The Democrats’ Constitution Problem nysun.com/editorials/the… 
It is increasingly evident that the Democrats are chafing under the Constitution itself. Every one of them who holds federal, state, or local office has had to swear to the parchment (the Constitution so requires). They are, though, unhappy about it and want it changed.
When a judge the Left doesn’t like is, in Kavanaugh, is seated on the high bench, the complaining starts about how the senators who confirmed him didn’t represent a majority of the voters.
“It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority,” says a column in the Times by no less a figure than Michael Tomasky.
It is not the job of the senators to represent the will of the majority. That is the job of the Representative House, the only house whose seats are apportioned by population. The job of the Senators is to represent the states.
That’s the Senate’s very purpose. The Left likes to suggest that the only reason for this was to protect slavery. Yet even the original Constitution anticipated an end to slavery.
It still made the equal representation of the states in the Senate the only feature of the parchment that could never be amended absent the consent of the state being denied equal representation.
It is the foundation of our federalist system. Alexander Hamilton, writing, in 77 Federalist, about the president’s power to appoint judges and other officials, alluded to the danger of “an unbecoming pursuit of popularity.”
We’ve always loved that phrase. No wonder it is by the states rather than the people that nominees are confirmed. The Supreme Court, which sometimes must overrule the people, is, in its own right, a check on democracy’s tendency to run away with itself.
