‘Once again, the court will be a conservative bulwark against democratic forces’
Howard Gillman is chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, and the co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State
For most of the nation’s history, the Supreme Court was a protector of the rights and interests of America’s elites against larger democratic forces. Its focus was the protection of property rights, corporate rights, slave owner rights and limits on the ability of legislatures to regulate. It struck down income taxes, child labor laws, minimum wage laws and civil rights legislation. It did very little to protect the rights and interests of those struggling for greater equality and opportunity. It prevented democratic majorities from advancing progressive agendas. It tried mightily to prevent the New Deal. In short, it was a conservative bulwark.
This legacy started to change in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of a bipartisan agreement among presidents and senators that courts should be more supportive of civil rights, civil liberties, the circumstances of “discrete and insular minorities,” and the ability of government to address contemporary social challenges. Many of us who grew up during this period took for granted that the Supreme Court would be a force for protecting the vulnerable rather than the powerful. But no longer.
With the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett — an undoubtedly qualified jurist with rock-solid conservative credentials — the court will revert to the role it performed for most of our history, with an ironclad majority of conservative justices who have dedicated their careers to taking back the courts. As a result, Congress’ authority to address national challenges, including access to health care and the promotion of civil rights, will be diminished, regulatory agencies will work less in the interests of average people, voting rights will receive less protection, state and local governments will be allowed to align themselves more with majority religious sects, the interests of powerful religious groups will be privileged over hard-won protections for the LGBTQ-plus community, and women’s reproductive rights will be at the mercy of state legislatures. Joining her in the new majority are other justices who were appointed by Republican presidents who did not win a majority of the popular vote, at a time when Democratic president candidates have won a majority or plurality of the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections. In short, once again, the court will be a conservative bulwark against democratic forces.
" care more about rushing a judge through to manipulate the judicial system than pass a bill to help poor people which is true, it just makes it obvious"
Hope that point will be brought out in more ways than one.
If The Democrats have 25% of the passion and emotion of Klobuchar in her annihilation of Ted Cruz, we may well place this Confirmation in the neighborhood of legend, when each Democrat in a position to act does his/her duty.
Dems suck at marketing, and the allure of speechifying at a pointless confirmation hearing will prove to be too great to resist. Dems like believing that sincere moral postures creates converts, rather than treating it as a means to an end, like their enemies do.
I guess the question I would want to ask Amy is because women aren’t mentioned in the Constitution then why are you not at home caring for your 7 children. Because as someone in the last day or so mentioned that Amy doesn’t think the 14th Amendment is valid, so why is she a judge?
Likely no way to stop this. But we can make it hurt. I would like to see the Dem senators deliver a message like this repeatedly to ACB’s face:
This nation was corruptly denied a supreme court appointment under the previous president. A rationale was offered at the time and parroted by GOP partisans, including you, that an appointment, especially one that would tip the balance of the court, 8 months before a presidential election was improper. That the appointment should instead be reserved for the next president. When the time came to equitably apply this same standard a mere 1 month before a presidential election, you and GOP members of this chamber refused to do so, proving that the rationale given 4 years ago was never an honest or sincere argument, but rather a cover for corrupt intent, for the intentional undermining of our democracy.
As an active participant in this outrageous hypocrisy, you have demonstrated that you cannot equitably apply rules and standards when your own self-interest is at stake. The ability to equitably apply rules and standards – laws – is the most basic qualification to serve as a supreme court justice. You have failed to meet that qualification.
Over the stern objections of nearly half of this chamber, the other half of this chamber may still dishonorably approve your nomination and you may be appointed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. If that happens, then your appointment will be forever tainted by this corruption and hypocrisy.
Might hurt Cornyn if MJ will turn around and campaign on it. She needs to switch ads now - she’s been running the same one about strapping herself to the helicopter and taking out Taliban and we get it MJ. Now let’s talk about women’s health.
