At minimum Justice Gorsuch validates Trump’s presidency, along with all of his lower court appointments and now replacing Kennedy. Gorsuch is a brilliant legal mind and is true to the Constitution and the rule of law. A Hillary Clinton presidency would have further packed Federal courts and done incalculable damage to the country. In ten years we would probably look like the farthest left-leaning European country. England or France, anyone?
In the Janus case involving forced public-sector union fees, what is it about leftists that makes them want to force their ideas on everyone? If unions are so good, shouldn’t they be thriving instead of dying? They once served a useful purpose but over the decades became corrupt bureaucracies that now largely function to fund the Democrat party.
Good Riddance, Justice Kennedy. He made some good rulings: most recently in the Janus union case, and in his scathing dissent on Obamacare, but also made many bad ones: most recently on gay-marriage. As the court’s “swing vote” Kennedy seemed to relish his power and you never really knew which way he would go. He seemed to view himself as the smartest guy in the room and a “philosopher king” when often times it seemed he was simply making up law as he went along.
Justice Kagan has at times been shown to be reasonable. Ginsburg and Breyer are flaming leftists as is Sotomayor, who to boot has proven to be a judicial lightweight. Fortunately Kennedy is retiring so Trump gets another appointment and Ginsburg and Breyer are by far the oldest on the court. Two more retirements and a 7-2 Constitutionalist versus leftist split is not out of the question.
If she is elected. It’s a great idea, though I doubt the GOP has the balls. Then again, things are not looking so good for Hil right now.
With the FBI letting Hillary Clinton slide last week in the email scandal, Obama’s overt agitation on the issue of race, and Ruth Ginsburg’s open politicking on the presidency, the US is looking more and more like a Banana Republic.
In the case of Clinton, this is hardly the first time the rule of law has not been applied evenly, but does anyone for a second believe that if she was not “Hillary Clinton, presumptive Democratic nominee” that she would not have been indicted? This is a very dangerous precedent and signals loudly that laws that apply to most do not apply to our political elites.
As far as Obama goes, his foot-in-mouth racial advocacy blew up in his face with the murders of five Dallas police. But even that could not stop him from pontificating. He is not a leader or uniter…he is simply a clueless, incompetent ideologue.
Finally there is Ginsburg, whose critique of Trump was so unprecedented that even the NYT and WAPO took to criticizing her. She has rarely hidden her far-left ideology, but by making such public statements she has proven to no longer be fit for the bench. One must wonder if she is nuts. She has done untold damage to what is supposed to be an impartial body.
Where I was once angry at such things, I now find myself deeply saddened. The country is in serious trouble with a government like this.
And Ginsburg’s recent anti-Trump ranting will not help this. The four left-wing justices vote in lock-step over 90% of the time and are hopeless ideologues. Something that has shockingly not been discussed in a broad swath of the media. But GOP appointees are constantly being hammered as right-wing zealots.