Here, @davidharsanyi amplifies on a tweet in which I said Trump is changing our constitutional system of government and that conservative judges will want to change things rather than just be neutral originalists. He thinks that's bunk.
So, here's my reply. /1
So, here's my reply. /1
@davidharsanyi As a general proposition, I used to be happy about conservative judges. That was before, as I have tweeted earlier, I saw the system produce people like Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh. If this is the vetting source and the pool, of course I'm skeptical of neutrality. /2
Yes, but Gorsuch, I know. And yes, I oppose legislating through courts. But David has no problem, I guess, with pushing all conservative policies to the extreme (like state abortion laws) to see if they can get tested by SCOTUS - the strategy of the left. /3
More to the point, he says "let the states figure it out," as if there are no principles that should be taken from the states. If it's a settled principle in America that abortion is legal - as it is, and should be - then "give it back to the states" is knowing activism. /4
The states can argue, as they do with guns and other rights, over restrictions. But enough judges in enough courts, and the public's view and multiple previous SCOTUS decisions become irrelevant. Which, of course, is the point. /5
In a flip moment, I said conservative judges will legalize Home Bazookas. David took that seriously. Fine, that won't happen. Neither will Home-Use Nukes. But interpreting 2A to mean what the NRA wants it to mean doesn't seem far-fetched in a future ruled by Trumpist judges. /6
It was once an article of faith among cons that "our" judges were neutral, "theirs" are activists. I write this on the day a woman who thinks IVF is bad for America is being considered for a lifetime federal slot. /7
As for Trump changing our constitutional system, I am amazed that David and other cons who think Obama was endangering the Constitution have no obvious problem with Trump disobeying laws at will, and getting *an entire U.S. party* to argue that presidents should be kings. /8
When a political party thinks this way, the separation of powers is fundamentally ruptured and will not recover overnight. GOP electeds already think this; but worse, it's where the GOP rank and file is headed, and it won't be stopping anytime soon: /9
people-press.org/2019/08/07/rep…
people-press.org/2019/08/07/rep…
The presidency is now not the Article II power, it is a circus, captured by a man who long after he is gone tempt us to enact laws and try to codify what were once norms - a bad idea. We will try to legislate what we should do by democratic instinct. /10
Even if we don't, we have proven that our system cannot withstand our temptation to elect such a man. This is a fundamental change in a system that relied on intangible trust and a degree of self-control, both among the people and its elected reps. Trump has destroyed that. /11
Trump has broken norms and customs - things conservatives once cared about - and proved to us that our system is too weak to endure a charlatan who will endanger global peace and our security for his own benefit. (Unless he's removed from office - which has zero chance.) /12
Our system, founded on a short Constitution and on ideas rather than the iron rule of codified law to cover every eventuality, is now changed. We now have to live with that knowledge for the first time in our history, and forever after. /13x
