Next Up–Getting Another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. : ThyBlackMan

Thursday, November 23, 2017


Next Up–Getting Another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

January 29, 2017 by  
Filed under News, Opinion, Politics, Weekly Columns

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry
1

(ThyBlackMan.com) “I encourage you to consider seriously, for example, the repeal or amendment of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness, and consider modifying other provisions of the Act that have led to extraordinary abuses of judicial power.”

This is what then Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr. told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1997 looking at the impact of alleged “judicial activism” meaning opinions by moderate jurists that the right never likes. In 2005 he was confirmed as a federal appellate court judge. On the bench, Pryor has been the hardest of hard right-wingers in his rulings and opinions on abortion, gay rights, state’s rights, and countless crime and punishment issues.

Despite his impeccable hard right position, even Pryor may not pass muster as Donald Trump’s ideal Scalia clone on the Supreme Court. His cardinal sin is that in two 2011 cases he actually upheld the rights of gays and a transgender woman in two discrimination cases, albeit on very narrow grounds. No matter, this made him suspect with the ultra-right. Now if Pryor flunks the hard right’s litmus test for Trump’s SCOTUS pick, then it takes no imagination to figure just what type of justice Trump might pick.

The names on his short list are cut from the same ideological cloth as Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who Donald Trump also raved about as his kind of judge. They all have an impressive body of conservative rulings and opinions on hot button court cases. They all carry the good seal of conservative approval from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. They are almost all white males, and hard line opponents of abortion, same-sex marriage, voting rights expansion, and increased federal regulations.

There are two, and only two, faint possibilities to slow down the hard-right takeover of the High Court. One is that the GOP Senate leaders want to get a justice on the court with as little political bloodshed as possible. And to do that Donald Trump would have to dig into his short list and find a judge whose court record is the least odious, has a light paper trial of rulings and opinions, and has made no polarizing public pronouncements.  This directly ties to the other possibility which is to get the widest backing from Democrats to forestall any chance of a filibuster. The meetings that Trump has had with GOP and Democratic Senate leaders have been geared to get consensus on a pick who will not send everyone to their respective barricades in open warfare.

The problem with both possibilities is that hard right activist groups and the Heritage Foundation loudly demand another pristine, unabashed, ultra-conservative from his list.  Their willingness to go public in attacking an outspoken rightist judge such as Pryor sent the loud signal that compromise on the SCOTUS choice is not in their playbook. The Scalia replacement is only the start of the GOP’s SCOTUS long game.

Donald Trump may have the chance to pick one maybe two more justices during his term replacing the two-aging liberal and a moderate judge on the court. If the right gets its way with a hardliner on the court the first go around, those picks will not just be garden variety strict constructionists, but activists and influencers on the bench too. They will be judges who won’t just base their rulings on the standard conservative playbook, but will cajole, hector and badger other judges to toe the hard-conservative line in their rulings.

This underscores a brute truth about the high court. Since the 1960s, the SCOTUS has been the right’s main prize since the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren. The right-wing routinely railed at the Warren court for its liberal rulings upholding and expanding civil and voting rights, labor, environmental and civil liberties protections, abortion, and reining in the corporate abuses. Conservatives viewed the Supreme Court as an unapologetic advocate of activist liberalism, and loathed it for it. The right plainly wanted more judges on the bench who would rigidly toe the ultra-conservative line. The court became even more important as a political tool for the conservative remake of the country when it became clear that just having more conservatives in the Senate and the House was not enough to roll back the gains in civil, women’s and labor rights of the past half century.

The right correctly saw the Supreme Court not just as a neutral arbiter to settle legal disputes. It was a lethal weapon to skirt congressional gridlock and serve a dual role as a judicial and legislative body. This meant scrapping the long-standing tradition on the court where justices based their legal decisions solely on the merit of the law, constitutional principles and the public good, and not ideology.

The criticism by the right of Pryor fits into the plan to insure total rightist ideological purity on the court. Getting another Scalia on the court is the key to making that a reality. Or as Donald Trump bluntly put it when he spoke at a construction site for his new hotel in Washington, D.C., last May, “I’m not appointing a liberal judge.

Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson ReportNews.

Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchins

He is also an associate editor of New America Media. His forthcoming book is From King to Obama: Witness to a Turbulent History (Middle Passage Press).


Comments

One Response to “Next Up–Getting Another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.”
  1. Douglas Loss says:

    What’s most important in a Supreme Court Justice is someone who will rule on the cases before the court according to the existing laws and the Constitution, not to what they’d like those laws and the Constitution to say. And when there’s question of the meaning of those laws and the Constitution, they should follow the doctrine of “original public meaning,” or what an intelligent educated person at the time the law (or the Constitution) went into effect would take the text of the law or the Constitution to mean. Anything other than that is judicial activism, no matter what political direction it goes in.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!