When it comes to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, ask yourself one thing: Why does every article that discusses the nomination mention Roe v. Wade? According to the courts, this is settled law, a done deal never to be reversed. But just like the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Court can and does occasionally get it wrong. And
Roe v. Wade is anything but settled in the hearts and minds of the American people.
For decades, the courts have been, as Robert Bork put it, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, with justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg openly admitting that they have at least a modicum of contempt for the U.S. Constitution. Years ago, Justice O’Connor said that the Court would increasingly rely on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution when making their decisions. This led to a series of 5-4 decisions on things like Obamacare and same sex marriage, which increasingly took the nation to the left against the express will of the people. The Constitution was seen by some of the justices as a mere suggestion rather than the bedrock set of principles upon which the United States would be governed.
That brings us to the battle before us and the chance to replace a moderate Justice Kennedy with a strict Constitutional constructionist like Brett Kavanaugh. There are those who say we shouldn’t use terms like “battle” to describe this nomination. It seems so melodramatic, they say. That may be so, to a degree, but like it or not, it’s a battle, nonetheless. And our side needs to see it that way. The other side certainly does. They see their power of judicial activism slipping away, and they’re not about to let it go quietly.
Over the past two months, in decision after decision, from Masterpiece Cake to NIFFLA v. Becerra, to Janus v. Unions, we’ve seen what happens when the Supreme Court adheres to the Constitution, and it feels good. It feels like they’re finally playing by the rules that we all agreed on, and I, for one, would like to see that continue. The Constitution either means something or it does not. If it contains provisions that are no longer relevant, or lacks provisions that should be included, there’s a legal method for amending it. But our nation and Constitution should never be allowed to become the victim of judicial activism.
President Trump campaigned on the fact that he would appoint judges that would uphold the Constitution as written, and so far, he’s done just that. There are currently 143 federal court vacancies, and 91 nominations pending. Since President Trump took office, 43 of his nominees have been confirmed. That’s more than any other President at this point in his presidency in recent history. And all of them are young, Constitutional constructionists who will be on the bench for decades to come.
The left says that Trump is stacking the courts with conservatives, but when it comes to the courts, conservative v. liberal takes on a whole new meaning. Judicial conservatives see the Constitution, as written, as a strict control, while judicial liberals see the Constitution, at best, as an annoyance and at worst, as an archaic document to be ignored or rewritten by judicial decree. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest surviving constitution of any nation, and upholding it should be Job One for the President, every member of Congress and every judge in every courtroom in America.