Why Do Dem SCOTUS Noms Lie About Their Beliefs?

 

I’ve been fascinated by the confirmation hearings of the perfectly named Ketanji Brown Jackson.  When asked about her judicial philosophy, her answers consistently place her slightly to the right of Brett Kavanaugh.  She just follows the Constitution.  That’s it.  Her record is a bit different than his, of course.  But her answers about legal matters are the same.  That seems odd.

Republican Supreme Court nominees are nominated because they’re expected to interpret the Constitution as it’s written.  So when they’re asked about their judicial philosophy in their confirmation hearings, they say that they intend to interpret the Constitution as it’s written.  Democrat Supreme Court nominees are nominated because they’re expected to ignore the Constitution as it’s written.  But when they’re asked about their judicial philosophy in their confirmation hearings, they say that they intend to interpret the Constitution as it’s written.  That seems odd.

Why don’t Democrat candidates simply state that they intend to enact leftist policies regardless of what the Constitution says?  After all, that’s why they were selected.  On the other hand, why don’t Republican candidates pretend to view the Constitution as endlessly flexible?  Why do Republican candidates acknowledge why they were nominated, and Democrat nominees conceal why they were nominated?  Who are they performing for?  Why does one feel the need to lie, and the other feel the need to be honest?  That seems odd.

That seems even more odd when you consider that elected officials – Republican or Democrat – tend to govern further to the left than they campaigned.  The news media tend to be further to the left than they pretend to be.  Educational institutions tend to be further to the left than they present themselves.  Many powerful people and organizations in America tend to be further to the left than they openly acknowledge.

So why do Supreme Court nominees – Republican or Democrat – tend to pretend to be further to the right than they practice?  Why are they the opposite of everyone else?  That seems odd.

Obviously, when Judge Jackson says that she is a strict Constitutionalist, her supporters know that she is lying, and she’s just trying to get a few Republican votes.  No problem – just ignore her – she’s just playing the game, right?

So why don’t Republican Supreme Court nominees do the same thing?  They could say, “Screw the Constitution.  I intend to do what’s right.  Especially for blacks, women, children, and every minority that you can imagine.  It’s all about the children.  And the climate.  And trans-sexuals.”  That nominee could safely presume that his supporters in the Republican party would simply presume that he is lying, and he’s just trying to get a few Democrat votes.  Just playing the game, right?

But the Republican nominee doesn’t do that.  The Democrat does, but the Republican does not.

They both want the job, and are both willing to do whatever they need to do to get it.  But the Republican candidates acknowledge why they were nominated, and Democrat nominees conceal why they were nominated.

Why?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    I would think that the reason is as informative as it is simple: the leftist project is anti-Constitutional, and cannot be squared with the duties of a Justice.

    Justices can be removed, and acknowledging their intent to abrogate their duties would be a pretty good foundation for such an effort, years or decades down the line.

    That’s what I think.  Great question.

    • #1
  2. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    That is a conundrum, isn’t it, Doc?

    • #2
  3. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Dr. B, now we know why you did not go to law school.  Saved yourself a lot of agony. Until you start watching Supreme Court nominee hearings. Nothing to see here, believe me. Go back to saving lives. Leave the lying the politicians and the lawyers. 

    • #3
  4. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Republicans think of lying as something disreputable that they have to do to win.   Democrats think of lying as one of joys of politics.

    • #4
  5. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Dr. Bastiat: Why?

    Well, because people of the left are natural liars for one thing. Another reason is that they’d never be elected or confirmed for anything if they told the truth.

    • #5
  6. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    She can honestly say she will follow the Constitution:  After all, it’s a living document, and the meaning of words changes constantly.  Right?  (Uhhh…I mean “correct”.)

    One word that demonstrates the truth of my statement is “gay”.

    Time and again I’ve been told that “truth is relative”.

    • #6
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Reminds me of the old custom we used to have.

    Republican candidates for Prez would be forced to swear, “NO ROE V. WADE LITMUS TEST!” Democrat candidates would swear, “DEFINITELY A ROE V. WADE LITMUS TEST!”

    YARN | Everybody's OK with this? | The Lion King (1994) | Video gifs by quotes | f6991342 | 紗

    I don’t think we have that custom anymore. Maybe Trump broke it.

    • #7
  8. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    BDB (View Comment):
    Justices can be removed, and acknowledging their intent to abrogate their duties would be a pretty good foundation for such an effort, years or decades down the line.

    Thinking ahead. Conditions will have to change.

    • #8
  9. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Don’t both sets of candidates present further to the right than they rule? Everyone knows how Democratic Justices will rule. It’s a crapshoot with Republican-nominated ones (although the smart money is on abandoning the constitution and plain-meaning legislative interpretation).

    • #9
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I thought this was really good. 11 minutes.

    https://rumble.com/vygt7q-ketanji-brown-disqualifies-herself.-ken-klukowski-with-sebastian-gorka-on-a.html

    The problem is the left needs to create non-public goods any way they can. They need to move everything in that direction no matter what or you are moving towards the right. I suppose some of it they can come up with some kind of logic. It looks to me like she’s really going out of her way to be a clever liar.

    The hearing about COVID-19 policy was really alarming to anybody that is slightly knowledgeable. They were literally talking about policy wishes over how any of that fit into the constitution.

    • #10
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I should have said that the video is an analysis of how she BSd her way around if she’s going to follow the constitution. I need to watch it again.

    • #11
  12. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    If they  believe there is such a thing as a constitution and it matters they’re Republicans.  If they don’t and believe that lies work they’re more likely to be Democrats.  Unlike politicians they don’t get rich from the positions they take.  But that’s just a matter of time.  There may be a short period between court irrelevance and total corruption when they can get good payments, but it’s still mostly real.

    • #12
  13. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    In theory, political beliefs don’t matter.  A judge can’t/won’t say how an abortion case should turn out because, again, in theory, it will depend on the facts and arguments presented.  (Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are far more likely to ask about specific political opinions of Republican nominated judicial candidates.)  Ideally, the highest court should consist of very bright people with a deep understanding of law and the highest integrity such that partisan leanings matter little.

    Unfortunately, the left sees the role of the court as a backstop for implementing their agenda–the people get one chance to elect the right sorts who will do the enlightened thing legislatively but if that fails, the courts should just order it be done.  News coverage of the Court is generally oblivious to the actual points of law involved but whether the decision is pro- or anti-progressive.  The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment decisions beginning with the Warren Court to the novel reasoning of Roe v. Wade could all be said to stand for the proposition that it doesn’t really matter if it is not actually in the Constitution if the Court thinks it ought to be.

    Most damaging of all is the expansion of minority rights (especially to include various sexual deviancies)  such that stretched claims of hostile environment or disparate impact hold hostage every public and private entity in America.  In referendums, the people vote against gay marriage, racial hiring quotas, racial quotas in college admission, or government aid to illegal aliens, and some federal judge simply vetos the will of the people an hour after the polls close.

    I used to think the greatest judicial threat was the major highway built from the small opening in the Commerce Clause that permitted vast congressional and regulatory overreach.  But the jurisprudence of victimhood is wrecking the country.

    The other problem is that these judges all go to the same few law schools, their clerks are drawn from the same schools and their viewpoint on most matters (and on the law itself) is thus very insular and elitist. They don’t have to reveal their preferences on most matters–we already know.

    A great model might be Cardozo.  Brilliant but dropped out of Columbia Law after two years, passed the bar anyway, served in the NY state courts (not the federal bench), had a great depth of understanding and crafted changes in both contract and tort law, resisted congressional intrusion on states’ rights and thought the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used at trial) was wrong–the facts are the facts, the truth is the truth.  To paraphrase Archie Bunker’s theme song:  “Mister, we could use a guy like [the guy appointed by] Herbery Hoover again.”

     

    • #13
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Unfortunately, the left sees the role of the court as a backstop for implementing their agenda–the people get one chance to elect the right sorts who will do the enlightened thing legislatively but if that fails, the courts should just order it be done.  News coverage of the Court is generally oblivious to the actual points of law involved but whether the decision is pro- or anti-progressive.  The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment decisions beginning with the Warren Court to the novel reasoning of Roe v. Wade could all be said to stand for the proposition that it doesn’t really matter if it is not actually in the Constitution if the Court thinks it ought to be.

    This is absolutely the way it is.

    attn:

    Ricochet’s Leading Never Trumper™

     

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    In referendums, the people vote against gay marriage,

    Heterosexual household formation and homosexual household formation are not the same things from the state’s point of view. It takes very little explanation to see this. There was absolutely no reason to make them the same thing. 

    • #14
  15. Hugh Member
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    Insert – “Forget it Jake.  Its Chinatown” meme here.

    • #15
  16. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    They lie because they think, like in the movie, “you can’t handle the truth.” We are mere  dumb rubes, unlike their great, enlightened selves.

    • #16
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.