ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Cal Thomas: Looks who's talking, Justice Kagan

From the commentary: So, the ideological, political and legal war rages on. Welcome back, justices.

 FILE PHOTO: Associate Justice Elena Kagan poses during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 23, 2021.
FILE PHOTO: Associate Justice Elena Kagan poses during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 23, 2021.
Erin Schaff/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
We are part of The Trust Project.

Supreme Court justices return to work next month following a tumultuous last session in which the majority issued some controversial rulings, most notably the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Cal Thomas commentary
Cal Thomas Commentary
Tribune graphic
Summary: I once heard the late evangelist Rev. Billy Graham say America was not at a crossroads, but had traveled down the wrong road and needed to come back to the crossroads and take the right road. What if we can no longer agree on the right road and where the wrong road is leading us?
Summary: Donald Trump would do well to withdraw from the field and allow younger and less controversial candidates to replace him. His record of policy successes while president are undeniable (except for those in denial), but his narcissistic personality contributed to his loss. It is also contributing to the work of the January 6 committee. If that committee wishes to "bring us together," it will forgo recommendations of criminal prosecution and let voters decide, as they should and ultimately will, the future of Donald Trump.
Summary: When rhetoric gets heated, perhaps the best way to be heard is to speak in a tone Scripture attributes to God — "a still, small voice." As noted by the writer of Proverbs: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)
Summary: Many viewers might want to know why Congress can't seem to fix any of the country's real problems. That perennial question is why increasing numbers of Americans have grown sour about Washington. They see members of Congress more interested in re-election, in their careers and in perks than in the people they are supposed to represent.

Liberals in general and Justice Elena Kagan in particular, are upset by the decisions of the conservative majority.

Justice Kagan recently spoke at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. She said: "When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that's when there's a problem."

As conservatives see it, what Kagan objects to is precisely what liberal judges have been doing for more than half a century. Conservatives have seen the court as too often making law from the bench that has little or nothing to do with the Constitution, only what the justices think it ought to say and would have said had they written it.

Former President Barack Obama once revealed the objective of many liberals. During an interview in 2001 he seemed to disparage the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to preserve and protect individual liberty. That's why the Preamble begins "We the people of the United States" not you the government. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was on point when he said: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

Following criticism by then-president Donald Trump about judges who reflect the ideology of the presidents who appoint them, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement in rebuttal: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

If that were true, there would be no dissents and all judges would have the same view of the Constitution, but clearly in modern times they reflect the view of law of the Democratic presidents who nominate them. That is not always so with Republican presidents. Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy were all named by Republican presidents and to one degree or another (some more than others) voted in ways, from abortion to same-sex marriage, that delighted Democrats.

So far as I can tell, only one judge named by a modern Democrat did not completely reflect the views of the president who nominated him. That was John F. Kennedy's pick of Justice Byron White, who was in the 7-2 minority when Roe was decided in 1973.

More Commentary:
From the commentary: Perhaps the ultimate point is that Pompeo’s attack on Weingarten and teachers must do just that. Pompeo’s demagogic words must bring together all the sane patriots who still call themselves Republicans. They must unite to condemn his message — and tell Americans we must work with our teachers to help them build the infrastructure that will be America’s ultimate bridge to tomorrow.
From the commentary: Ocasio-Cortez has a long record of pushing primary challenges to Democrats deemed insufficiently radical. These attempts are almost always unsuccessful though draining to the incumbent.
From the commentary: This fetish with identity started as a tic of the left, which tends to believe that voters want candidates who represent certain groups, as opposed to certain ideas. What it should have learned by now is that Republicans are perfectly capable of running their own candidates of color, witness their support in the Georgia senate race of the unintelligible Herschel Walker, a Black football player.

If there are no Bush, Obama, Clinton, Trump and Biden judges, how else could they be described?

The Founders intended the Supreme Court to be the least powerful of the three branches of government. That would eventually change when Justice John Marshall ascribed to the Court powers the Framers of the Constitution never intended it to have. In Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall placed the judiciary in a position of primary authority on constitutional law and established judicial review as a fundamental principle and the sole responsibility of the Court.

That philosophy would be reflected later by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who claimed, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

So, the ideological, political and legal war rages on. Welcome back, justices.

ADVERTISEMENT

This Cal Thomas commentary is his opinion. He can be reached at cthomas@wctrib.com.

Commentary logo
Commentary logo
Tribune graphic

What to read next
Ann Bailey explains why she's thankful for agriculture in professional and personal life.
From the commentary: Still, as Biden quietly marked his 80th birthday on Nov. 13, the basic Democratic dilemma remained: Will it be best for the party — and the country — to renominate the nation’s oldest president, even if the alternative is chaos?
"After a couple of years of celebrating apart because of the pandemic, and also for having just lived through another rancorous national election, we all could use the joy and hope and anticipation that is promised us in Christmas, in the birth of a mighty little king born in a manger."
Katie Pinke looks at the positive impact of 4-H on youth.