Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Packing the Court” used to mean adding extra people to the Supreme Court who would vote your way. Then the Democrat-media complex redefined the phrase to mean something along the lines of adding people to the Supreme Court until it has as many Democrat appointees as Republic appointees. Or maybe it meant adding people to the Court until it has as many people who vote one way as vote the other. Or whatever… it’s not like clarity was ever the point.
In any case, I noticed this shift in terminology about a year and a half ago. But now we’re dealing with a different shift: “packing the Court” is the new name for putting your own guys on the Court through the usual process, and actually packing the Court is now called “depoliticizing the Court.”
But about that.
Word still have meaning, and you can still find them in the dictionary, at least for the moment.
To depoliticize the Supreme Court is to do the very thing conservatives have been trying to do for decades.
Do you think conservatives are expecting Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch uniformly to enact from the federal Courts the policies conservatives like? Newsflash: We’re not.
What we actually expect is that, with an originalist Supreme Court, judges might actually, more often than not, act as judges who interpret law instead of as legislators who write it.
Originalism, which I introduce here, means that a written law still means what it meant when it became law. That is largely the point of having the law written down–so its meaning is both accessible to citizens who can read and also unchanging until such time as the words change with it.
In the American context, the written Constitution is the supreme law. An originalist judge will herself submit, and insist that other laws submit, to its original meaning. She will not rule according to her own political preferences.
An originalist judge is by definition a depoliticized judge.
Except, that is, where one side of our political divide has the express goal of replacing the Constitutional order with another order by non-Constitutional means. In that case I grant that an originalist Supreme Court is a political Court in the sense that it is a Court opposed to one side of the political divide.
As it should be.
In every other respect, an originalist Supreme Court is a depoliticized Court. Let’s not let the Left tell us otherwise.
And as for those who want to replace the order of the current Constitution let them do so, if they can, in the way which is both Constitutional and truly democratic: Let them persuade us to vote for a Constitution with different words.Published in