WASHINGTON. President Trump fundamentally changed the judicial course of the US Supreme Court. That clearly proved too much for the New York Times’ Trump-deranged editors to bear. That’s why the paper attempted to re-adjudicate the explosive sexual charges leveled against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. A venue in which there is no protection against double jeopardy.
Subsequently, the predictably vicious Congressional Democrats piled right on, smearing Justice Kavanaugh as if on cue.
The New York Times: A partisan rag, not a “paper of record”
Over the weekend, the Times printed a story, for a second time, claiming a female Yale alumnus was scarred for life at the site of drunken fellow classmate/party-goer Brett Kavanagh dropping his pants and exposing his penis and forcing her to touch it.
It was precisely this kind of boorish behavior that a Democrat-controlled Senate said did not rise (pardon the pun) to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” at President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Another Clinton crony smearing Justice Kavanaugh
And speaking of Clinton, attorney Max Stier, the source of the Times’ latest allegation and apparently a Kavanaugh classmate, turns out to have been one member of Clinton’s impeachment defense team. He’s the same man the Times now claims witnessed Kavanaugh’s drunken misconduct at the expense of female student Deborah Ramirez.
Unfortunately for the Times, this latest alleged #MeToo “bombshell” blew up in the reporters’ and editors’ faces. Just hours after the story broke, the Times issued the following correction:
“The female student [Deborah Ramirez] declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
So much for that paper’s latest attempt at smearing Justice Kavanaugh. Congressional Democrats are already attacking Kavanaugh for what never happened and clamoring once again for his impeachment. Even after the Times’ devastating correction of its latest Kavanaugh hit piece.
Not so total recall
Have you noticed that those accusing and smearing Justice Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford for instance – recall his alleged misconduct after years of psychotherapy supposedly aroused “repressed memories”? Or that such smears and slanders are ultimately pitched by partisan hacks whose secondhand “observations” the alleged victims do not recall?
What explains the renewed excitement over Brett Kavanaugh and demands for his impeachment? What justifies this latest case of anti-conservative double jeopardy?
Bye, bye to Progressivism’s strong left arm
The answer is simple. The Progressive Era is coming to an close. And its last human visage can be seem in the languid form of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who we recently learned is battling a malignant form of cancer.
It is clear President Trump will soon have a high court vacancy to fill. And thus, the Progressive tilt of the US Supreme Court – one that has existed since the New Deal administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt – will undergo a decidedly originalist realignment.
This explains the hair-on-fire panic among Progressive organs like The New York Times. And the Democrats’ shameless indulgence in shameful double-jeopardy stunts.
Origins and effects of an activist court
Nowhere in the US Constitution does the document specify that the high court’s job is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. It usurped that power in its 1803 ruling in Marbury vs Madison, which reads in part:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
In other words, the high court carved out for itself the job of deciding what is and isn’t constitutional.
This did not sit well with Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson, who noted in a letter dated 1820:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Activism in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s dark history only backs up Jefferson’s fear of judicial despotism. Consider its 1857 Dred Scott vs. Sandford ruling or that of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. The high court used its authoritarian power to dehumanize large swaths of the American populace, ranging from African-Americans to the unborn.
In the court’s 1927 ruling in Buck vs. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for the majority, upholding the state of Virginia’s forced sterilization law.
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices… instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
In the service of freedom or the state?
It is inevitable that those with ultimate power should come to believe in their own divinity. In the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes, he was more concerned with cleaning America’s gene pool to provide healthy thralls in service to the State. But he did so at the expense of Carrie Buck’s individual rights.
The Declaration of Independence states that the primary purpose of legitimate government is to secure the individual’s right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But freedom’s holy trinity springs from, as Jefferson noted, “the consent of the governed” and not the whims of a judicial college of cardinals.
The rehashing of bogus sexual allegations to once again indulge in smearing Justice Kavanaugh was designed to serve as a warning to the next Supreme Court nominee President Trump sends to the Senate for confirmation. By smearing Justice Kavanaugh – again – on the anniversary of his ultimate confirmation to the Supreme Court, the country’s elitist, faux-Marxist establishment is reminding Trump’s next appointee what’s guaranteed to be in store.
Whoever he or she is, the next Trump nominee will face the distraction of mounting a defense against baseless charges invented by hard-left partisan Democrats instead of explaining to the Senate why an authoritarian, activist, Progressive judiciary is a threat to constitutional government. It is duty-bound to serve and protect what the Constitution was designed to protect: individual liberty.
Top Images: New York Times. Photo: pixabay, https://pixabay.com/photos/new-york-times-editorial-1789976/. (Left inset) Max Stier inset: Partnership for Public Service via flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/publicservice/10156306814/. (Right inset) Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Trump. Photo: Fred Schilling, collection fo the Supreme Court of the United States.