It Shouldn’t Matter Who Wins SCOTUS Seat

Brett Kavanaugh watches with his family as President Donald Trump signs his nomination.
The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has begotten some all-too-expected controversy. Kavanaugh is identified with conservatives and, as a nominee named by President Trump, there is automatic resistance by the Democrats. It has been and will, of course, be the same thing in the opposite direction with nominations by a Democratic president.
Should it matter, though, who gets confirmed and inherits a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court, since all justices take an oath to defend the constitution and administer justice impartially? The oath includes the words “I… will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” They also take the judicial oath, under which they state “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me… under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Since there is only one constitution that they promise to support and be faithful to, the words of which are not that difficult to understand, it would seem like there would not be much difference in the decisions made by any of the justices. That is unfortunately not the case. Party affiliation seems to have a significant effect on the rationale of the individual justices in their determinations. Some activist judges say or have said in times past that the constitution doesn’t say what it obviously and clearly says. The argument is that the constitution is a “living document, that its interpretation must change because things are different today than they were two hundred thirty years ago.
They are correct that things have changed and that the constitution is a living document. One of the genius aspects of the original constitution is that it built in a mechanism by which it could be altered to reflect a changing reality or to correct inherent flaws. It is called the amendment process. It is deliberately difficult to change, however, to prevent frivolous manipulation or the injection of partisan politics into the foundation of the nation. One of the problems that progressives are most concerned about with a new conservative and constitutionalist on the bench, as well as the possibility of more in the future, is that some of the activist decisions, the making of law by justices rather than Congress, will be overturned.
Most people who have worked with Justice Kavanaugh or otherwise knows him consider him a man of character who is highly qualified, experienced, knowledgeable, and fair. He has indicated that, though he is a constitutionalist, he would use judicial restraint in dealing with Supreme Court precedent. He will give serious consideration to prior decisions of the court.
It is interesting to consider what deference to court precedent means. If a law is unconstitutional, like many are, and the court upholds it, the court made an error. The facts and logic behind the decision should be investigated and questioned. If it was an error, the only right thing to do is to correct the error, in other words, overturn the precedent.
The original precedent is the first decision made by the court regarding any particular issue. If all precedent is sacred, judicial activism would not have overturned so many accepted judicial standards over the years to accomplish political purposes. It is good that a justice should use care, but the ultimate arbiter for the Supreme Court is the constitution itself, and it shouldn’t matter what party politics has to say about it. That it does does not speak well of the justices.
Originally published on Townhall Finance.
Daniel J. McLaughlin is the author of “Compassion and Truth-Why Good Intentions Don’t Equal Good Results.” Formerly a finance executive, he is now focused primarily on writing on economics, business, and politics. You can find him at daniel-mclaughlin.com.
Trending Now on Affluent Christian Investor
Sorry. No data so far.
The Affluent Mix
Biden Oblivious To Illegal Immigration Issues... August 2, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Rob Arnott On Bubbles, Inflation, And Once-In-A-Generation Investment Opportunit... August 2, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

The Federal Reserve’s Massive Theft Of Stability... August 2, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

What To Do About This Difficult Market? August 2, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Letter On The Politicization Of Corporations... July 26, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Peak Of The Fake Bull Market July 26, 2021 | Michael Pento

Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative State vs. Gold... July 26, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Dividends, Energy, And Crypto July 26, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Whose Side Are You On? July 26, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Media, Left Ignore These Dangers July 19, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Mark Skousen On FreedomFest And How To Measure The Whole Economy... July 19, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Quantifying The Quantitative, Or Making Easy The Easing... July 19, 2021 | David Bahnsen

The Gold Standard Means A Rising Standard Of Living... July 19, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Book Review: Brian Domitrovic Reveals The Monetary Genius Of Arthur Laffer... July 19, 2021 | John Tamny

Steve Forbes: Time To Worry About Inflation, Not Hyperinflation... July 12, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

UFOs Rescue Biden July 12, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Read This Classical Economist’s 200 Year Old Warning About Paper Money... July 12, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

How Central Banks Murdered The Markets July 12, 2021 | Michael Pento

Everything There Is To Know About The Stock Market... July 12, 2021 | David Bahnsen

AT&T CEO: We’re Ill Equipped For Politics, And We’re Spending A Lot Of ... July 6, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Internet Bias Distorts National Conversation... July 6, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

The Halfway Point Of 2021 July 6, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.