Liberals should embrace Trump's Supreme Court nominee | TheHill
Our desperate lack of civic literacy and understanding of the principles of our U.S. Constitution is never greater than when the Second Amendment is involved.
Which brings us to the current U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Liberals, if taken at their word in desiring a more just and equitable body of law, should embrace Judge Amy Coney Barrett Amy Coney BarrettRepublicans increasingly seek distance from Trump Overnight Health Care: Pfizer could apply for vaccine authorization by late November | State health officials say they need .4B for vaccination effort | CDC: Blacks, Hispanics dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates Major abortion rights group calls for Democrats to replace Feinstein on Judiciary Committee MORE for what her decision-making framework might mean for their professed policy aims.
The Judiciary, properly understood, is a deliberately antidemocratic coequal check on the Executive and the Legislative branches. Certainly, there are democratic inputs: An elected president — with the consent of an elected senate — populates the Judiciary. However, the quintessential role of the Judiciary is to keep the political democratic branches functioning within their constitutionally designated lane. And NFIB v. Sebelius notwithstanding, the Judiciary must not yield to the other branches because they were “democratically elected.” That’s a vox populi fallacy.
Yet progressives speculate that Judge Barrett, who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will defy “the will of the people” by ruling a certain way on cases with active judicial questions on whether one or both political branches exceeded their ambit, even ...
More on: thehill.com