The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Bar Harbor Town Council Unanimously Dissolves Cruise Ship Committee
  • Who is Hansjörg Wyss, the Swiss National Bankrolling Progressive Media and Politics in Maine?
  • Another One: False Report of Armed Student on Private School Campus Sends Neighboring Public Schools into Lockdown Tuesday Morning
  • Biden DHS Secretary Appoints Ex-Intel Officials Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s ‘Laptop from hell’ to New DHS ‘Experts Group’
  • Susan Collins Jokes That She Plans to ‘Wear a Bikini’ to DC as Senate Relaxes Dress Code for Stroked-out Fetterman
  • The Road to Manhood: V. Paul Reynolds
  • Parents Push Back Against Pornographic Books in Libraries at Chaotic Maine School Board Meeting
  • EcoMaine, State Experts Still Can’t Say How Pink Plumes of Iodine Filled Portland’s Sky: Never-Before-Seen Emails
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Thursday, September 21
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » What we learn from the rhetorical disputes over SCOTUS nominations
Commentary

What we learn from the rhetorical disputes over SCOTUS nominations

Pem SchaefferBy Pem SchaefferOctober 2, 2020Updated:October 2, 2020No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s Supreme Court nomination time again, and the result is predictable. The usual suspects on the progressive left, especially those whose hair is most likely to spontaneously combust when cameras are nearby, are behaving like raving lunatics.

Like they did with Brett Kavanaugh, the left is hysterical because they are convinced a believing Catholic nominee will lead the Supreme Court to repeal Roe v. Wade, the decades-old decision that ruled the individual states could not prohibit the practice of abortion. Legal scholars have argued over the findings of the decision since it was handed down, but it has been considered “settled law” for decades. In other words, “keep your damn hands off it.”

Like most far-reaching issues of this sort, new linguistic constructs evolve to influence public sentiments on the subject. I’m reminded of this quote:

“It’s often the case that when a critic uses an embarrassingly accurate term to describe what a wrong-doer is doing, the wrong-doer protests: ‘Why don’t you use my white-washed, conscience-soothing euphemism?’ Such euphemisms, they claim, help promote ‘civilized debate.”

In the case of abortion, which became far more prevalent nationwide after the ruling and a holy sacrament of many on the left, the term “reproductive rights” was created to buff up the image of an otherwise abhorrent (and almost never necessary) medical procedure that ends an innocent life. Screaming, shouting advocates reliably show up to disrupt any official hearing or other gathering to discuss the subject.

As we listen to the growing chorus of resistance over President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a truism emerges. Much as the left denies that they favor activist judges in activist courts to provide an alternative to making law through the legislative process, the truth of the obvious rises to the top.

Their protests are because they believe the nominee will act on her personal beliefs and biases rather than behaving as judges are obligated to behave – in strict compliance with applicable law, the Constitution that constrains such law and the government empowered to enact and enforce it.

In the process, the leftists give away their own desires to appoint activist judges to turn the courts into activist bodies that create legislation by their decisions, outside the lawmaking framework prescribed by the framers in the Constitution.

Their hair-on-fire reaction to nominees like Judge Coney Barrett is an act of projection; since they hold that judges they nominate should be able to make law through court decisions, they think all judges intend to act as their nominees would be expected to act. And they apparently believe that a sitting justice can simply decide to bring an issue before the Court without any referred case from lower courts (which is another indication of what they would have their appointees do).

They simply cannot accept that any nominee to this ultimate judicial position would do otherwise. It is simply “inconceivable” to them. Which, when you think about it, is an ironic comment on the subject of reproductive rights.

Amy Coney Barrett Commentary SCOTUS Supreme Court supreme court nomination
Previous ArticleReisman: Systemic racism racket gets trumped
Next Article A public option is not the silver bullet for lower costs, greater access
Pem Schaeffer

Pem Schaeffer is a retired engineer who progressed to a position in business development leadership in defense electronics. He lives and writes in Brunswick, Maine, and blogs at: http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/ He can be reached at pemster4062@yahoo.com or you can always buy him lunch at a Maine Policy Institute luncheon. He's easy that way, and he'll still respect you if you do.

Related Posts

Bar Harbor Town Council Unanimously Dissolves Cruise Ship Committee

September 20, 2023

Who is Hansjörg Wyss, the Swiss National Bankrolling Progressive Media and Politics in Maine?

September 20, 2023

Another One: False Report of Armed Student on Private School Campus Sends Neighboring Public Schools into Lockdown Tuesday Morning

September 20, 2023

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Bar Harbor Town Council Unanimously Dissolves Cruise Ship Committee

September 20, 2023

Another One: False Report of Armed Student on Private School Campus Sends Neighboring Public Schools into Lockdown Tuesday Morning

September 20, 2023

Biden DHS Secretary Appoints Ex-Intel Officials Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s ‘Laptop from hell’ to New DHS ‘Experts Group’

September 20, 2023

Susan Collins Jokes That She Plans to ‘Wear a Bikini’ to DC as Senate Relaxes Dress Code for Stroked-out Fetterman

September 20, 2023

Parents Push Back Against Pornographic Books in Libraries at Chaotic Maine School Board Meeting

September 19, 2023
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.