Senate Confirmation – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽🇺🇸JUDGE GARLAND ACKNOWLEDGES REFUGEE HERITAGE — Does He Recognize That As He Testifies, Many Of His “Soon-To-Be Judges” @ EOIR Are Intentionally Screwing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers, Harassing Their Pro Bono Attorneys, Carrying Out Miller’s White Nationalist Agenda, & Otherwise Mocking Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, & Equal Justice For Persons Of Color?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/22/merrick-garland-finally-speaks-his-words-were-worth-wait/

Robin Givhan writes @ WashPost:

. . . .

For the Republicans, justice is not something that “rolls down like waters,” it’s something that comes down like a hammer.

This was a failure that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) aimed to make clear when he asked Garland whether he was familiar with a biblical reference to justice that advises to “act justly and to love mercy.” Much of Booker’s questioning centered around racism within the criminal justice system — the disproportionate arrests of minorities, lousy legal representation for the poor, sentencing imbalances and the issue that caused Kennedy such befuddlement, implicit bias.

Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?

Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?

“I come from a family where my grandparents fled antisemitism and persecution,” Garland said. And then he stopped. He sat in silence for more than a few beats. And when he resumed, his voice cracked. “The country took us in and protected us. And I feel an obligation to the country, to pay back.”

“This is the highest, best use of my one set of skills,” Garland said. “And so I want very much to be the kind of attorney general you’re saying I could be.”

And that would be one focused on protecting the rights of the greatest and the least — and even the worst. Punishment is part of the job. But it’s not the definition of justice.

*******************

Read Robin’s complete article at the link. She can write! So delighted the Post got her off the “fashion beat” where her talents were being squandered, and got her onto more serious stuff!

Judge Garland’s awareness and humility are refreshing. But, unless he takes immediate action to redo EOIR and the rest of the DOJ’s immigration kakistocracy, it won’t mean much.

Judge, it could have been YOUR family forced to suffer kidnapping, extortion, murder threats, family separation, and other overtly cruel and inhuman treatment in squalid camps in Mexico, waiting for “hearings” that would never come before “judges” known for denying almost 100% of claims regardless of merit! YOUR family’s plea for refugee could have been rejected by some nativist bureaucrat or “hand-selected by the prosecutor” “Deportation Judge” for specious, biased reasons!

YOUR family was welcomed! But what if the only thought had been how to “best deter” “you and others like you” from coming?

Maybe because you and yours are White and hail from Eastern Europe, the “rule of law” has a different meaning and impact than it would if you were Brown, Black, or some other “non-White” skin color and had the misfortune to be from a “shithole” country where we have no concern for what happens to humanity? Or, worse yet, what if your family’s claim had been based on your Grandmother’s gender status? You would really be out of luck under today’s overtly misogynist approach to refugee law flowing out of EOIR!

Then, where would you and your nice family be today? Would you even be? THOSE are the questions you should be asking yourself!

Unfortunately, it’s easy to see that folks like Cotton, Hawley, Cruz, and Kennedy will be deeply offended if you attack their White Nationalist privilege, views, and agendas in any meaningful way.

And, if you actually make progress in holding the Capitol insurrectionists accountable, you’ll have to deal with the unapologetic, disingenuous, anti-democracy, insurrectionist actions of folks like Hawley and Cruz. That won’t be too “bipartisanly popular” with a GOP gang that just overwhelmingly worked and voted to ignore the evidence and “acquit” the “Chief Insurrectionist.” Who, by the way, was a main purveyor of the institutionalized racism that infects EOIR and the rest of the DOJ. It’s no real secret that “America’s anti-democracy party” aids, abets, encourages, and exonerates White Supremacists and domestic terrorists.

In the GOP world, “mercy” and “due process” are reserved for White guys like Trump, Flynn, Stone, White Supremacists, and “Q-Anoners.” Folks of color and migrants exist largely below the floor level of the GOP’s definition of “person” or “human.” For them, justice is a “hammer” to beat them into submission and punish them for asserting their rights.

So, restoring the rule of law at the DOJ is going to be a tough job — you need to clean house and get the right folks (mostly from outside Government) in to help you. And, you must examine carefully the roles of many career civil servants who chose to be part of the problems outlined by Chairman Durbin in his opening remarks.

You’re also going to have to “tune out” the criticism, harassment, and unhelpful “input” you’re likely to get from GOP legislators in both Houses who are firmly committed to the former regime’s White Nationalist agenda of “Dred Scottification,” disenfranchisement, nativism, and preventing equal justice for persons of color, of any status!

Think about all the reasons why you and your family are grateful for the treatment you received from our country. Then, think of the ways you could make those things a reality for all persons seeking refuge or just treatment, regardless of skin color, creed, or status. That’s the way you can “give back” at today’s DOJ! That’s the way you can be remembered as the “father of the diverse, representative, independent, due-process exemplifying 21st Century Immigration Judiciary!” 🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-23-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👨🏻‍⚖️JUDGE GARLAND’S STATEMENT: Lots Of Nice Words, Lofty Ideals, Few Specifics On How He Will Shape The Actual Work Of Broken & Dysfunctional DOJ — No Mention Of How He Will Address The Ungodly Immigration Mess @ EOIR!

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

. . . .

The President nominates the Attorney General to be the lawyer — not for any individual, but for the people of the United States. July 2020 marked the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Justice, making this a fitting time to remember the mission of the Attorney General and the Department.

It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the Attorney General is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law. And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the Department and its law enforcement agencies, and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities.

If I am confirmed, serving as Attorney General will be the culmination of a career I have dedicated to ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced, and that the rights of all Americans are protected.

. . . .

That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and

climate change.

150 years after the Department’s founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to its mission.

Here’s the full statement:

https://www.scribd.com/document/495370966/Read-Merrick-Garland-Testimony

*********************

At the opening of the hearing, he told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL):

Garland also distanced himself from the Trump administration’s child separation immigration policy, calling it ‘shameful’ and committing to aiding a Senate investigation into the matter.

‘I think that the policy was shameful. I can’t imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children, and we will provide all of the cooperation that we possibility can,’ Garland told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/politics/merrick-garland-confirmation-hearing-day-1/index.html

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Yet, the harsh reality is that the DOJ is still actively engaged in furthering the operation of “Baby Jails” and “Family Gulags.” Indeed, disgracefully, the DOJ’s EOIR actually operates “judicial star chambers” euphemistically called “Detained Immigration Courts” in DHS Gulags throughout America.

There, bonds are unconstitutionally denied, the right to legal representation is aggressively hindered and discouraged, some individuals have their asylum claims wrongfully denied, while others are pressured under duress into giving up their legal rights.

As all of this is ongoing, EOIR’s so-called “judges” assert that they “lack power” to examine the life-threatening, dangerous, unconstitutionally substandard conditions and abusive custody present throughout the “New American Gulag” operated by DHS that they serve. (How do “judges” work for the AG under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution?)

What kind of “courts” are these? What does Judge Garland intend to do to stop official child abusers and illegal and unethical “civil detention?”

Judge Garland’s tone is an obvious improvement over the past two turkeys 🦃 to hold the job! But, words are words; actions are what counts! Unfortunately, I couldn’t discern any “plan of action” here!

Without being unduly picky:

- You should have said “This President nominates;” obviously, the last one did view the AG as his personal lawyer and the DOJ as just another of the many law firms on his retainer — one working pro bono at the people’s expense against the people’s interests — how perverted is that;
- In a way it’s nice and expected to acknowledge the many hard-working civil servants in the DOJ; but, the reality is that far too many of them were part of the problem — failing to stand up for “the people’s” (actually, as you know, immigrants regardless of status are “persons” under our Constitution — real, live, breathing, feeling “people” if you will) individual rights and ignoring their oaths of office to carry out the White Nationalist, anti-democracy agenda of the past regime; like it or not, Judge, if you are going to turn your elevated thoughts into policy and practice, you are going to have to deal with the folks who “went along to get along” over the past four years; like it or not, you’re going to need a broom 🧹 and a plunger 🪠 to get this dirty job done;
- Of course equal justice for all should be the goal (it’s not a new idea, except in GOP Administrations — if you remember it was actually Janet Reno’s motto) and obviously we’re not close to being there; “communities of color” faced more than “discrimination” — over the past four years, it was an active and concerted policy of “Dred Scottification” — willful dehumanization of the other and trashing their Constitutional rights: to vote, to due process, to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” on many occasions — mostly with the participation, encouragement, and often unethical actions of the DOJ, sometimes endorsed and enabled by Federal Courts, all the way up to the Supremes; it’s going to take some real bold, and undoubtedly unpleasant, actions at the DOJ to make the rhetoric a reality, not to mention standing up to some of the lousy Federal Judicial appointments from the last four years;
- How are you going to do any of this without acknowledging that immigration is where it starts; as you deliver your remarks today, some EOIR “judges,” soon to be “your judges,” will be actively applying racist, misogynist, anti-due process, “worst practices” “precedents” to dehumanize, disparage, and wrongfully deny and remove the very “people in the United States,” among our most vulnerable and often deserving, whose rights you claim to be dedicated to protecting and enhancing; how are you going to do that without a definitive plan for immediately reforming EOIR, OIL, the SG’s Office, OLC, OLP, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division and a host of other “components” who participated, and continue to participate, in these legal travesties and mockeries of due process, humanity, and the rule of law on a daily basis;
- I understand your commitment to addressing domestic terrorism; but, you can’t do that without addressing its most obvious manifestation in the DOJ: EOIR; you can draw a straight line from the White Nationalist, racist agenda of Stephen Miller to the lies, misogyny, racism, and disrespect for immigrants, particularly those of color, “institutionalized and weaponized” @ EOIR, to the empowered political thugs who thought they were entitled to forcibly attack democracy and its representatives (many among the GOP who were actively complicit) at our Capitol!
- How do you intend to deal constructively, professionally, and constitutionally with the stunning, yet largely self-created, 1.3 million plus case Immigration Court backlog that threatens to topple our entire justice system; what’s your plan for ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR, returning control to local judges while keeping politicos and bureaucrats @ EOIR & DOJ from further destructive meddling;
- How are you gonna credibly fight “domestic terrorism” with these folks as “your judges?”

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

I, of course, appreciate your lofty thoughts and wish you all the best. You remind us all of something sadly lost over the past four years and something still glaringly missing from the GOP and its supporters: Values matter! But, values require implementation — action!

I won’t be convinced that you will actually be able to accomplish your goals and carry out your values until I witness your bold action to “deconstruct” the EOIR that Stephen Miller, Gene Hamilton, “Gonzo” Sessions, and “Billy the Bigot” Barr built and replace it with a real court system with real progressive, due-process/equal justice-committed expert judges and professional judicial administrators as an essential step to the creation of a long-overdue and urgently needed Article I U.S. Immigration Court.

I look forward to seeing your EOIR Reform Plan in action, very soon! Good luck!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-21

GARLAND CONFIRMATION HEARING SET, FINAL COMMITTEE VOTE WILL BE MARCH 1!

From Politico:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/09/senate-merrick-garland-confirmation-hearing-468218

*******

PWS

02-10-21

⚖️🗽JUSTICE: BIDEN TO NOMINATE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND 👨🏻‍⚖️ FOR AG — Mandate Will Be to Clean Up Unmitigated Legal, Ethical, Moral, Professional Disaster Left By Corrupt, Scofflaw Predecessors Barr & Sessions!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-attorney-general-merrick-garland_n_5fcea0d3c5b6636e09279a5b

Ryan J. Reilly reports for HuffPost:

President-elect Joe Biden is reportedly set to name Merrick Garland as his nominee for attorney general. If confirmed, Garland will take over a demoralized Justice Department that has abandoned bedrock principles and priorities, and come under withering attack from President Donald Trump’s administration.

Garland, a former federal prosector who lead the investigation into the Oklahoma City bomber, was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama following Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing on his nomination for months, citing the presidential election. His pending nomination died in early 2017, after 293 days.

Garland will take over a Justice Department that Trump sought to weaponize against his political opponents and use as his personal law firm. Trump has fired or pushed out a number of key department officials, most famously former FBI Director James Comey. Trump appointees have used the Justice Department’s power in an overtly political fashion, even if they’ve resisted Trump’s desire to wield the department’s prosecutorial power as a blunt political weapon.

The nominee will face the challenge of determining how the Justice Department will approach potential criminal investigations into Trump and members of his administration. They will also face the prospect of rebuilding components like the Civil Rights Division, which abandoned key issues like police reform and focused on controversial religious liberty cases and attacks on college affirmative action programs. They’ll also have to deal with the long-term consequences of Trump’s attacks on the FBI, which has gutted Republicans’ confidence in the nation’s premier law enforcement organization. Biden’s nominee may also have to figure out how to combat a rise in right-wing domestic terrorism cases, some of which have been directly inspired by the outgoing president’s rhetoric against his political enemies and Muslims.

In addition, Biden’s nominee will have to deal with the delicate question of how to handle the ongoing tax investigation into the new president’s son, Hunter Biden, which is being led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware. The nominee will have to reassure the American public that there won’t be political interference in the probe, perhaps by walling off the investigation. Republicans, the vast majority of whom were unconcerned with Trump’s repeated attempts to improperly interfere in Justice Department matters, might even call for a special counsel to assure the probe’s independence.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who had to rebuild the Justice Department after controversies during the George W. Bush administration, told HuffPost that Biden understands that he needs to give the attorney general “the space that he or she needs to restore integrity and the independence” of the Justice Department.

. . . .

************************

Reread the rest of the article at the link.

I knew Judge Garland a little bit from the DOJ in the Carter Administration, eons ago. He’s obviously in a totally different class than his sleazy, White Nationalist enabling predecessors in the defeated regime. It should be a welcome breath of professionalism, re-infusion of ethics, and re-establishment of due process, the rule of law, and simple common sense and human decency at the “disaster zone” DOJ.

I just hope that fixing the totally broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and restoring fairness, due process, and independence by bringing in immigration and human rights experts from the NDPA is high on his “to do” list! Only time will tell. But, potentially, he appears to be the right person to rebuild and transition the existing EOIR mess into an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Obviously, unlike most of his predecessors, he understands what a “real court” should look like and how it should operate.

With the results from Georgia coming in, today the long-sought objective of Article I seems closer than it has ever been.

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Time for Judge Garland 👨🏻‍⚖️ to end the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡!

PWS

01-06-06

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE-ELECT BARRETT STUMPED BY WHETHER GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE IS ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL – Frankly, My Dears, Once They Are Out Of The Womb, Who Cares, Particularly If They Are Only Migrant Kids? – Bess Levin @ Vanity Fair With The Latest Scoop On “America’s Favorite Mother!”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court Nominee by Bob Englehart, PoliticalCartoons.com
Published under license

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-child-separation?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=VF_Hive_101520&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd67c363f92a41245df49eb&cndid=48297443&hasha=8a1f473740b253d8fa4c23b066722737&hashb=26cd42536544e247751ec74095d9cedc67e77edb&hashc=eb7798068820f2944081a20180a0d3a94e025b4a93ea9ae77c7bbe00367c46ef&esrc=newsletteroverlay&mbid=mbid%3DCRMVYF012019&utm_campaign=VF_Hive_101520&utm_term=VYF_Hive

Since Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans have suggested that one of the reasons she should be given a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land is that she has seven kids. Barrett is “a remarkable mother” with “seven beautiful children,” Senator Thom Tillis said during the first day of her confirmation hearing. She’s a “tireless mother of seven,” Senator Chuck Grassley told the room. “She and her husband have seven children,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks, in case anyone hadn’t heard, before giving her two more. “She and her husband have seven children. Two adopted. Nine seems to be a good number,” he said. Obviously, constantly bringing up this part of Barrett’s biography is part of an attempt on Republicans’ part to (1) draw a distinction between Barrett and what they view as childless heathen Democrats, (2) claim that any opposition to her confirmation is anti-mom, and (3) suggest that since she’s a mother, she must be a good person who couldn’t possibly issue rulings that would hurt millions of people.

But, surprise! Despite being a mother, Barrett is expected to help overturn the Affordable Care Act. (After she was asked about this possibility, which would strip health insurance from millions, Grassley raged at his Democratic colleagues that “As a mother of seven, Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance of health care.”) She will also very likely go after Roe v. Wade, if given the chance, which some mothers would point out prevents their daughters—or even women they didn’t give birth to!— from being forced into back alley abortions. And even though she’s a mom of seven children, she apparently thinks the jury is still out on whether or not it’s bad to separate small children from their parents, if they happen to be from another country: . . . .

***********************

Read the rest of Bess’s article and the latest from The Levin Report at the above link.

Just for the record, the Trump DOJ conceded before U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw (a GOP appointee) that intentional child separation is a violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process.

They also declined to appeal Judge Sabraw’s order to that effect – unusual for a regime that usually pushes the most frivolous, clearly illegal, and unethical positions for as long as possible to the highest levels of the judiciary (knowing that the “Roberts” Five” believes that ethical requirements and disciplinary procedures don’t apply to the Trump legal team assembled on your taxpayer dollars).

Wonder what would happen if we had a more honest and realistic confirmation system that allowed nominees to actually answer truthfully, rather than disingenuously claiming under oath that after a lifetime of intense public involvement in the law, politics, and public policy, they had no real views on anything of any importance whatsoever?

I actually doubt that an honest answer to this question, either way, would have cost Coney Barrett her politically-assured confirmation, nor would it have required recusal in any litigation likely to reach the Supremes’ merits docket. So, Coney Barrett thinks we’re dumb enough to believe that after several days of her GOP sponsors touting the wonderfulness of her bold embrace of their far-right agenda — the first overtly “pro-life woman Justice” — that they are badly mistaken and, in fact, she has no views or opinions on anything.

It kind of reminds me of the “super-disclaimer” I used to give on those occasions when my “EOIR handlers” let me speak in public: “Nothing that I say today represents my view on any case that I decided in the past, is pending before me, or might come before me in the future.”

On the bright side, Coney Barrett was able to (sort of) answer the question of Sen. John “I’m Not JFK” Kennedy (R-LA) about who does the laundry at her home (supposed to be her kids, but apparently they haven’t completely gotten the message. Now, if ACB were before me in Immigration Court, this is the point when I would have turned to the kids and said “Come on kids, Mom’s doing it all for you and others, I want you to give her and your Dad a hand.”)

Seriously, though, Dems, here’s the definition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett: “It’s what you get when lose elections for the White House and the Senate.” If you really want the next woman Justice to be a worthy progressive successor to the legacy of RBG and a “soul mate” for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then go out and win the elections necessary to make that happen!

Another huge plus: If we Dems could figure out how to translate our national political majority into control of all three political arms, we could shore up health care, address COVID in a rational way, help Americans who have lost livelihoods and confidence because of COVID, and create educational opportunities and jobs that will be durable and serve us well in the Post-COVID world. We could also address the deficit by undoing the revenue shortage resulting from unwarranted tax giveaways to the wealthy, and get “more bang for our tax dollars” by running government wisely, prudently, and efficiently, for the overall public good rather than for the benefit of grifters and their selfish, anti-democracy far-right agenda.

Then, we could see whether Justice Barrett will stick to her word and urge her colleagues to “let the political branches of Government make policy.” That’s something that has been a challenge for past right-wing jurists, including the late Justice Scalia. But, if it actually happened, it would make the issue of “enhancing” the Supremes with progressive Justices largely moot.

Which is probably why Joe & Kamala have wisely refused to “take the GOP bait” on how they might specifically solve a problem that might or might not exist in the future. I do know one thing, however. As reflective, reasonable, and thoughtful public officials who listen to expert advice, they will promote the best possible solution for all Americans under the circumstances. That’s certainly a “quantum leap” over where we are today!

PWS

10-15-20

PWS

10-14-20

UNADULTERATED BS — CONEY BARRETT’S CLAIM OF “IMPARTIAL JUSTICE” FLUNKS “STRAIGHT FACE TEST” — “Amy Coney Barrett’s originalism does not work as a method of safeguarding democracy against an activist, ideologically motivated judiciary. It does, however, function quite well as a means of obscuring a far-right movement’s efforts to impose its unpopular agenda by judicial fiat.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-originalism.html

Eric Levitz reports for NY Magazine:

. . . .

Even Republicans don’t have the stomach to outsource judgment on all modern constitutional questions to the slaveholding elite of a preindustrial, post-colonial backwater. As Dean of Berkeley Law Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, a ruthless adherence to text and history would require forfeiting judicial protection of “liberties such as the right to marry, the right to procreate, the right to custody of one’s children, the right to keep the family together, the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right to abortion, [and] the right to refuse medical care,” none of which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett herself has acknowledged the undesirability of applying originalism indiscriminately, noting in 2016, “Adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education,” and other institutions that “no serious person would propose to undo,” even if they lack constitutional grounding. Barrett’s proposed solution to this conundrum is for courts to simply avoid ruling on cases where originalism would dictate socially unthinkable overturnings of precedent; she wrote in 2017 that “discretionary jurisdiction generally permits [the Court] to choose which questions it wants to answer.”

But this expedient degrades originalism’s claim to neutrality. If an originalist Supreme Court can apply its doctrine opportunistically — taking only those cases in which its “neutral” juridical method will yield outcomes acceptable to a “serious” person (as they define that adjective) — then originalism isn’t much of a binding restriction on judicial discretion.

What’s more, Barrett’s concession tacitly betrays awareness of a critical fact that originalists love to elide when speaking for a lay audience: Amending the Constitution has become so phenomenally difficult it’s not at all clear that the American people could promptly replace an overturned Brown v. Board of Education with an amendment forbidding school segregation, despite overwhelming popular support for that Supreme Court decision. Originalists like to portray their judicial approach as highly democratic, since they purport to defer to the letter of a democratically enacted Constitution. But once one stipulates that the demos is manifestly no longer capable of passing constitutional amendments with regularity, it becomes clear that the originalist practice of striking down democratically elected laws in deference to the letter of a centuries-old document is profoundly anti-democratic.

Of course, in real life, “originalist” Supreme Court justices haven’t just applied their method opportunistically by selecting cases in which originalism will produce a favored outcome; they’ve also simply declined to abide by their method when they feel like it. On Monday, Barrett named Antonin Scalia as her guiding light on judicial philosophy. But as Georgia State University Law professor Eric J. Segall notes, Scalia voted “for broad rules limiting congressional power to enact campaign finance reform, to commandeer state legislatures and executives to help implement federal law, and to allow lawsuits against the states for money damages by citizens of other states” without “justifying these broad rules from a textual or historical perspective,” presumably because they have no textual or historical basis.

In sum: Amy Coney Barrett’s originalism does not work as a method of safeguarding democracy against an activist, ideologically motivated judiciary. It does, however, function quite well as a means of obscuring a far-right movement’s efforts to impose its unpopular agenda by judicial fiat.

************

Read Eric’s complete article, which is an outstanding debunking of “originalism” — a totally bogus invention of the reactionary right — intended to pervert the law and promote far-right attacks on humanity — at the link.

Just think about it: Supposedly a bunch of guys who risked everything on a never-before-realized long shot of defeating the British King and setting up a republic actually intended that 230 years after the fact the governors of that republic would be so backwards, unimaginative, and intellectually limited that they would still be attempting to divine the “true meaning” of various two-centuries out of date words and concepts that nobody agreed upon in the first place! Preposterous! Not to mention totally intellectually dishonest!

Obviously, if the GOP Senators actually believed that Coney Barrett would be an unbiased judge with an open mind to progressive, liberal, humane, common sense interpretations of law and committed to implementing the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law for all persons, they would be apoplectic. They would be outraged at Trump for foisting such an unreliable and unpredictable jurist on them!

I’m not necessarily saying that Coney Barrett couldn’t educate herself and “get smarter” on the bench — abandoning her false dogma and actually showing some empathy, courage, independence, and commitment to equal justice for all. She wouldn’t be the first GOP-appointed Judge or Justice to move left on the bench. After all, spending a lifetime mired on the wrong side of history screwing up the lives of your fellow humans can get old, even for well-trained right-wing ideologues.

Also, she will have the benefit of the only current Justice who actually appears up to the job and consistently understands the proper role of a High Court in a democratic republic — Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor actually “gets it right” in an amazing number of cases and usually explains her reasoning in coherent, non-legalistic terms that most folks can understand.

But, sadly, I find relatively little in Coney Barrett’s career to predict that type of self-awareness, intellectual honesty, moral courage, and capacity for human growth. Her family situation shows some capacity for empathy and human understanding.

But, sadly, to date, she evidently has been unable to “connect the dots” between her kids’ lives and futures and the future of humanity. To understand that but for the grace of God, the refugee she is expelling based on BS non-defects could be someone she actually loves or regards as human. That the benefits that neo-Nazi Stephen Miller is unethically and illegally stripping from deserving immigrants could be the lifeline that, but for life’s quirks, would allow her, her family, or other loved ones to survive and achieve their full human potential. The capacity to function as a real jurist certainly is there, but the will and perspective seem to be largely lacking.

In a way, Coney Barrett’s squandered potential to achieve good is her own human tragedy. But, one for which those “other than Coney Barrett” are likely to pay the ultimate price.

PWS

10-14-20

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the full statement:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Time for Judge Garland 👨🏻‍⚖️ to end the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: