The circus is back in town

Well, here we go again.  The "Borking of a good man" show is off and running.

It will include 2020 presidential candidates positioning themselves for the first debate of 2020.  "I stood up to Kavanaugh" is now the latest rallying cry of the resistance!

And what would a Supreme Court confirmation be without someone in the back of the room screaming that "her rights" are at risk?

For some, the mere thought of a Justice Brett Kavanaugh is enough to scream this or that.

For many of us, a future Justice Kavanaugh will be a step in the restoration of our constitution.

I agree with Stephen B. Presser:

Fifty years ago there was a fragile consensus, even in our great law schools, about how justices were to go about doing their jobs. 

That consensus was formed by admiration for Felix Frankfurter, the occasionally mercurial, but stunningly brilliant, appointee of Franklin Roosevelt. 

Frankfurter, contrary to the later pattern of justices appointed by Republican presidents, moved to the right on the court, becoming more conservative with age.  By the end of his career, in a series of thoughtful opinions, he had explained that the task of a justice was not to formulate new constitutional law according to his personal preferences, but, rather to exercise restraint and wisdom in preserving the original constitutional scheme of separation of powers and preeminence of state and local governments.

Cheers for Felix!

The modern Democratic Party knows that it can't get abortion or same-sex "marriage" in a majority of state legislatures.  In California, a judge reversed a vote passing a ban on redefining marriage.  We've seen judges reverse decisions on abortion clinics in Texas.

Where did judges get the authority to redefine marriage and create abortion rights?  I'm sure the aforementioned Justice Frankfurter and even Supreme Court justice John Marshall would love to know.

So here is my recommendation for the next 30 days:

1. Do not watch the hearings, or simply flip the channel when a Democrat is on the clock.  Why?  Because they will all ask the same question about Roe v Wade!

2. Pray that this is the last time we have to watch a spectacle like this in the U.S. Senate.  It does not do much to help the Democrats, especially in those places between the coasts that they have to win to get the House back.

It also does not do much for the image of the Senate.  It makes you wonder if electing senators by popular vote was a good idea after all.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Well, here we go again.  The "Borking of a good man" show is off and running.

It will include 2020 presidential candidates positioning themselves for the first debate of 2020.  "I stood up to Kavanaugh" is now the latest rallying cry of the resistance!

And what would a Supreme Court confirmation be without someone in the back of the room screaming that "her rights" are at risk?

For some, the mere thought of a Justice Brett Kavanaugh is enough to scream this or that.

For many of us, a future Justice Kavanaugh will be a step in the restoration of our constitution.

I agree with Stephen B. Presser:

Fifty years ago there was a fragile consensus, even in our great law schools, about how justices were to go about doing their jobs. 

That consensus was formed by admiration for Felix Frankfurter, the occasionally mercurial, but stunningly brilliant, appointee of Franklin Roosevelt. 

Frankfurter, contrary to the later pattern of justices appointed by Republican presidents, moved to the right on the court, becoming more conservative with age.  By the end of his career, in a series of thoughtful opinions, he had explained that the task of a justice was not to formulate new constitutional law according to his personal preferences, but, rather to exercise restraint and wisdom in preserving the original constitutional scheme of separation of powers and preeminence of state and local governments.

Cheers for Felix!

The modern Democratic Party knows that it can't get abortion or same-sex "marriage" in a majority of state legislatures.  In California, a judge reversed a vote passing a ban on redefining marriage.  We've seen judges reverse decisions on abortion clinics in Texas.

Where did judges get the authority to redefine marriage and create abortion rights?  I'm sure the aforementioned Justice Frankfurter and even Supreme Court justice John Marshall would love to know.

So here is my recommendation for the next 30 days:

1. Do not watch the hearings, or simply flip the channel when a Democrat is on the clock.  Why?  Because they will all ask the same question about Roe v Wade!

2. Pray that this is the last time we have to watch a spectacle like this in the U.S. Senate.  It does not do much to help the Democrats, especially in those places between the coasts that they have to win to get the House back.

It also does not do much for the image of the Senate.  It makes you wonder if electing senators by popular vote was a good idea after all.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.