Massie Displays His Judicial Ignorance

Mychal Massie, one of the Worldnetdaily’s worst columnists (and imagine the competition for that title), has a column about how important it is for the next president, in his view, to be a Real True Conservative because they’ll likely have several Supreme Court appointments to make. Most of it is nonsense.

Based on age alone, one of the primary areas of concern is that the person elected president in 2016 will potentially have at least four Supreme Court justices to replace. Two of the potential four are liberals, so a Democrat president would simply be replacing liberals with liberals, ergo, it would be a wash. But of the other two, the one is a solid constructionist, and the other is a swing vote who has, in recent years, ruled based on constructionism enough times that we should be concerned if a Democratic president replaces him.

There is no such thing as a “constructionist” in this context. There are those who call themselves “strict constructionists,” but that’s mostly a nonsense phrase invented to make it sound as though they have a completely objective means of interpreting the Constitution. It’s a lot like a Biblical literalist who pretends that he doesn’t interpret at all, just discovers the inherent meaning in the Bible. It’s a pose, not a serious position.

Even when we were actually able to trust Republican presidents to be conservatives, their best judicial judgment more often than we care to think came up lacking. Republican President Eisenhower lamented, “I made two mistakes, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan Jr.

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote in 2007, “It is understandable that liberal [Democratic] presidents, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, loaded the Supreme Court with liberal, [Democratic] justices. … What is far harder to understand is how a whole succession of conservative Republican presidents – Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 – managed to appoint so many liberals to the Supreme Court.” (“High Court and Low Politics: Part II,” Creators Syndicate)

And while I argue it is a giant leap on any quantifiable level to consider Gerald Ford a conservative, President Reagan’s conservative bona fides are unimpeachable, and yet he nominated Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (the quota queen who was so far to the left that she could straddle the Pacific with one foot standing on California) to the high court – even after he was warned she was a grave mistake as a nominee.

President Nixon’s fourth-rate stupidity pursuant to the Watergate break-in does nothing to diminish his conservative bona fides, even if his race-based affirmative action legislation should. But as Dr. Sowell also points out: “President Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, who created a ‘constitutional right’ to an abortion out of thin air, just as previous liberal justices had created all sorts of constitutional rights out of thin air for criminals, vagrants, and others.”…

It does conservatism no good to elect a Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Jeb Bush type. The 2016 election will place in office a person with the potential to change the face of SCOTUS for many decades to come.

His concerns are unwarranted. His most recent example of a justice nominated by a Republican who became a liberal justice on the court is from nearly 35 years ago. None of the five justices appointed since 1986 could possibly be called a liberal. This is not by accident. Conservatives have expended enormous effort to make sure this doesn’t happen again by building a “farm team” of judges and legal scholars who are committed to the cause. That was the whole point of creating the Federalist Society and it has been very successful.

Any Republican in the White House, no matter how liberal Massie might think they are, is going to be highly constrained by the conservative legal interest groups. Both parties have long lists of potential nominees and they have been thoroughly vetted. It is from those lists that a nominee is picked. John Roberts and Samuel Alito are textbook examples of this, conservatives who came up in the movement with impeccable credentials and resumes. That doesn’t mean a judge won’t evolve at all once given a lifetime appointment, but the chances of another David Souter or Harry Blackmun are far less now than they were 30 years ago.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/robin.pilger Robin Pilger

    “… fourth-rate stupidity…does nothing to diminish ,,,conservative bona fides…”

    Just sayin’.

  • D. C. Sessions

    President Nixon’s fourth-rate stupidity pursuant to the Watergate break-in does nothing to diminish his conservative bona fides

    Say what? This was the President who gave us the EPA, Clean Water Act, and who tried to give us single-payer health care forty years before Obama. Among other things — has there ever been a Democratic President who ordered wage and price controls?

  • justsomeguy

    So he’s advocating for judicial activism?

  • brucegee1962

    This is a good argument, though, for why Ruth Bader Ginsberg should retire now. Also Breyer.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/14/ruth-bader-ginsburg-retire-liberal-judge

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Both parties have long lists of potential nominees and they have been thoroughly vetted.

    And yet somehow, Harriet Meiers managed to get to the top of one of those lists.

  • Taz

    …so far to the left that she could straddle the Pacific with one foot standing on California…

    That there’s what we call the creative writin’.

  • tubi

    I say, go ahead and nominate someone who is not a “Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Jeb Bush type.’ As awful as those options would be, and would have been, they at least have/had a plausible chance of winning.

    So instead, bring on Allen West and all but guarantee another Clinton Presidency.

  • eric

    That doesn’t mean a judge won’t evolve at all once given a lifetime appointment

    IMO that’s the real problem ultraconservatives face. The lifetime appointment itself is practically guaranteed to change the way the people who get it think. You start thinking about legacy and how future generations will view your legal rulings, and a lot less about what Charles Koch or Chair of the RNC thinks about it.

  • colnago80

    Re d. c. Wilson

    The sad part of this is that Harriet Myers was no worse then shithead Sam Alito.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Republican President Eisenhower lamented, “I made two mistakes, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan Jr.

    He never said it, and it wasn’t a mistake, judged by Eisenhower’s own standards. Blame the whole thing on gossip and Brennan’s biographers.

  • Jordan Genso

    …the person elected president in 2016 will potentially have at least four

    The use of “potential” means the statement provides no value, as you could replace the “four” with any number up to nine, and it would still be just as accurate. No matter what happens, his statement will not be wrong, since even if only one justice is replaced, the “potential” for more was still there.

    “The next president may have the ability to choose the replacement for as many as all nine current Supreme Court justices.”

    Why thank you so much for such valuable insight.

  • Chiroptera

    There are those who call themselves “strict constructionists,” but that’s mostly a nonsense phrase invented to make it sound as though they have a completely objective means of interpreting the Constitution.

    And in so far as there was a concept of “strict constructionalism,” that died as a legal philosophy with the Louisiana Purchase.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    And yet somehow, Harriet Meiers managed to get to the top of one of those lists.

    I don’t think she was on anyone’s list but Dubya’s. Her sad story really proves the point — the president nominated someone who was a personal friend, but precisely because she hadn’t been vetted by the conserva-borg, they freaked out and forced him to rescind the nomination.

  • D. C. Sessions

    the president nominated someone who was a personal friend, but precisely because she hadn’t been vetted by the conserva-borg, they freaked out and forced him to rescind the nomination.

    … which paved the way to approving the next nominee with minimal scrutiny.

    Democrats have been terrified of anything remotely like serious scrutiny of Republican judicial nominees ever since their totally uncalled-for and inappropriate lynching of Robert Bork.

    … never mind that he was rejected even by Republicans once actual scrutiny disclosed what an unethical freak he really is. The experience was too traumatic to ever risk anything like it happening again.

  • typecaster

    Eisenhower lamented, “I made two mistakes, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan Jr.

    Except that as far as I can tell, Eisenhower didn’t say that. Nobody can give a documented source of where or when he said it, and there’s others who have tried and found no reason to believe it happened.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    D. C. Sessions “Democrats have been terrified of anything remotely like serious scrutiny of Republican judicial nominees ever since their totally uncalled-for and inappropriate lynching of Robert Bork.”

    Obstructionist and cheap, sure, but uncalled for and inappropriate? Are we talking about the same Robert Bork?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Obstructionist and cheap, sure, but uncalled for and inappropriate? Are we talking about the same Robert Bork?

    Perhaps I should have used scare quotes — but then again, look who’s talking.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    D. C. Sessions “Perhaps I should have used scare quotes…”

    Don’t! That’s the worst kind of quotes!

     

    “— but then again, look who’s talking.”

    If it’s a sexy, authoritative baritone, it’s probably me. I try not to talk all that much, lest my somber rumble bring too much joy in to the world.