How did this happen? Obviously we lost a lot of elections - at least two nefariously (Gore and Hillary) or due to the grossly pro-rural and unrepresentative United States Senate.
But there's something deeper: we who grew up in the Warren Court era thought the logic of the law was progressive, the vindication of the promise of the Declaration of Independence, and the fruition of the post Civil War Amendments promise of equal protection.
But a counter ideology developed: the New Deal regulatory state was a bad thing, `free markets' good, government had no right to tell us how to live (no to `forced' integration, recognizing homosexuality as inoffensive, etc) And the painful choice of abortion was stigmatized as criminal rather than a sad personal choice.
And they formed the Federalist Society. The organization, working with `think tanks', and academics often vetted and trained by the most conservative Justices, developed a cadre, an elan, and a body of thought like that above. So when Republicans held the presidency and/or the Senate that corps was ready to step into the federal courts. The 2017 change from a sixty vote requirement to mere majority in the Senate opened the door to the flood described by the Times reporters below. - gwcA Conservative Agenda Unleashed on the Federal Courts - The New York Times
President Trump’s imprint on the nation’s appeals courts has been swift and historic. He has named judges with records on a range of issues important to Republicans — and to his re-election.
But there's something deeper: we who grew up in the Warren Court era thought the logic of the law was progressive, the vindication of the promise of the Declaration of Independence, and the fruition of the post Civil War Amendments promise of equal protection.
But a counter ideology developed: the New Deal regulatory state was a bad thing, `free markets' good, government had no right to tell us how to live (no to `forced' integration, recognizing homosexuality as inoffensive, etc) And the painful choice of abortion was stigmatized as criminal rather than a sad personal choice.
And they formed the Federalist Society. The organization, working with `think tanks', and academics often vetted and trained by the most conservative Justices, developed a cadre, an elan, and a body of thought like that above. So when Republicans held the presidency and/or the Senate that corps was ready to step into the federal courts. The 2017 change from a sixty vote requirement to mere majority in the Senate opened the door to the flood described by the Times reporters below. - gwcA Conservative Agenda Unleashed on the Federal Courts - The New York Times
President Trump’s imprint on the nation’s appeals courts has been swift and historic. He has named judges with records on a range of issues important to Republicans — and to his re-election.
By Rebecca R. Ruiz, Robert Gebeloff, Steve Eder and Ben ProtessMarch 14, 2020, 6:00 a.m. ET
As a Republican candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Don R. Willett flaunted his uncompromising conservatism, boasting of endorsements from groups with “pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family” credentials.
“I intend to build such a fiercely conservative record on the court that I will be unconfirmable for any future federal judicial post — and proudly so,” a Republican rival quoted him telling party leaders.
Judge Willett served a dozen years on the Texas bench. But rather than disqualifying him, his record there propelled him to the very job he had deemed beyond reach. President Trump nominated him to a federal appeals court, and Republicans in the Senate narrowly confirmed him on a party-line vote.
As Mr. Trump seeks re-election, his rightward overhaul of the federal judiciary — in particular, the highly influential appeals courts — has been invoked as one of his most enduring accomplishments. While individual nominees have drawn scrutiny, The New York Times conducted a deep examination of all 51 new appellate judges to obtain a collective portrait of the Trump-populated bench.
As a Republican candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Don R. Willett flaunted his uncompromising conservatism, boasting of endorsements from groups with “pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family” credentials.
“I intend to build such a fiercely conservative record on the court that I will be unconfirmable for any future federal judicial post — and proudly so,” a Republican rival quoted him telling party leaders.
Judge Willett served a dozen years on the Texas bench. But rather than disqualifying him, his record there propelled him to the very job he had deemed beyond reach. President Trump nominated him to a federal appeals court, and Republicans in the Senate narrowly confirmed him on a party-line vote.
As Mr. Trump seeks re-election, his rightward overhaul of the federal judiciary — in particular, the highly influential appeals courts — has been invoked as one of his most enduring accomplishments. While individual nominees have drawn scrutiny, The New York Times conducted a deep examination of all 51 new appellate judges to obtain a collective portrait of the Trump-populated bench.
No comments:
Post a Comment