If you want to discuss the constitution and original intent, you'd have a difficult time defending the role the Supreme Court has come to play in our republic on that basis. What is that role? To decide virtually every matter of fundamental importance undemocratically. Along those lines, several months ago I listened to an episode of Giles Fraser's Confessions in which he interviewed Jonathan Sumption. Sumption is a historian and retired justice from Great Britain's Supreme Court. During their conversation, Sumpton mentioned that the reason abortion remains such a divisive issue in the U.S. is because, like an increasing number of important issues, it was decided by the Court and not by the people. Hence, many people feel it was imposed on them. By all indications, the nationwide democratic consensus would not likely ban abortion outright. But it seems clear it would place more restrictions on it than we currently have.
If one wants to take a straight-up originalist standpoint, it's doubtful the constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to invalidate federal laws. In short, we really shouldn't care about who is on the Supreme Court as much as we do. We should care much more about what our elected representatives, senators, and the president does. Citizens of the U.S. need to learn to be far more pragmatic about politics.
Additionally, instead of batting around the term "socialist," the meaning of which is lost on most who use the term, we need to grapple with what serves the common good, which includes the ability to make the proper distinctions between private and public goods. Healthcare, for example, which we treat as a private good, is a public good, like roads and fire protection. If you're Catholic, the Church teaches access to healthcare is a human right. The case facing the Court that could potentially result in many people in the U.S. losing their healthcare is hugely important. I'll say it: access to healthcare is a pro-life issue. Without such access, people die.
Coming back to the Court, as frustrating as it is at times, I prefer Chief Justice Roberts's default to precedent (no matter what the precedent is), his reliance on the doctrine of stare decisis, to originalism. Roberts's approach is truly a non-activist judicial approach, which is both its strength and its weakness. "Originalism," which is a secular form of textual fundamentalism, on the other hand, at this stage of U.S. history, far from being conservative, is an activist judicial philosophy.
On the whole, reliance on stare decisis is not a bad position for the Chief Justice to hold. Barrett published a paper: "Stare Decisis and Due Process." In that paper she pointed to what she thought were erroneous decisions, among those was the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (see "Profile of potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett," which contains a link to both this paper and to the Casey decision). While she does not reject stare decisis, she is clearly not as bound by it as someone like Roberts. Of course, even those inclined to the doctrine of stare decisis don't do so in an absolutist manner. They simply set the threshold for overturning a ruling very high. In other words, there needs to be a glaring flaw in a decision for it be overturned.
Without a doubt, Roberts will come to be viewed ideologically as more "liberal" after the new associate justice is confirmed. It's easy to forget that Roberts was actually quite forthcoming in his nomination hearings about his views on Roe, predictably acknowledging it as settled law. Judicially-speaking, he's a true conservative.
The activists, then, will be Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and probably Barrett. Especially on social issues, Gorsuch will become a moderating justice. We've seen hints of activism already with Alito & Thomas concerning Obergefell.
Again, the Democrats changing the rule on judicial nomination filibusters was a short-sighted fix to Republican intransigence during the Obama years with long-lasting, wide-ranging repercussions. It was a minor tactical win but a strategic blunder. Neither Kavanaugh, who was the first real test, nor Barrett would've been confirmed, or likely even nominated, under the former rule. Gorsuch, in my view, would've been viable.
I'll be honest, my biggest concern with Barrett was also my biggest concern with Kavanaugh: her views on executive power, which she seems to think has few limits and are matters to be adjudicated. To wit: the president does not have the power to cancel or postpone elections, the president does and, in fact, cannot have the power to pardon himself (Nixon, I believe, set a powerful precedent here- resigning and letting his successor decide on a pardon, which Ford gave him), etc. The ability of a president to pardon himself effectively puts the chief executive above the law. The virtually unconstrained power of the president to pardon, which legitimately arises from the constitution, is problematic enough. Trump is by no means the only president to use that power in dubious ways.
There are other concerns, too, that arise from some of her judicial rulings (see "Why Amy Coney Barrett Should Not Be On the Supreme Court"). None of those have to do with abortion, one on immigration and one on healthcare, which seems to indicate government officials can act somewhat arbitrarily and even unjustly. Again, none of this matters because her confirmation is a done deal.
__________________________________________
Addendum:
My fellow Catholics and others who think Amy Coney Barrett has been attacked for her Catholic faith during her confirmation hearings have not watched the hearings. It simply hasn't happened.
Would you want the Senate not to vigorously enact its constitutional role of advice and consent? Come on. Get serious. Live in reality. Hard questions are supposed to be asked. Ideally, hard questions are asked by both sides. It's not personal. All the people asking the questions have endured similar scrutiny.
Even without Coney Barrett, there are 5 Roman Catholics currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Arguably, we're overrepresented. This makes it prety hard to take claims of anti-Catholicism seriously. Since there is no religious litmus test, it doesn't matter.
Imagining a persecution is a counter-witness to the Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment