The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Will Justice Amy Star in 'The Five'?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

By nominating Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Donald Trump kept his word, and more than that.

Should she be confirmed, he will have made history.

Even his enemies would have to concede that Trump triumphed where his Republican predecessors — even Ronald Reagan, who filled three court vacancies — fell short. Trump’s achievement — victory in the Supreme Court wars that have lasted for half a century — is a triumph that will affect the nation and the law for years, perhaps decades.

Trump’s remaking of the Supreme Court for constitutionalism may well be the crown jewel of his presidency.

Consider. If Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, she will join Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to create a constitutionalist core of five justices, a controlling majority.

On the other side would sit the three liberals: 82-year-old Stephen Breyer and Barack Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

If Chief Justice John Roberts envisioned a Roberts Court where he would be the swing vote for 4-4 deadlocks, deciding every such case himself, his dream could be about to vanish.

If Barrett is confirmed, the new court becomes “The Five,” with its youngest, newest and most charismatic member, a 48-year-old protege of Justice Antonin Scalia, its brightest and rising star.

Consider the credentials of the jurist Trump just named.

Barrett was summa cum laude at Notre Dame Law School, graduating first in her class. She clerked for Scalia, taught law at South Bend for 15 years and has served for three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

She is a non-Ivy League, Middle American and a devout Catholic and mother of seven, including a special needs child and two adopted children from Haiti. Almost universally, former classmates and colleagues, liberals among them, praise her temperament, brilliance and scholarship.

America’s court wars, in which the coming battle over Barrett’s nomination may prove decisive, go back half a century.

It was begun in June 1968, as Richard Nixon, victorious in his party’s primaries, was moving inexorably to the GOP nomination in Miami Beach and very possibly on to the presidency of the United States.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, an old adversary of Nixon’s from California days, was not happy with this. A report in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Warren “is said to feel that Richard Nixon — regarded as the GOP’s likely presidential nominee — would be bound to appoint a new Chief Justice pledged to overturn recent court decisions guaranteeing constitutional rights of criminals.”

Nixon sent the clipping to me with a note: “Buchanan: Why doesn’t (Strom) Thurmond send this to Southern papers — opinion leaders.”

The Inquirer article proved to be on point. In collusion with Chief Justice Warren, President Lyndon Johnson had hatched a plot.

ORDER IT NOW

Warren would announce his resignation as chief justice and would make acceptance contingent upon Johnson’s nominee to succeed him being confirmed. And that nominee would be Justice Abe Fortas, a court ally of Warren and longtime crony of LBJ. All three were in on it.

When Fortas was confirmed, his vacant seat as associate justice would then be filled by Federal Judge Homer Thornberry, also an ally of Johnson’s going back to his Texas days.

Thus would Nixon be preempted, the liberalism of the high court guaranteed, and the Warren Court succeeded for another decade by the Fortas Court.

When LBJ named Fortas, Nixon went silent. But GOP Senators Robert Griffin, John Tower and Howard Baker moved to block Fortas’ ascent. They used an argument familiar to us today. The new president chosen in November, not the president retiring in January, should choose Warren’s replacement as chief justice.

The attack from Senate Republicans soon zeroed in on Fortas’ social liberalism on pornography as manifest in his having voted alone on the court to approve for public viewing films depicting acts of homosexual sex.

Fortas not only failed to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate he needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, he also failed to win a simple majority, receiving only 45 votes for confirmation. On Oct. 1, 1968, Fortas asked Johnson to withdraw his nomination, and in the spring of 1969, he was forced to resign from the court in a financial scandal.

Warren would have to swear in Nixon as the nation’s 37th president on Jan. 20, 1969, and then watch Nixon replace him as chief justice with Judge Warren Burger in the spring of that same year.

Came then Nixon’s losing battles to put Southern judges Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell on the court, Reagan’s failure to elevate Bob Bork, and the brutal but failed assaults on Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.
Now comes Amy Coney Barrett’s turn.

If Senate Republicans stay united, then they can realize a victory that generations of their GOP predecessors had hoped to see.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Exile says: • Website

    Should she be confirmed, he will have made history.

    Even his enemies would have to concede that Trump triumphed where his Republican predecessors — even Ronald Reagan, who filled three court vacancies — fell short. Trump’s achievement — victory in the Supreme Court wars that have lasted for half a century — is a triumph that will affect the nation and the law for years, perhaps decades.

    These statements will not age well. Let’s revisit this in a year, then two then four for proof.

    Like all of “Trump’s achievements” that Pat has been lauding all election season, echoing the ridiculous “Promises Kept” rhetoric of ProgCon shills like TP USA’s Charlie Kirk and the “Let’s Gooooo!” Groypers, this will prove to be all sizzle, no steak.

    I was naive enough to believe that Pat would not join in the vapid, bubble-headed fanboi cheerleading that is the MAGA movement in 2020 – with its endless non-White tokenism and God-awful numbers of outright homosexuals and trannies in the vanguard.

    Old habits die hard and I suspect Pat’s less in touch with the actual people and events nowadays, living in the past of a GOP that hasn’t existed since the Reagan era he keeps invoking – and wasn’t even that legit even back then.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Q-ship
  2. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Notice that there’s no discussion here of how Judge Barrett has performed on the 7th Circuit, or even about her expected performance on the SCOTUS. Instead, Mr. Buchanan plays identity politics

    She is a non-Ivy League, Middle American and a devout Catholic and mother of seven, including a special needs child and two adopted children from Haiti.

    pads out his column with that Abe Fortas Beltway war story, and merely assures his readers that this GOP nominee will be another “constitutionalist.”

    Consider. If Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, she will join Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to create a constitutionalist core of five justices, a controlling majority.*

    Whatever happened to the “original intent” buzzwords that used to frame this type of column? For a sense of that, and how “constitutionalism” plays out in the judicial arrogation of employment discrimination law, see the aborted discussion of Justice Gorsuch’s “strict textualis[m]” with the disingenuous commenter “Juvenalis” under Mr. Buchanan’s September 22 tub thumper (“Last Best Chance to Capture Supreme Court”) for the next Most Important Election Ever.

    ———

    *No explanation from Mr. Buchanan of why Chief Justice Roberts, another GOP nominee, no longer makes the cut. I guess “The Six” would take away from the pivotal 5-4 optics in getting out the vote.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  3. As always, Pat points out in his inimitable style (helps to have once known all the players), we live in interesting times.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  4. Realist says:
    @Exile

    Like all of “Trump’s achievements” that Pat has been lauding all election season, echoing the ridiculous “Promises Kept” rhetoric of ProgCon shills like TP USA’s Charlie Kirk and the “Let’s Gooooo!” Groypers, this will prove to be all sizzle, no steak.

    The campaign slogan Promises Made…Promises Kept is just a load of bullshit.

    I was naive enough to believe that Pat would not join in the vapid, bubble-headed fanboi cheerleading that is the MAGA movement in 2020 – with its endless non-White tokenism and God-awful numbers of outright homosexuals and trannies in the vanguard.

    Plus the endless homage to POC regardless of justification. While this may have gained Trump a few POC supporters…how many Whites did he lose?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  5. Realist says:

    What a surprise…one rabid Catholic is giddy over another rabid Catholic

  6. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    He’s one of the players.

  7. Emslander says:
    @Realist

    “Rabid Catholic”?

    Ridiculous. A devout, practicing, believing Roman Catholic is a person who simply respects the Natural Law and God’s hegemony over all things, understanding most acutely that each of us has a very short life and a necessarily limited effect on the flow of history.

    • Replies: @Realist
  8. BobX says:
    @Realist

    Pat is a fine old papist. The failure to get him the nomination in 1996 for It’s my turn Dole makes me sad to this day. What a different world it could be if the US had not squandered the manufacturing advantage and wasted 2 decades of blood and treasure on needless foreign wars.

  9. Realist says:
    @Emslander

    Ridiculous. A devout, practicing, believing Roman Catholic is a person who simply respects the Natural Law and God’s hegemony over all things, understanding most acutely that each of us has a very short life and a necessarily limited effect on the flow of history.

    Silly religious pap.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  10. Heymrguda says:
    @Realist

    In my experience any catholic who describes themselves as “devout” has been prejudiced and intolerant.
    Although I’m on the right politically it’s no surprise to me that some folks question this .

    • Replies: @Bill
  11. Stick says:

    After this one, Trump will likely appoint three more. It would be nice to appoint a Protestant once in awhile since the Constitution was written by Protestants.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  12. TGD says:

    As a devout Roman Catholic, does Judge Barrett believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? I ask the question in the same vein as the punditry’s assault on Trump for ignoring the tenets of science.

    It would be great if a senator asked judge Barrett this question in her confirmation hearings.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  13. anon[108] • Disclaimer says:

    We should all be thankful that Reagan failed to nominated Robert Bork, the man who did the utmost to advance the interest of monopoly power in America. We need to go back to enforcing anti-trust laws. This country is now ruled (and wrecked) by monopoly power and those enriched by it.

    I was afraid Amy Barrett would be too soft on immigration, but her record so far has been good, two to one against immigration. I hope she proves to be tighter on immigration than Neil Gorsuch, who has been a disappointment. If the election ends up being decided by SCOTUS, I would not count on Roberts and Gorsuch to rule in favor of Trump. In fact, they most likely won’t.

    I hope the next person nominated will be Amy Wax.

  14. Q-ship says:
    @Exile

    I doubt this will change the Court in any substantial way. How long will it be until Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh “evolve” into a “centrist” or “swing” justice? The execrable Bostock decision shows that Gorsuch may already be undergoing this process.

    The problem with “conservative” justices is twofold. First, the Supreme Court wields enormous power with their ability to create or reinterpret laws. This power is maintained by continued judicial activism, not by being a constitutionalist referee. The temptation to use this power is strong, and most of the Republican appointees seem to succumb at some point. Second, the Federalist Society tries to find originalist judges who will rule impartially on the constitutionality of laws, while the left finds blatant partisans who write laws. Just another way the Republicans bring a knife to a gunfight, and continue to lose.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  15. @Realist

    Don’t you think it’s interesting that appointing a Catholic is payback to Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde, who blasted Trump when he walked across Lafayette Park and to Budde’s Episcopal church, St. John’s, and held up a bible, the book that supposedly defines Budde’s belief system?

    (Imagine that: the “Dictator” President defends the faith, while the bishop defends those who set fire to her church.)

    Anglican -Episcopalians and numerous other main-line Protestants have been strung together by ADL to stand for everything that Good Book is supposed to condemn. (To be sure, many Catholics have also been seduced by the ADL – AIPAC – ‘600 Jewish organizations’ siren song.)

    Mainline Protestantism, the WASP redoubt, is DOA, and that for the next 50 years.

    Priss Factor undertook the autopsy of Protestantism / WASPs here, here, and here

    and included this model from the world of nature:

    Regarding Slave Maker Ants, I choose to think that while Slave Makers do, indeed, exist, and so do those who are enslaved, the Enslaved is NOT equal to the universe of all who are not Slave Makers: there are more than two categories.

    Protestants and many Catholics have chosen to enslave themselves to the chosenites.

    But many have not.

    If Amy Barrett is strong enough and courageous enough, she might en-courage others to resist the Slave Maker ants.

    • Replies: @A123
  16. @TGD

    What bearing might Barrett’s belief or non-belief in a religiously-inspired. mystical ritual have on her judgment on US Constitutional issues?

    In contrast, for Jews, like RBG, advocacy for Israel (and holocaustism) are foremost in their world view. Past Jewish judges on the US Supreme Court — most notably & egregiously Louis Brandeis & Felix Frankfurter — used their positions and access to US power to involve Americans in wars that most Americans otherwise opposed, and in which a crucial goal of those wars was the removal of Jews from Europe and to zionizing Palestine as well as to a (then-) new power center in USA.

    Can you describe a scenario in which Barrett’s belief in Transubstantiation might bring about a situation comparable to that which Brandeis & Frankfurter engineered?

    • Replies: @TGD
  17. Rurik says:
    @anonymous

    *No explanation from Mr. Buchanan of why Chief Justice Roberts, another GOP nominee, no longer makes the cut.

    umm..

    Because he’s a worm? Without a shred of integrity or honor?

    You’re not dumb enough to think just because the cucks at the GOP nominated someone, that that should mean anything. People like McBloodstain [RIH] are still in good standing with the GOP.

    As to Barrett, I suspect we’ll only find out in the crucible of her tenure.

    Too often they’re appointed, only to betray everything they putatively pretended to stand for.

    Roberts, to his eternal damnation, sold his soul so he could continue to get invited to fancy DC parties. And hear plaudits from the ((media)) about how wise he is.

    Perhaps a belief in God is a good thing for a Justice. If nothing else, when making judgments, they might consider their ultimate day of judgment, when they stand before their Creator, and account for themselves.

    I’d like to think that the ones who’ve betrayed their oaths to God and country, will one day come to regret it.

    ‘Oh I’m not sorry Mr. McCain, but ‘I liked all the perks and power’, and ‘they had shit on me’, just doesn’t cut it up here. There ya go…

  18. A123 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    appointing a Catholic is payback to Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde, who blasted Trump

    Clearly there is substantial need for reform of churches in the U.S., but that is a separate issue. Trump is not goimg to waste a SC pick to obtain “payback” against a crazy bishop.

    Protestants and many Catholics have chosen to enslave themselves to the chosenites.

    Dhimmi Pope Muhammad Francis the Submissive is a disaster for the credibility of the Catholic church. Fortunately, Trump picked a Supreme Justice who is a real Chrstian, not a Dhimmi slave. Barrett will turn back the type of SJW Islamic sexual deviance pushed by the Muslim indoctrination film ‘Cuties‘.

    PEACE 😇

  19. TGD says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Can you describe a scenario in which Barrett’s belief in Transubstantiation might bring about a situation comparable to that which Brandeis & Frankfurter engineered?

    They “engineered” the US entry into WW1 and WW2? Believing that requires “a suspension of disbelief” as per the Hillary Clinton campaign statement of 2016.

    It seems that all of the stories about Ms Barrett state most emphatically that she is a “devout” Catholic. If she is devout, it absolutely must mean that she believes that an ordinary Parrish Priest can magically change a goblet of diluted sacramental wine and a wheat cracker into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. If she doesn’t, she is a “cafeteria Catholic.”

    That doctrine was reaffirmed after Vatican-ii by none other than Pope Paul.

    • Replies: @A123
  20. A123 says:
    @TGD

    Dwelling on the minutiae of Catholic dogma largely misses the point.

    What is critical — She has conservative Christian faith paired with a substantial reservoir of reason. She seems well suited to undoing the damage SJW’s have inflicted on the Constitution.

    PEACE 😇
     

  21. @Q-ship

    To cut to the chase: The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable megalomaniacs. They write their personal beliefs and prejudices into the law. “Constitutional law” no longer has anything to do with the Constitution. Too bad that 330 million Americans have to live under the dictates of these poseurs.

    Protection of your civil liberties? The Bill of Rights? Frightfully sorry, lads, but the Supreme Shysters are of no help, as John W. Whitehead makes clear in his article “Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us” at LewRockwell.com.

    • Replies: @Realist
  22. Person ‘s personal beliefs should not interfere in the objective black and white application of the law- inclusive and true and fair. Such petty issues as what brand of Christianity person belongs to has no purpose on the panel of judges. However—why are they there for life- is this not a penalty against the people — they all should be pensioned at 65 — all of them –the trough needs to be replenished.

  23. After Pearl Harbor, CA then-AG Earl Warren was perhaps this country’s leading voice for rounding up Japanese-AMERICANs and sending them to prison camps.

    California needs to cancel him.

    Let the name of Earl Warren be stricken from every California public building, highway, and college.

  24. Bill says:

    Consider. If Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, she will join Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to create a constitutionalist core of five justices, a controlling majority.

    I count 3 likely votes to overturn Roe. I count 0 likely votes to overturn Wikard. What is this “constitutionalist core” going to do? Overturn Obergefell? (Hint: no) Hell, Bostock was 6-3, so even transgender-is-a-sex idiocy isn’t going down. Pat is really becoming tedious with this GOP cheerleading stuff.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  25. Bill says:
    @Heymrguda

    I believe you. People who describe themselves as “gorgeous” also tend to be pretty weird (and frequently ugly). People who describe themselves as rich, too. Also, people who describe themselves as natural leaders. I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who described themselves as “good at math” who actually was.

  26. @Realist

    Good points! Trump and the GOP are taking the White vote for granted, just as democrats have taken the Black vote for granted ever since FDR. Look no further than Wednesday’s featured article “Donald Trump’s Platinum Plan for Black America” by Brad Griffin. Personally, I can’t wait to celebrate Trump’s new Black federal holiday on Juneteenth! I wonder how many White votes Trump may have lost after that ridiculous pandering to BLM.

    • Replies: @Realist
  27. @Stick

    I don’t care if Trump appoints Protestants, Catholics, Pagans, or Atheists – as long as they are not activist liberals. Although he prostrates himself to Israel on most issues, at least Trump hasn’t yet nominated any of the Jewish faith.

  28. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill

    Let me add (credit to Realist) the Citizens United and related decisions enshrining corporations as — and therefore overwhelming — people in the pointless political process.

    The CARES Act bailing out Wall Street passed the Senate, 96-0.

    Correlate, discuss, think. Then stop voting.

  29. Realist says:
    @follyofwar

    I wonder how many White votes Trump may have lost after that ridiculous pandering to BLM.

    Exactly. Plus, last night in the debate Trump couldn’t bring himself to say White people when talking about eliminating the critical race theory training as racist against some people.

  30. Realist says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    I totally agree. A couple years ago on this blog Andrew Napolitano had the audacity to state the SCOTUS was not political…is he stupid or just a liar?

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  31. Mr. Grey says:

    Credit must also be given to Harry Reid, the Democrat senator from Nevada, and his brilliant strategy of removing the 60 vote requirement to approve judges.

  32. It’s not like the “conservatives” on the court have done much for conservatives. And I’m not sure what difference it makes to have a “conservative” court when non-Americans and minorities make up the majority. At that point, America is no longer America. My guess is that the Fabulous Five are all Beltway conservatives, and little of substance to actual Middle Ameicans would make it to them for a vote, anyway, even if they would surprise everyone and stick up for actual Americans. Not much to get excited about.

  33. @Realist

    Anyone who thinks the Supreme Shysters–those black-robed politicians–decide cases on the basis of “constitutional principles,” “original intent” (or other highfalutin’ words) had better get back to their “Civics for Suckers” textbooks.

    Bullshit.

    They’re free to write their personal opinions, their religious prejudices, their whims into the law–and they know it. Maybe they want to be big heroes in the culture wars, so they vote to uphold abortion (or strike it down), vote to uphold homosexual rights (or strike them down), vote to uphold Obamacare (or strike it down). Civil liberties and the Bill of Rights? Well, the Supreme Shysters show scant regard for those. When it comes to the State vs. Joe Sixpack, Mr. Sixpack gets shat upon. To quote from John W. Whitehead’s article:

    “Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court–preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a world of privilege, partial to those with power, money and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court on average accepts 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)–venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

    “Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.”

    • Replies: @Realist
  34. nymom says:

    Unfortunately I think people are very likely to be disappointed if they expect a majority conservative court to come out of this latest appointment. Either her or one of the other gang of four conservatives will suddenly veer leftward and we will be right back to the same situation again with every decision being a close one decided by whichever conservative ‘grew’ into his office and morphed into a complete loony leftist.

    From abortion right up until the moment of birth, to birthright citizenship for every foreigner who manages to sneak across the border and enter a US hospital 5 minutes before birth, to having men running through girls locker rooms, we have observed the same pattern.

    Let’s just call the whole idea of the Supreme Court making all these decisions for us a bad idea that has outlived its usefulness.

    Someone suggested we just have a system where federal judges from various jurisdictions/states rotate into the Supreme Court on a four year or so basis and use that as our Supreme Court. It sounds fine to me…

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS