Bruce Jacobs update below
When Rumpole rises in defense, he bows slightly to that sepulchral-like figure, clad in black, looming meters above the rest of us, and mutters "may it please the court" before launching into a spirited defense of the accused.
We need not acknowledge one of our two opponents in the courtroom, but we do so out of respect for what they represent. Our democracy. Our judicial system. Overseer of due process, comity and cafecito at 3.
But what if we did not? What if those around us simply said "no" we chose not to follow your decisions?
We started this conversation on Mr. Markus's blog with a comment about a scenario: Imagine if two of the so-called conservative justices were forced to retire unexpectedly this term. Perhaps Justice Thomas retires, and Justice Kavanaugh is offered the presidency of a beer distributorship in Baden, Germany. Now also consider a democratic rout of republicans in the senate midterm elections, resulting in Biden appointing two new justices. And now imagine the newly constituted "Biden Court" reversing the reversal of Roe.
What will our Supreme Court have become, if nothing more than another congress, ruling according to which side is currently in the majority.
The Judiciary's power flows from the public's respect for the institution. They have neither the power of the purse nor the military. If the public loses trust, then what?
Now imagine this scenario: A President Trump or suitable clone, reacts to a Supreme Court decision by telling his or her followers to not follow it. They order federal law enforcement to not enforce the decision. Their supporters in congress beat back yet another impeachment proceeding.
We are on the precipice of very dark times dear readers.
Yes, there are moments in history when back-benchers like Churchill defied his party and parliament and thundered about the rising Nazi threat. Proven right, his country turned to him, bringing him from the wilderness, and into power.
Lincoln, suspending the sacred rights of habeas corpus and freedom of the press; violating the Constitution to save the Union.
But those moments are and should be rare. And yet they fuel the rising populist movement to defy the law, to defy science, and to defy common sense, because a Trump or DeSantis says they should.
The threat to this Union, this great experiment in democracy, is real and imminent. They will defy judges if told to do so. They will attack law enforcement if egged on. They will arrest and incarcerate intellectuals and scientists and the Rumpoles of this world, and we shall descend into the dark ages of mob rule, pandemic illnesses, drought, heat, famine and flood. Force will replace reason. Prayer will replace medicine and science. Elections will be rigged and tampered with. Democracy will die, and many millions along with it.
Other than that, enjoy your weekend.
Update: the Florida Supreme Court disapproved without prejudice the Florida Bar's petition for an emergency suspension of Bruce Jacobs.
Science says that life begins at conception. Roe and abortion supporters or providers ignore science and deny the new life the equal protection of the laws using political arguments just like the Taney court did to black slaves in Dred Scott. It would be easy to just keep Roe and continue the slaughter of the mostly-minority unborn unabated, but these five justices have put politics aside to stick to the constitution and the science that the progressive left so conveniently chooses to ignore.
ReplyDeleteNeed to leave your echo chamber. There are tons of recent left wing articles attacking the supreme court's validity because on this decision. Why didn't you cite those publications as a danger to democracy instead of making an example up involving Trump?
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe the left has common sense with science? With their views on gender? Did the left respect law enforcement while burning cities during BLM "protests"?
The left just spent two years arguing for forced vaccines but now it's my body my choice. I was lectured on how I need to protect the vulnerable from COVID but a baby at 8 months in the womb can be murdered. Yea makes sense.
The reality is you are ok with the left wing media attacks on the validity of the supreme court, the left attacks on police and cities from BLM, the anti science related to gender - because they fit your world view. Stop pretending to stand on some higher principle and admit your tactics are the same as those on the right. Your whole argument can be summed up with how disastrous it would be if the republicans do what the democrats are doing right now?
And yes we should say no i'm not following your decisions if they are bad - who is it that claimed they were just following orders? I know many of those on the left also believe this because I keep hearing "it won't outlaw abortions only safe ones" - but i'm willing to bet you are ok with this because it fits your world view.
I do not see a populist left movement fueled by national leaders like I see on the right. Do I see a populist left ? Yes. I don’t see Biden or Schumer telling them to storm the capital and delegitimize an election.
ReplyDeleteDude. Trump did not say storm the capital. You sound like a hack.
DeleteTrump absolutely advocated for violence, insurrection, chaos and disturbance of the country. He’s the devil s as no will always stand for evil
DeletePut another way - I don’t see and will not see Biden tell the nation not to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court. If the circumstances were switched and the Supreme Court issued a devastating decision that Pres Trump disagreed with I would fully expect him to attack the court the way he attacked federal judges in the past over things like their heritage. Am I wrong? Didn’t Trump attack a federal judge because he suspected he was of Mexican heritage ? Has Biden done that ? What am I missing ? You’re missing memory. I’m not missing anything here. If I am let me know. Otherwise admit you’re wrong.
ReplyDeleteMany examples. Here’s one supported by the Dems:
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/05/schumer-trump-supreme-court/
Andrew Jackson did this. The case had to do with the executives right to forcibly remove Natives from land settlers wanted. “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Led directly to the Civil War. Trump had a portrait of Andrew Jackson (not John Marshall) in the Oval Office and presumably still does in the pretend Oval Office in Palm Beach.
ReplyDeleteRumpole: Did Stacy Abrams concede her election in Georgia?
ReplyDeleteThese textual originalists are all full of crap. They say that our Constitution guarantees 'Human Life.' Extend that to the extreme, and I suppose that modern science could say that any fertilized eggs from the gametes of a man and a woman are some form of human life. However, it is not likely that our founding fathers had that concept in mind when they wrote the word 'life' in the Constitution. Nor, were the notions of pre-born viability in the heads of the founders. This issue is begging for uniformity among the states.
ReplyDeleteI am certain that they had abortions in Colonial days. Someone should check out if terminating a pregnancy was a criminal act when our constitution was signed.
424, she has not. Neither has Hillary Clinton. They both still claim that their elections were stolen and by doing so they continue to undermine the public's confidence in our democracy.
ReplyDelete@223:
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
1) life may start at conception, but that bundle of cells on day one is not necessarily a human. That issue is subjective. It may be your subjective opinion that the bundle of cells at conception is human. But it is not as objectively scientific as you pretend.
2) And what of the rights of the mother? Recall (if you don't know) what pregnancy does to a woman. Among myriad other consequences, pregnancy involves the fetus taking the woman's nutrition, shifting her internal organs, and causing her what most would describe as the greatest physical pain in human experience when the child erupts from her vagina. Frequent effects include months of nausea and vomiting, dizziness, hemorrhoids, difficulty sleeping, swelling and painful joints, shortness of breath, stretch marks, vaginal tears during labor (sometimes tearing to the point of joining the vagina and anus in an uninterrupted opening), permanent vaginal muscle weakness, permanent loss or diminished bladder control, and loss of dental and bone calcium. And these are the consequences of a NORMAL HEALTHY pregnancy. I suspect that if someone tried to do these things to you against your will, that you might argue that you have a right of self defense and that you could even shoot and kill the perpetrator. While I do not liken a pregnancy to an attack, the physical consequences are no less dire. And women should have the absolute right to knowingly and intelligently decide whether they choose to subject themselves to that.
Biden and Schumer are clearly ok with protests outside the Justices' homes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1507:
ReplyDeleteWhoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Will Merrick Garland enforce the law? Don't hold your breath.