtful Dad?

I’m just now realizing that ‘Jim Taggert” was Jim Rockford’s go-to alias in the Rockford Files. Interesting..

Well, thank you! My son has had the same influences as nearly everyone under the age of 40, primarily bad schooling and bad thinking by friends. My ex-wife didn’t help either – she couldn’t reason her way out of “the sky is green” and she is genetically incapable of telling the truth. She could say that it’s blue then seconds later say it’s not blue, and both of them would be lies.

I have read Atlas Shrugged many times. I actually think that Francisco’s speech doesn’t quite dig down far enough to make the connection explicit, which is why I came up with my presentation of the idea. I’m glad you like it.

It’s not published anywhere, nor is it currently publication-quality. If you like, I’ll polish it up a bit for you.

It’s done. Still not entirely happy with it but I’m never entirely happy with anything I write. It’s up as a blog post.

Last night at our weekly wood carving meeting … right now I’m the only non-democrat showing up. They may have an inkling, but I do not show my political cards there with any sort of obvious candor. You know the reasons.

At any rate, one of them said he was less concerned about judges than they were in the person in the oval office. I bit my tongue to avoid saying “you couldn’t be more wrong”.

Another said he’d been listening to the hearing, and said “I *like* her”. Which surprised me about him, but it’s encouraging that he at least has an open mind when he listens with his own ears.

At any rate, they all seem politically naïve. Which probably explains why they’re Democrats. They ALL complain about things that are wholesale brought to us by Democrats … but they don’t appear to ASSOCIATE those things with Democrats.

Kind of surreal for me.

As the demented left of left has corrupted science, they also are working to corrupt the judiciary. They want things the way they want them and that is supposed to cause reality to shift in their direction. No matter what they want. No matter how many times they change what they want. No matter how contradictory their various wants may be. Reality MUST be exactly what they want, when they want it, simply BECAUSE they want it.

THIS is the mentality of a totally spoiled three year old who wants what he wants and to hell with reality. His parents are to meet his demands no matter if it is impossible to meet. If he doesn’t get it (*INSTANTLY*) then he will throw a huge tantrum. They will riot, burn, pillage, and otherwise destroy everything in sight. As if to say “if I can’t have things the way I want them, no one can have anything.”

THIS is mostly the fault of bad parenting and corrupt public education. Both failed to teach children that reality is real and that reality sets the ultimate boundary on what can and should be done. The result is today’s totally ugly behavior.

Only force can meet force. It is time to stop being nice-nice to these monsters. They must be stopped with all necessary force up to and INCLUDING lethal force. Otherwise, write off modern technological civilization and the abundant life it supports. Then watch things return to an endless dark ages and likely extinction of human/humane life on earth.

Is this what you want? I don’t. I don’t believe you do either. It is time to fight back!

Leave a Reply