MSNBC Host: Is A Conservative Legal Philosophy 'Appropriate' In 2018? It's Not 1776

|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2018 12:50 PM
MSNBC Host: Is A Conservative Legal Philosophy 'Appropriate' In 2018? It's Not 1776

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is going to dominate new headlines for the summer. He was nominated by President Trump to fill the vacancy of soon-to-be-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. Conservatives are now in position to have a solid majority on the high court. The pearl clutching is high with liberals, who fear that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Yeah, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, The Handmaid’s Tale will come true. That’s the mindset in a lot of liberals’ minds.

For some, like MSNBC host Katy Tur, she wondered if a conservative legal philosophy was “appropriate” in 2018. We’re more progressive now. Oh, and it’s not 1776. J.D. Vance, a former student of Judge Kavanaugh at Yale and author of Hillbilly Elegy, was a guest, and deflected the liberal nonsense hurled by Tur (via Free Beacon):


"Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it's appropriate to continue to take such a strict, originalist view of the Constitution, given it's 2018 and not 1776?" Tur asked Republican guest and Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance.

"Well, I don't know that Americans have become more progressive on everything," Vance said. "Certainly, times have changed since 1776, but how you interpret the Constitution is ultimately different from what policy preferences you want, and this is a point that conservatives make pretty often about the Supreme Court, that whether you want the laws to move in a progressive or a conservative direction, the Supreme Court is a separate institution with a separate mandate under our constitutional structure."

[…]

"Well, the arc of history has shown that opinions have become more progressive, and even just lately on the issues that are potentially going to become before the court, or issues that have been ruled on relatively recently by the Court, Americans are more progressive," Tur said. "Look at the polling."

Tur cited surveys showing most Americans support the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, although there are sharper divides over how expansive that right should be and how late into pregnancies it should be legal. She also said a majority want the Supreme Court to set limits on political campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The arc of history is crap. Who cares? No one knows. Also, the people can be wrong, Katy. For God’s sake, have you seen the polling on the theory of evolution in America? The point here, and one that Vance makes, is that the policy questions Tur cited to show how we’ve become a left wing nation, or something, is that these issues are, or at least should, be decided by the voters and the legislatures. This is not a job for the Supreme Court. They’re not legislators, which is a view that the great late Justice Antonin Scalia believed. Judges are not legislators. The Constitution, and our system of government, was designed to impede change, especially change based on public opinion polling, which shifts like the tides. It’s the reason why progressives hate it; it blocks the implementation of some of the key provisions of their agenda.  The Court is impervious to polling. It’s impervious to shifting opinions based on societal changes. That’s not its job. It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to act the way liberals want it to act; kudos to Mr. Vance for dealing with this abject stupidity in such a professional manner. 

Recommended
What Is John Brennan Hiding?
Sheriff David Clarke (Ret.)

Also, the Constitution was written and ratified in 1787, so historical illiteracy on the Left is still an issue. Also, the principles outlined in our founding document are not perishable. They’re eternal, but it seems only conservatives get that.