If you value the rule of law, you absolutely must oppose the hard-Left Democrat Party. Andrew Klavan:
In general, the leftist minority on the [Supreme] court has shown itself no friend to the law. It really is disturbing. In Hawaii, only the five conservatives agreed that the president had the legal power to bar travel from certain countries he deemed dangerous. Really? This is what the law says:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
You don't have to be a lawyer to find that crystal clear. And you don't have to like Trump's so-called "travel ban" to see he has the legal power to implement it. And yet, in a dissent, leftist Sonia Sotomayor claimed that Trump's anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric somehow overrode the facts of the case. In other words, what would have been legal for a president she liked was not legal because . . . Trump.
If the rule of law can be overridden by the emotions of the people, the machinations of officials or the prejudices of courts, we can no longer depend on equal treatment or representative government. Given the fact that most of the above cases were decided by only one vote, news of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the court comes as something of a relief. Kennedy has been an unreliable vote for liberty and if Trump can put another Gorsuch-like constitutionalist in there, all of our freedoms will be safer.
It is not too much to ask the Supreme Court to support the rule of law.
For a leftist like Sotomayor, the U. S. Constitution is a tabula rasa upon which 'justices' of her ilk feel entitled to write any leftist rubbish they like.
But we got lucky and Trump won. We are now poised to get a second originalist (after Gorsuch) on the high court. Brace yourself for the barking and borking that is about to begin.
And then there is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, at age 85, cannot be long for this earth. Do I wish her dead? No, I wish her off the high court.
I am reminded of the doctrine of double effect. If I meet your lethal attack with lethal force, my intention is not to kill you, but to stop your attack. And this despite the fact that my defense, to be effective, may reasonably be supposed to issue in your death. I cannot stop you without killing you, but my intention is not to kill you but to stop you.
Is that sophistry? I don't think so.
The analogy to Ginsburg to straightforward: I don't want her dead, I want her off the court, even if her dying is the only eventuality that will lead to the desired result.
Details on double effect here.