Guest commentary: The Coming Crisis in the Judicial Profession

The country is heading towards a train accident at the judges’ appointments.

Now, in court, President Joe Biden is going in the opposite direction, enforcing the racial and gender preferences of the progressive movement. After a year in office, Biden managed to confirm 42 federal judges — more than three-quarters were women, two-thirds were black, and only two were white men.

One could not wish for a better example of a pattern and practice of discrimination.

let’s stop

Biden has sought to appoint judges with criminal defense experience and public defenders. With the Defund the Police movement, the impunity to many prosecutors theft and the rise of violent crime in large citiesshould give us pause to consider the consequences of a federal judiciary bias against the rights of the accused.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson crystallized these preferences. She was chosen because she is a black woman is a former public defender and was selected ahead of Michele Childs, who has experience representing corporate interests, and Leondra Kruger, who is a real moderate.

It is no surprise that the Senate views judicial confirmations through an ideological prism, as federal courts have stretched their reach beyond reason and abused judicial supremacy.

legislators, not judges

Consider abortion, gay marriage and Transgender Rights. To make and shape compromises on such differences of opinion moral questions should be the domain of the legislatureno judges.

In United States v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, Judge Samuel Alito in his dissenting states “Windsor and the United States are implicitly asking us to support the consent-based view of marriage and reject the traditional view, thereby usurping the power to decide an issue that philosophers, historians, social scientists, and theologians are better qualified to explore are .”

Judge Antonin Scalia expressed similar views on the hubris and arrogance of the courts on major social issues. Why should nine people all have law degrees from Harvard and Yale and live in a bubble of privilegewe make such moral judgments about when life begins and whether boys who identify as women should be allowed to compete in girls’ sports.

Leaked opinion on abortion

The recently leaked draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would Roe v. Knocking Wade down, but enforcing such judicial activism seems more important. However, the ultimate weight of the decision remains to be seen.

Often, balancing voters’ differing sensitivities, Congress and state legislatures have spoken in ways that did not please competing interests. It shouldn’t be the job of the judiciary to remedy these abuses – that’s why we have elections.

When aggrieved parties’ objections have been brought before the federal courts, the Supreme Court too often stretches the Constitution and the law beyond the understanding of a layman, rather than denying jurisdiction and relegating it to the political organs of government.

social resentment

And it is layman’s thinking, not the arcane theories discussed in legal journals, that clarification of moral considerations should address. Otherwise, we’re just fueling social resentments — think abortion — and blunt outcomes — think the arguments about it Schools that teach young children sexual preferences.

Presidents have a habit of issuing executive orders when they lack legal authority, much like baseball players stealing signs — let’s see what we get away with.

President Barack Obama acknowledged this when granting temporary legal status to DACAs, but was not challenged in court during his tenure.

last august, Biden publicly admitted to acting beyond the law when he imposed a second moratorium on evictions.

In relation to the DACAs, the Supreme Court effectively enforced its own law Blocking Trump’s executive order to negate an apparently illegal act by his predecessor and refuses to pressure Congress to finally find a solution on immigration.

If the courts are to be our legislature of last resort, it is only logical that the Senate should view the appointment of courts – and particularly the appointment of the Supreme Court – as an exercise of power. It refrains from substituting its legislative responsibilities if it lacks the courage to act or the attitude to compromise.

Of last four candidates for the Supreme Court, Jackson and Neil Gorsuch received only three Senate votes from the political party over the nominating president. Kavanaugh one vote and Barrett none.

After Republicans refused to vote on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, it seems obvious that Republicans will refuse to act against the Biden-nominated candidate if the GOP wins the Senate and a judge retires or dies.

A Supreme Court with just eight or even seven judges could finally join the question of how we choose judges. We just can’t have a winner-take-all system for appointing judges — it’s social dynamite.

Peter Morici is an economist and emeritus economics professor at the University of Maryland and a national columnist.

More about the dish

If the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade picks up, what happens next?

Opinion: If the Supreme Court’s plan to reverse Roe is kid-friendly, where’s the help to reduce childcare costs?

What percentage of Americans support Roe v. Calf? How Americans really feel about abortion, according to polls

The repeal of Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court would increase Democrat turnout for midterm elections, analysts say Guest commentary: The Coming Crisis in the Judicial Profession

Brian Lowry

InternetCloning is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button