quote:

Originally posted by Powers77:
Tuned into CNN to watch some of their meltdown.
Good news guys, Jeffrey Toobin just told us that we are going to get bazookas out of this new appointment. #NBA will now stand for the National Bazooka Association.

quote:

Was Gorsuch Worth A Trump Presidency? It’s Starting To Look That Way

A presidency is more than one man, and so far, the Constitution is winning.

David Harsanyi
It’s odd, isn’t it, that so many of the folks who warn us about the authoritarianism of the GOP also happen to support an array of policies that coerce Americans to do things they don’t want to?

Take, for example, the four reliably liberal Supreme Court justices, all of whom believe it’s constitutional to compel Americans to pay dues to political organizations they disagree with, and to coerce Americans to say things they don’t believe, and to compel them to make things that undermine their principles.

Don’t get me wrong: Trump’s attacks on the press can be harmful and gratuitous (though, of course, not every tweet critical of CNN is an attack on the foundations of the First Amendment). Yet they are far less consequential than allowing SCOTUS to forever codify attacks on free expression. For some, the prospects of a progressive court have long competed with their distaste for Trump. The question for them was, “What’s scarier, a Trump presidency or a progressive Supreme Court?”

I imagine the answer is becoming a bit clearer for many of those Republicans. Of course, you can thank Mitch McConnell for giving Trump the Neil Gorsuch seat and perhaps saving the Constitution (for now.) The much-disparaged Senate leader withstood immense political pressure and preposterous attacks when stopping President Obama from stacking the court.

The result is that in three cases this term — the rulings that stopped the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission from destroying Jack Phillips’ business over a thought crime, California’s attempt to force people to support abortion, and public-sector unions from continuing their long-standing policy of forcing workers to fund their political activities — the court has handed the Constitution clear wins.

I mean, has there been a bigger victory for small-government, real-life conservatives over the past few decades than the Janus v. AFSCME ruling? The decision not only fortifies the First Amendment by explicitly finding compelled speech unconstitutional, but also calls out the Left’s authoritarian political machinery, which has been holding many American communities, school systems, and workers hostage for decades.

“It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority. “Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.”

The Janus ruling also stipulates that employees must now affirmatively opt-in — rather than having to opt out — of unions before having to pay fees. The court understood that dollars are fungible, and every one of them should be considered a matter of speech.

In an environment where Americans are increasingly drifting apart ideologically, culturally, and politically on virtually every major issue, gridlock has become the de facto state of affairs in DC, and the court becomes even more important. Whatever Trump’s personal predilections or beliefs might be, the First Amendment has been strengthened under this presidency. Certainly, it would not have been the case had Hillary won. We know this by taking a peek at a counterhistory by reading the dissent.

“The First Amendment,” writes Justice Elena Kagan, “was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.” The idea that the court should decide who deserves First Amendment protections, or that those protections should be contingent on the vagaries of “democratic governance,” whatever that means, is as corrupt as any of the dumb things Trump has ever said about free expression. The Supreme Court is built to withstand the whims of democracy, not to surrender to them. (Kagan gives away her political game when she worries that “Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support.”)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, accused the majority of weaponizing the First Amendment — an unconscionable position for a person tasked with “faithfully and impartially” discharging the duty to protect the inherent rights of all Americans. The dissenters have perverted the intent of the Founders. It’s none of Sotomayor’s business how we use free expression. It’s her business to protect it.

Of course, it’s still early in the Trump era, and we really have no idea how the residual political effects of our acute partisan battles or investigations or ugly rhetoric or the often-incompetent presidency will manifest in the long term. Perhaps Trump’s unpopularity will make it harder for originalists to find their way to the Supreme Court in the future. Perhaps not. But it’s also true that in no time in modern American history has a president’s disposition and rhetoric conflicted more dramatically with the outcomes of his administration. So far that’s been a net win for the Constitution.

With another justice coming, it might even get better.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the forthcoming book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
... make sure those 10 Democrat Senators from Trump states get to make well informed, intelligent decisions about their future.

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
I know but this makes them very very sad!

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Chuck S called on Senate to follow Biden Rule and do as they did with Merrick Garland so that the voters through the Senate get to have their voices heard.

That's a bullshit argument. We had gone through eight years of BHO's presidency. We were electing new president at the very end of two term lame duck President and 1/3 of Senate. This year's election occurs less than half way through Trump's first term. The voters did already speak very recently, less than two years ago and they clearly said that they want Trump in the White House and trust him to pick justices.

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989: