Angus King is a liberal Democratic U.S. senator from Maine, elected in 2012 and serving since 2013. He claimed to have been a classmate of the late Justice Anthony Scalia in law school.
King made a speech on the Senate floor opposing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court. He said that he opposed her because the process of her confirmation did not follow tradition even if it was legal according to the Constitution. Republicans did not wait for the voters to decide who they wanted to replace Justice Ginsburg.
Republicans chose not to take up the confirmation of Obama-nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 because they controlled the Senate at the time. Democrats do not control the Senate now. King failed to acknowledge that difference between then and now. If Democrats had controlled the Senate then, do you honestly think they would have waited for any election before they would have confirmed Garland?
When King stated his real objections to Barrett, those objections displayed the real differences between how Democrats approach governing versus how Republicans approach governing.
Among other objections, King feared that Barrett will use the same strict interpretation of the words of the Constitution to make decisions that was used by Scalia. King thinks that we need judges who will interpret the Constitution with a liberal approach, an activist approach where they consider many factors that are outside of the four corners of the contract, the U.S. Constitution.
King specifically criticized Scalia for stating that the amendment process in Article V of the Constitution is what makes it a living document, not by changing interpretations of the words. King said that rulings by the Supreme Court needed to keep up with the changing values of the American people and that if the amendment process were used for every change that is needed, then thousands of amendments would make the Constitution unworkable.
Did Angus King understand what he said? Does he understand what the Founding Fathers did in the Constitution?
The founders understood that thousands of amendments would make the Constitution unworkable, so they made it hard to make amendments. Amendments require 38 of the 50 states' approval to change it. Therefore, only changes that satisfy a huge majority of Americans are made – only 27 in the last 230 years. Ironically, allowing judges to change the Constitution by interpretation is what makes it unworkable, with thousands of such interpretations. And change by interpretation negates the process of amendment that was agreed to be by the states that approved the Constitution as a contract between them. It causes "judge shopping" to get specific kinds of rulings.
King thinks that the Supreme Court should reflect the changing moods of the electorate. He thinks that judges should be allowed latitude in interpreting the words of our Constitution so that the most current feelings of voters are reflected in court rulings. He used a quote from Thomas Jefferson to try to make his point.
Do you understand what he said? He wants our courts to be subject to the mood swings of the population. He wants to enable the "tyranny of the majority" that Thomas Jefferson warned against. He opposes the republic that was established in our Constitution. He wants mob rule even for our judicial system.
Hey, Angus, do you understand why the Founding Fathers created a Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution)? So that a majority cannot undo those rights by democratic process. We are not a democracy. We are a republic established by contract between the states. It is up to our judicial branch to protect that contract. It is up to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, to represent the voters.
Members of the House are elected for two years so that they have a short-term approach to legislation. Senators are elected for six years so that they have a longer-term approach to legislation. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life so that they have an unencumbered approach to judicial decisions with no accountability to voters. Apparently, Sen. King doesn't understand that distinction.
This difference of strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws versus an activist approach is one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals.
Joe Biden said that he will put together a judicial commission to investigate how to make the judicial branch more accountable to voters and more balanced in its political approach.
Joe, the judicial branch is not directly accountable to the president or the Congress. The president and Congress cannot rework the judicial branch. The judicial branch is separate and equal to Congress and the president. Read Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. Democrats think that they can "pack" (expand) the court with activist liberal judges to offset the conservative judges. Maybe. But Joe and the Democrats are so wrong about so much.
There it is. Right from Angus King and Joe Biden, Liberal Democrats who want activist judges who will consider the fleeting mood and feelings of the culture and implement the tyranny of the majority.
So, are you willing to turn over the nomination of judges to Democrats by giving them control of the White House and the Senate? Are you?
The post Angus King vs. Amy Barrett: What a contrast! appeared first on WND.
