It’s not democracy Democrats are bent on saving by packing court. It’s their own political agenda

It’s not democracy Democrats are bent on saving by packing court. It’s their own political agenda
Amy Coney Barrett

Yesterday Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and now it’s on to the full Senate for an up or down vote. The Democratic position on her confirmation, which has been well established, was articulated again by minority leader Chuck Schumer, who called the process “illegitimate.”

How exactly Barrett’s confirmation is “illegitimate” has never been adequately explained, though an op-ed at NBC News by Pepperdine University Law Professor Edward Larson provides the latest attempt at scratching this unscratchable itch. Here’s the opening paragraph of the piece, which is titled “Amy Coney Barrett’s partisan nomination subverts the very intent of the Supreme Court.”

Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist Papers that, of the three branches of the government the founders were designing, the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” In other words, Hamilton — though he did believe that the Supreme Court should be able to rule on the constitutionality of federal law — thought the court would be the least powerful branch of government because it could not disturb the established political rights of all Americans.

So far, so good. But then the professor spoils it all by saying something stupid — to wit, that confirming Barrett risks jeopardizing “such ‘political rights’ as Americans’ access to the Affordable Care Act.”

I don’t have to ask Prof. Larson to point out where in the Constitution the founders specified that “health care” is enumerated as one of the unalienable rights because it’s not in there. Neither is the right to unfettered abortion.

Trending: Poll workers told to leave, then suitcases full of ballots pulled out

Ironically, Larson writes that “the Founders didn’t want the judiciary to be this political.” But during Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearings, it was the Democrats on the committee who kept trying to inject politics into the proceedings and Judge Barrett who repeatedly steered the conversation back to a more theoretical plane.

In fact the entire basis of the Democrats’ threat to pack the court is that it would give them permanent political control of the high court. It doesn’t get more political than that. (RELATED: Don’t call it ‘court packing.’ Call it ‘saving democracy’)

Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy has written for The Blaze, HotAir, NewsBusters, Weasel Zippers, Conservative Firing Line, RedCounty, and New York’s Daily News. He has one published novel, Hot Rain, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons), and has been a guest on Radio Vice Online with Jim Vicevich, The Alana Burke Show, Smart Life with Dr. Gina, and The George Espenlaub Show.

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.