Election 2020: You Can Never Have Too Many Constitutionalist Judges and Justices
Senate Republicans may have had their majority saved despite themselves with their last-minute confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett (ACB).
Which also served to remind that despite years of majority inertness, they have been consistently good at confirming President Donald Trump’s judges and Justices.
For this, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell deserves praise - and reelection.
Meanwhile, America’s zeitgeist is yet again desperately trying to pretend its wishful thinking is actual fact.
I saw at least two Leftists posing as journalists assert that ACB’s confirmation and the new, narrow, slight, iffy Court non-Leftist majority will slake conservative fervor on the Judiciary issue. And will thus squelch conservative election turnout.
Au contraire, Madames et Monsieurs. You can never have too many Constitutionalist judges and Justices.
Meanwhile, alleged Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden steadfastly refused to release a list of his prospective Court picks. Or reveal whether or not he’d pack the Court with members of his secret list.
And of course it ain’t just about the Supreme Court. There are a total of 870 federal judicial slots for a President to prospectively fill.
Add it all up, and the Judiciary becomes an even bigger driver of conservative electoral participation.
And most unfortunately, the courts have become WAY more important than for what the Constitution calls.
Decades of Congress ceding more and more of its Constitutional legislative responsibility - has allowed unelected judges and Justices to more and more pretend to be legislators and unilaterally write “laws” all by their onesies.
We the People dislike people we don’t elect writing our laws.
Constitutionalist jurists don’t write our laws. They look at the law and facts before them through a Constitutional prism - and rule accordingly.
You can never have too many of those jurists. Especially on the biggest Court of them all.
We only wish Constitutionalist ACB had been around for things like this….
Copyright Law Favors Oracle as It Faces Off with Google in Supreme Court:
“On October 7th, two famous tech companies, Google and Oracle, will battle in the Supreme Court over the copyrightability of computer code.
“It is a landmark case that gives the justices a unique opportunity to confirm our nation’s deep commitment to property rights, the original understanding of the Constitution’s Copyright and Patent Clause, and sound textualist principles of statutory interpretation.
“Google v. Oracle America arises from Google's decision to copy more than 11,000 lines of computer code from the Java SE software platform without obtaining a license….
“Oracle sued for copyright infringement and twice won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The second time, Google persuaded the High Court to review the decision.”
Thank God for the Constitutionalist judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Big Thief Google was stymied - but unbowed. So they appealed up the food chain - and the Supreme Court took the case.
In case anyone needs a reminder….
“The Copyright Clause (also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, Copyright and Patent Clause, or the Progress Clause) describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
“The clause states that:
“‘[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’”
“The clause is the basis of intellectual property laws in the United States, specifically copyright and patent laws.”
Google v Oracle is quite obviously an open-and-shut win for Oracle. If you’re a Constitutionalist.
Every American should be.
Every jurist must be.
This first appeared in Red State.