Soon it begins. The game must be played. September 4, a Senate committee begins the process of advice and consent for Brett Kavanaugh - not that any senator doesn't already know how he or she will vote on his nomination to the high Court.
Democrats had opposition signs printed before the president announced his choice. In recent years, the party realized it could live with control of the White House and the Supreme Court. Getting five reliable votes in court is easier than electing and corralling a majority of 534 members of Congress.
Last year, Neil Gorsuch replaced the late Antonin Scalia, conservative for conservative. Power didn't shift.
Kavanaugh is more of a threat, nominated to replace a wild card - retired Anthony Kennedy. While breaking ties, Kennedy pleased both right and left in various cases. His written opinion on same-sex marriage was more philosophical than judicial.
Should a third seat come open while Trump is president and Republicans narrowly hold Congress, what will happen? Civil War II? Constitutional crisis over one justice?
It wasn't supposed to be this way. No person should have such influence over policy, writes Janie B. Cheaney, WORLD magazine. She notes, the Constitution was not clear in stating the purpose of the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2 says its jurisdiction is "all Cases...arising under the Constitution..." What does that mean?
We wrote here a couple years ago about Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, when this one man asserted his meaning: the Court will determine whether laws passed by Congress or the states are constitutional. So, here we are.
A great nation founded with belief in "higher law" now lives by the "last word," even if the word is split 5-4...even if there is nothing in the Constitution addressing the case before the Court.
Jimmy
No comments:
Post a Comment