Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past week saw the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing devolve into a monkey dung fight with better suits, but one concept that kept being introduced in between the handfuls of crap being flung was originalist. The Left came up with their own unique (i.e. utterly insane) interpretations of the idea, often pointing to the way women were treated when the Constitution was ratified. In short, the Left wanted ACB to get back in the kitchen, but it’s not sexist when they do it.

Yet with all of the talk on the Left about originalist thinking, few have actually nailed it down. And by few I mean it’s rarer than a Nosferatu burger that a Leftist got it right. So, consider this a teachable moment for the Left.

originalist

What the Left thinks it means – a backwards way of applying the Constitution to legal cases because of cultural changes and the passage of time

What it really means – applying the Constitution as written to legal cases

With the exception of a few Amendments, the Constitution is pretty straightforward as to what the government can and cannot do. As a result, Leftists try to muddy the waters so it’s not as simple as it looks, and since Leftists think they’re the smartest people in the room, they volunteer their expertise to interpret the Constitution (as they interpret it, of course). If someone were to come along and point out the simple concepts the Left tries to misconstrue, that person becomes a threat.

You know, like Amy Coney Barrett.

Whenever the Left sees a threat to their self-imposed intellectual supremacy, they calmly and maturely state their case as to why originalist thinking is dangerous. And if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Gobi Desert I’d like to sell you. I’ll even throw in a free Gobi Dessert with a purchase!

What the Left does with originalists is portray them as out-of-touch, uber-conservative types who don’t understand society changes, so our interpretation of the Constitution has to change. Remember, the Left believes the Constitution is ever-changing, always in flux, and means different things at different times. As much as our personal interpretations of the Constitution can change with time and social perspectives, that doesn’t change what is actually written.

Take one of my personal favorite Amendments, the First Amendment. When making decisions on everything from whether online speech should be regulated to whether a community can have Christmas decorations in public parks, people often overlook the key five words at the very beginning of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law. Thanks to our friends on the Left and their allies in the ACLU, anything that gets government funding is subject to the limitation placed specifically on Congress, and if you disagree or resist, they will sue you. Call me crazy (and I’m sure some of you already do), but I’m curious how a Christmas decoration in a public park equates to an act of our legislative body. Although I’m curious how my mayor voted on Obamacare…

Now, imagine an originalist taking a look at all of the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the ACLU and dismissing them because Congress didn’t act. (So far, it hasn’t happened, but a boy can dream.) Not only would it make the ACLU look like idiots (which happens on any day that ends with “day”), but it would remove the power the Left has to suppress the free expression of religion through subversion of the First Amendment. (Oh, and by ignoring the whole “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” part of the First.)

Even with something as vital and impactful as a Supreme Court decision, the Left is playing political games, mainly because they know they can’t win people’s hearts and minds and need the courts to enact the Left’s agenda via judicial fiat. Of course, the easiest way to win hearts and minds is to…oh, I don’t know…come up with ideas that don’t suck. The originalist nukes this tactic from orbit because he or she understands the limits of the judiciary and will most likely toss out the bad decisions for legislative bodies or, Heaven forbid, the people to decide.

Therein lies the key difference between Leftists and originalists. The Left uses the Constitution as a Swiss Army knife, a tool for every idea developed by and for tools. Originalists use the Constitution as a map to guide an outcome so no one gets screwed in the end. (Unless, of course, you’re into that kind of thing.) This has a lot to do with how well each side understands the Constitution and to what ends. The Leftists have a workable understanding of the letter of the law, but only enough to find or create loopholes. Originalists have a deeper understanding of the words in and concepts behind the Constitution so they can understand the spirit of the law, not just the letter. This knowledge of context makes it easier for the originalists to pick out the wheat from the chaff in the Left’s Constitutional arguments.

Which pisses off the Left to no end.

Although the Left’s opposition to Amy Coney Barrett appears to be based on abortion rights or dismantling the Affordable Care Act, underneath is a deep contempt for her originalist stance and a fear she won’t take any of their monkey dung masquerading as legal and Constitutional concepts. And given some of the questions/rants provided by the Senate Democrats, monkey dung might have been the most substantive things they had against her.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There’s an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” With a wild Presidential election year and 2020 being, well, 2020, we are indeed living in interesting times. And that has lead to some interesting prospects coming up sooner than we think.

For the past couple of months, the Left has floated the idea of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court, a practice known as “packing the court.” It’s been done, or at least threatened, in the past with varying degrees of success. Now, in the shadow of Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away and Amy Coney Barrett possibly becoming the newest Supreme Court Justice, the Left wants there to be more chairs that need to be filled.

Looks like Norm Abrams might need to start a show called This Old House of Justice. And maybe he could make some new chairs on the Olde Yankee Woodshop.

Meanwhile, let’s unpack this packing the court business, shall we?

packing the court

What the Left thinks it means – adding more Supreme Court Justices to balance the diversity of the High Court and the ideas being discussed

What it really means – adding more Supreme Court Justices so the Left can circumvent making an argument to the American people

Let’s be frank. This whole “packing the court” idea wouldn’t have become an issue if President Donald Trump lost and if the Senate were under Democrat control. With Hillary Clinton as President, the Left could have counted on her to find a nominee who was far enough Left that he/she/zer could make Lyndon LaRoche look like Rush Limbaugh. And with a Democrat-controlled Senate, the advise and consent could be done via TikTok, or possibly through emojis.

Even that might be too complex for some of the Senators, but that’s another story.

Once Trump won, the Left’s plans went up in smoke like Denver, Colorado, on 4/20. Then, when the Democrats failed to win back the Senate with their can’t-miss slogan “Orange Man Bad,” they were left with trying to impeach the President for crimes that weren’t actually crimes, per se, so much as they were the delusional rantings of a group of Leftists whose knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with spelling “Constitution.” When that succeeded and Trump wasn’t removed from office for, well, not doing anything illegal, the Left’s focus became adding seats to the Supreme Court to counteract the President’s agenda.

Before I go further, let me point out the Left aren’t known for good long-term strategy. Their strategy is in-the-moment and assumes the best possible outcome. So, when their ideas crash and burn like the Hindenburg but with more government spending attached to it, they don’t know how to react. To them, their plans were and are perfect and it must be because of dirty tricks by the Republicans that the plans didn’t come to fruition. Case in point: Russiagate. At this point, they would be happy to prosecute a Trump surrogate who likes White Russians or had a salad with Russian dressing once, if only to “prove” Trump got help from Russia to win the Presidency. It couldn’t have been something else, like Hillary Clinton being the worst candidate in recent history (and that includes Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, kids).

Meanwhile, back in the original point I was making, the Left hasn’t thought out this packing the court idea very well for the reasons I mentioned above. They are assuming Joe “I Lost Twice in Previous Presidential Candidacies and I Still Got the Nomination” Biden will win because…say it with me, friends…”Orange Man Bad.” In order for this plan to work, Democrats need to retake the Senate, and this year is just crazy enough that it could happen. Having said that, it’s not a lock by any stretch of the imagination. Even less than 30 days before the election, something crazy can happen that will upset the checkerboard.

Like, maybe…avoiding answering the question about whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in favor of packing the court.

Oh, and the continuing chaos in Portland and other cities across the country.

Or the poor performances of Biden and Harris in the debates.

Or Hunter Biden being indicted for financial crimes aided by his father.

You know, any of the usual things that can trip up a candidate this close to Election Day.

The point is packing the court relies upon Joe Biden winning and Democrats getting control of the Senate again. If one of those prospects doesn’t pan out, it’s game over. But there’s another aspect the Left hasn’t through about: President Trump might pack the court before Leftists get a chance. You think Amy Coney Barrett is a dangerous candidate? Imagine repeating that process with men and women just like her.

That popping noise you hear right now is the exploding of Leftists’ heads as they realize the President could do just that.

Which will not only make the Left mad, but that much more motivated to win the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 so they could get more Justices on the Supreme Court…which will motivate the Right to do the same. And before we know it, the Supreme Court will need to meet at FedEx Field. On the plus side, the Washington Football Team (or as I call them, the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins) aren’t using it for much right now, so I’m sure sharing won’t be an issue.

The bigger issue, however, is it creates a situation where the legal system gets bogged down to the point of working even more slowly than it does now. The more Justices you add, the more people have to touch the case and the slower the resolution will be, unless the Supreme Court wants to do a superficial job which increases the chance of poor rulings from the bench. I’m talking Plessy v. Ferguson level bad here. Plus, with civil and human rights cases, a speedy and fair resolution are essential because of the impact such cases have on society and the legal system immediately and years down the road. The Left likes to say “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And now they want to make justice even slower because of a President they didn’t think could win and a Senate they thought they couldn’t lose. What happens when the wheels of justice don’t move?

That silence you hear is the Left not being able to come up with an answer consistent with their idea to pack the court.

Regardless, packing the court is going to be more of a problem than it’s worth (which is zilch). The fact it hasn’t been thought out enough yet to be persuasive to anyone outside of the Leftist hivemind should be enough of a red flag to keep yourselves far away from adopting the idea. But if not, think about the lines at your local government institution, whether it be the post office, the DMV, or a county-level office. In some cases, things run smoothly, while in others, they run at the speed of inert.

Guess which option packing the court will achieve.

Keeping the Faithless

The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.

And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.

The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.

Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.

The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”

What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.

Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.

In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.