By Rich Kozlovich
My go to news site first thing in the morning is American Thinker, which I think is the absolutely best new site out there, they've even published one of my articles in the past. There are a lot of articles appearing at AT by a large number of volunteer contributors, but they only have a few paid staff members, who on every Saturday different members of the AT writing staff put out a "Members Weekly Newsletter". There are times these pieces are so good I wished they'd publish them on line.
One such article is by Mike McDaniel entitled, It was always clear that Justice Jackson would be a disaster, but she's worse than anyone could have anticipated.
Biden committed himself to a DEI nominee, and a black woman fit the bill, who could easily have been called a "mediocre" left wing ideologue right from the beginning. A left wing ideologue totally unconcerned with reality, or the law starting, out with her exchange with Republican Senators who asked her to define what a woman was. She couldn't. Why? She's not a biologist was her answer. But they all failed to drive a stake into the heart of her nomination when they all failed to ask her if she was a woman. As Mike notes the answer to that question might have ended her nomination.
|
It was apparent her understanding of Constitutional law is abysmal after Senator Ted Cruz asked her to take a position on that which is foundational to the Constitution, Natural Rights.
After doing what all these Biden nominees have done consistently, answering questions not asked, over and over again, finally Cruz asked if she held a position on Natural Rights, yes or no.
She answered saying she held no position on Natural Rights. Well that's foundation to the very existence of Constitution, and for any law student to have no opinion is impossible, but for a federal jurist, and one being nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, that's not just impossible, it's a deliberate lie. A lie in an attempt to avoid exposing the fact she's not a jurist, she's a radical left wing ideologue and an activist.
- The judicial tyranny of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson 'Why bother with the Supreme Court? Let's just take a poll'
Recently Justice Amy Coney Barrett smacked her hard and heavy dealing with birthright citizenship, something rarely done on the court, if ever. Then she had to be schooled by ... of all people... Sotomayor on the President's legitimate Constitutional Article II powers as the chief executive with the authority to hire, and fire. She claimed allowing him to do that would open the door to an Imperial Presidency, saying:
Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.....
Well, that's the job for the Legislative branch to address, not the judiciary.But the interesting thing is not one of the jurists took exception to Justice Amy Coney Barrett smack down, and Mike explains why. She's an enormous pain in the butt. Instead of asking questions for clarification she babbles on "mindlessly" and according to Mike:
Canny court watchers have noted the annoyance of the wiser justices at Brown Jackson's loud-mouthed antics.
I have to imagine when the Justices meet privately as a group to discuss issues her penchant for mindless rambling is almost unbearable. Over the years I've served on boards of my industry's trade associations, and had that kind of babbling go on to the point I would get up and walk out of the room until they were done, and then they would start all over again, it become unbearable. But they didn't serve on those boards for life, a SCOTUS justice does, how unbearable that must be.
As a side bar. Who has consistently been the justice who asks the fewest questions and comments the least? Justice Clearance Thomas, who I consider the finest justice to sit on the court in my lifetime.
She thinks the federal judiciary should be able to impose universal injunctions against the Executive at the district level, requiring both the Executive and the Legislative branches to acquiesce their Constitutional authority to unelected minor judges. She claims she fears an Imperial Presidency that will destroy "democracy" but has no concerns about an Imperial Judiciary that really is destroying democracy by destroying the rule of law. An Imperial Judiciary where her feelings are far more important than the laws written by Congress and anything written in that dusty old document called the United States Constitution.
Mike ends his article with this paragraph:
Brown Jackson's petulance in these two most recent cases suggests Kagan and Sotomayor realize Brown Jackson is not up to the minimum level of competence required of the Court and are no longer going to try to keep her blazing incompetence and leftism under the radar. She's too overtly leftist even for them.
Sotomayor apparently thinks Jackson is blazingly incompetent? How shocking is that? Jackson is arrogant, pompous, petulant, and grossly incompetent, and ya just can't fix stupid. But when you put a person with those combined qualities in a position of power, they're unbearable. Ketanji Brown Jackson is another excellent example of why there needs to be a 28th Amendment to fix the Founders gravest error. Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
I've written much about the federal judiciary, along with age and term limits, some of which are listed below.
My 28th Amendment Commentaries:
- What if We Could Rewrite the Constitution To Fix the Republic
- It's Time For a Twenty Eighth Amendment!
- The Founding Fathers Greatest Error? Lifetime Appointments to the Federal Judiciary!
- The Need For a 28th Amendment Becomes More and More Apparent!
- More Evidence of the Need for A 28th Amendment, II
- The Federal Judiciary Needs Purged With Age and Term Limits
- More Evidence of the Need For a 28th Amendment
- Covid and the SCOTUS Swamp, Part One
- The Supreme Court has taken up residence in the swamp
No comments:
Post a Comment