SCOTUS thoughts


I love the souls of Scalia and Garland looking down from heaven. Borrowed from @ComfortablySmug

Merrick Garland’s dying wish was that a smokin’ hot babe one day be appointed to the Supreme Court and I think we should honor that wish.

My impressions of the hearings are:

  • Barrett is smart. She’s compared to Scalia but she sounds more in the mold of Thomas, a historian at heart.
  • People hate Ted Cruz because he always acts like he is the smartest guy in the room but in this hearing he actually was the smartest guy in the room, Barrett excepted.
  • The rest of the Republican Senators were useless. Didn’t need to show up.
  • Among the Democrats, Durbin and Feinstein didn’t humiliate themselves. As for the rest…
    • Hirono is dumb as rocks.
    • Whitehouse is nutty as a squirrel.
    • Corey Booker is gayer than Lindsey Graham.
    • Harris and Kolchbar reminded everyone why their Presidential Campaigns flamed out.

Question: Why are the Democrats not accusing Barrett of rape, their standard M.O.? Possible answers (not mutually exclusive):

  • It failed last time: Kavanaugh got confirmed and the slander only motivated more Republicans to vote in the midterms.
  • The Republicans may be threatening them not to do it or else there will be some unknown but plausible and painful consequence.
  • The Democrats are pretty sure they are going to win the Senate and have a plan B for dealing with the Court, if it be packing or something else.

Could this appointment be the high water point of the conservative push to take over the Supreme court, a push which goes back to the 1980s? A determined Democrat Congress and President could pack the court, at which point Republicans would vow to do the same, and the Supreme Court ceases to be a meaningful institution, leaving an already weak Congress and powerful Presidency. Court packing would be a major step towards Presidentialism.

Assuming a Barret confirmation, what will the SCOTUS look like? The ideological split will be:

  • The law is what the lawmaker intended: Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and probably Kavanaugh.
  • The law is whatever the New York Times opinion page says it should be: Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor.
  • The law is whatever preserves the relevance of the Supreme Court: Roberts, Gorsuch, (maybe Kavanaugh).

This third group will ensure that the left always wins on sexual revolution, and the right always wins on the free market, in the hope that one side or the other does not blow up the court. This Roberts / Gorsuch approach might be fighting the last war, as Critical Race Theory cases are probably coming up around the corner.

In the end it is all about abortion, not the ACA or anything else Dems throw around. The problem with overturning Roe v Wade / Casey v Planned Parenthood is that it forces state legislatures and Congress to deal with the abortion issue in a way that implies real-world effects.

Any sane man considering abortion comes to two conclusions:

  • abortion is a form of homicide.
  • this form of homicide is utterly essential to current American society.

Abortion is essential because no form of contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, so abortion is needed to completely control reproduction. If one cannot guarantee complete control of reproduction the result would be more children, more stay-at-home mothers, and less disposable income. Kicking the issue to the states and Congress would force America to notice how much our economy depends on killing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: