The U.S. Supreme Court remains a hot-button issue.
Democrats continue to argue in favor of expanding the Court while Republicans are content on having 9 justices, the way it has been for decades.
Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, published an op-ed for the National Review detailing how Democrats are launching “preemptive strikes on the legitimacy of today’s Supreme Court” ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and 2024 presidential election.
Loyola cited a piece from a liberal law professor who argued that in order to protect the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, one of the conservative justices should step down so Democrats can fill the seat.
And just as we might hope that a person who, through no fault of their own, has come into possession of a good not rightfully theirs, would return that object, Coney Barrett and Gorsuch could do the right thing for the nation by agreeing that one of them should step down.
Loyola exposed the hypocrisy behind this argument:
Douglas argues that one of the two justices’ seats is “not rightfully theirs” because, “if presidents do not get to replace justices in an election year, then Coney Barrett’s confirmation is illegitimate; if presidents do, then Gorsuch’s is illegitimate. You can’t have it both ways.”In fact, both confirmations complied with constitutional requirements.
The Constitution provides that Supreme Court seats are to be filled by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. This assignment of roles can get confusing, but it’s not rocket science. Critics have argued that Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland was the same as Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett: Both occurred in an election year, and Mitch McConnell should have brought both of them up for a vote.
But the two situations were not analogous, for in both situations the Republicans controlled the Senate, and in Obama’s case, that required negotiating with the opposition party, not exactly his forte. In reality, Obama could easily have filled Antonin Scalia’s seat: All he had to do was nominate someone conservative enough that Republicans would be happy to confirm the nominee.
For their part, three justices have publicly argued that the Court does not get political.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett fired back at critics and she did not mince her words.
While delivering remarks at McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, Barrett said she doesn’t believe the highest court in the land is politically driven and said the nation’s highest court is not filled with “partisan hacks.”
Barrett spoke specifically about the Supreme Court’s decision not to stay a Texas “heartbeat” bill that effectively outlaws abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected.
Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made headlines when he discussed a myriad of hot topics surrounding the Court and what the future might hold.
During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer said he is opposed to the Democrats’ idea of packing the Supreme Court.
However, Breyer did say he is open to the idea of term limits instead of the current lifetime appointments.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas came out with a much more forceful statement against the perception of the Supreme Court as a partisan institution.
Thomas warned against “destroying our institutions because they don’t give us what we want, when we want it,” as he took aim at the media.
The post Columnist Breaks Down Hypocrisy Behind Progressives Attacks On Supreme Court appeared first on Conservative Brief.
Read the full post at Conservative Brief.