For nearly the whole of its existence the Supreme Court remained the least visible branch of our government. Justices toiled away in near anonymity for 150 years. Then a President tried to weaponize it. When the Supreme Court declared some of Franklin Roosevelt’s depression era policies unconstitutional he was furious. So furious he threatened to “pack the court”. His plan was to add Liberal Justices until he had a majority on the Court that would allow him to do whatever he wanted. It was an unprecedented attempt at a power grab from the Executive Branch of our government. Fortunately for the future of our country there were many members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who recognized the threat this attempt presented to the Republic. These brave members stood up against Roosevelt and preserved the integrity of the Judicial Branch. It is not certain how many members of Congress would put the Constitution, and the future of our country, ahead of their need for political power today. Courage is getting harder to find with each new Congress.
There are a number of reasons I am pleased that Amy Coney Barrett has been approved as the newest member of the Supreme Court. The most important reason is that she is thoroughly qualified. At least as qualified as any current member of the Court. I am also ecstatic that she breaks the stranglehold that Ivy League schools have held on the Supreme Court. Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, every member of the Supreme Court was educated at Harvard or Yale. (Ginsburg attended Harvard but transferred to Columbia where she earned her law degree). If racial diversity is a good thing it seems that educational diversity is too. The U.S. is chock a block full of quality educational institutions. It seems irresponsible to tap just two of them to fill seats on the Supreme Court.
If you heard Justice Barrett’s acceptance speech Monday night you heard her mention another important reason we should all welcome her to the Bench. She made it clear that she understands the responsibilities of those appointed as Justices, and Judges. She correctly recognizes what too many previously appointed members of the Judiciary don’t. The Judiciary was established by our Founding Fathers to interpret laws and the Constitution, not to make laws. This was the number two reason I voted for Trump in 2016. He promised to fill open seats on the judiciary with people who understand this basic tenet. As with most of the promises he made Trump kept this one. He is approaching the appointment of 250 Federal Judges. As you know he has appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices. But you might not know that he has appointed nearly 1 in 4 of the total of 880 Federal Judges in the U.S. He has appointed almost 30% of the Judges sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals. This is very important for one key reason. The Supreme Court typically hears about 1% of the cases referred to it. That means the Court of Appeals has the last word in 99% of critical cases. All of the Federal Judges are appointed for life. Another important statistic is that Trump’s average appointee is about 10 years younger that those appointed by his predecessors. President Trump will serve for either 4 or 8 years. His appointees will be seated for decades. Trump’s legacy may well be how he reshaped the American Judiciary. If democrats keep the House, take the Senate, and win the Presidency, the Judiciary may be the only place conservatives can look for relief. Thank you President Trump.
All that Americans ask is that the Supreme Court sticks to the letter of the law. We are a country of laws. Law abiding citizens are able to follow the law when it is consistent. It is difficult to follow the law when the legal system continually moves the goal posts. There are no illusions that the Supreme Court, even with a 6 to 3 conservative majority, will always rule the way we would like. But Americans can now be hopeful that decisions passed down from the Court will be based on the Constitution. For too long we have been at the mercy of Justices who rule using criteria that depicts the way they wish things would be, or how they think things should be. We have a chance there will be more objectivity and less subjectivity in their rulings. Again, welcome Amy Coney Barrett.
That the Democrats used their entire time to discuss things that didn’t have to do with ACB’s impeccable experience and record tells me she’s a flawless judge and should be a great justice.