SCOTUS: Look At the Big Picture


President Trump will announce his candidate to the appointment as Supreme Court Justice on Saturday, 5 P.M.  I fear it will be Amy Coney Barrett.

Let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that she would be the ideal candidate. Her Catholicism is, from what I read, creepy; she belongs to some strange group of “novelty Catholics”; she is the cafeteria, “I oppose the death penalty” kind of gal; she has not given any indication of espousing freedoms in the robust way necessary today to counter the massive push towards government omnipotence. Possibly the worst of all, her Originalism is, some say, not so strong as advertised. I hope Trump will select somebody else, with a more clearly right wing record and unchallenged Originalist credentials.

Still, I profit from the occasion to remind my reader that God never lays a straight road in front of us. Progress is never a luminous process by which lights dispels the darkness whilst all the world watches in astonishment. Rather, it is a curvy, bumpy, often messy process, which requires a big picture mentality to see what is happening behind the drama of the day.

Take Trump. The best President that anybody could reasonably wish, and one who delivered beyond my wildest expectations, he is not without substantial flaws. I am not talking here of his Twitter behaviour, which is likely necessary and for which I do not care. I am talking of stuff like the occasional pro-alphabet rhetoric, the two years of deep sleep on the Wall, the unwillingness to go hard against illegals (the court haven’t helped him, but I never saw the kind of ruthless determination he could have showed, for example greatly increasing the budget and activity of the ICE in problem cities). I never liked the DACA rhetoric, either. The list can go on. Still, this guy is, on the whole, simply stellar.

Coming back to us, if Amy Coney Barrett is appointed, we would not have the dream candidate. But a huge improvement on RBG she would be for sure. Plus, she could improve with age.

In the end, it’s always a risk. Even Gorsuch proved much less reliable than expected. You never know how these things go. I for myself would wish for the Supreme Court to be moved to Boise, Idaho, far removed from the toxic Washington D.C. mentality and social environment. Let your average Justice keep some horses, sheep, hens and rabbits (if Anglos keep rabbits for consumption) in his farm 15 minutes of driving away from the job. We would see a different mentality at play, one much nearer to the one of the Founding Fathers.

Still, this is what we have. I think we are progressing, bumps and all. No, do not expect a repeal of Roe vs Wade with her nominated. Probably, do not expect it in the next years anyway. The Supreme Court will, I suspect, only change the Country when the Country has already changed. It starts from the grassroots, it ends with the Justices. We can dream, but we need to be realistic.

My bet is that Roe vs Wade will start to be eroded, slowly and methodically, but without the fatal blow for many years, possibly in my lifetime. But again, I saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the deposition and execution of Ceausescu in a matter of hours. Providence orders everything in a wonderful way.

I will await the announcement with a moderate optimism, thinking that things are going the right way.

It will never be 6-3. Roberts is actually a fake conservative, and a very real progressive and part of the Champagne Court Circuit.

But it will be much better than now.


Posted on September 23, 2020, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. For sure, “it will be much better than now”.

  2. The other prominently mentioned choice is Barbara Lagoa from Florida. She received many Democrat votes when confirmed to the Federal Court. She may be even more problematical than Barrett.

    • I read she is a “distant second”, and Trump only wants to meet her to give her the brownie points. We shall see.
      However, it would not be the first time that Coney Barrett is not selected. The press seems to have her as the go-to favourite..

  3. Roberts doesn’t seem to be much of an anything and I believe that with five (mostly) conservative judges it will be easier for him to make conservative decisions for two reasons:
    1) He’ll have cover on a 5-3 vote of the other justices and,
    2) he’ll be blowing in what we all hope will be a conservative wind as he has been blowing in a leftward manner the past few years.
    As chief justice he seems to see his role as “peacemaker(!)” and as arbiter of polling data ruling in the direction of what he thinks is the national trend. A solid conservative election victory should open up his eyes.
    We’ll see.
    It all balances on the knife edge of November 3d.

    • It can go the way you say. Or, Roberts could feel compelled to go the way of the liberals, feeling very appreciated in his champagne circles for his desire to be a “moderating” force.
      We shall see.

  4. Thank you Mundy for a very refreshing assessment.

    I like your “God never lays a straight road in front of us reminder.”

  5. Mercedes Pernice

    Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written with “time-bomb” language, leaving it wide open to be overturned.

    “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

    In ’73 there was no ultrasound with babies kicking and sucking their thumbs. Instead, you heard callous liberals cackling repeatedly about “lumps of tissues” and “collections of cells”. God has permitted us to develop the technology to argue persuasively that the unborn baby is indeed a person. Consequently, by the weight of its own logic in the majority opinion, Roe v. Wade “collapses”.

    • I agree. However, at this point it is not about whether an unborn baby is a life. It is about the possibility of killing him with impunity. Liberals know it’s a life all right.

  6. Mercedes Pernice

    What Barrett will say during the confirmation hearings when asked about Roe will certainly disappoint faithful Catholics, but is what the most strident Pro-life justices must say in order to be confirmed. She will be the smartest person in that Senate chamber (and I hope the craftiest because she will be dealing with wolves). We must not impugn her character on that day because her comments will be carefully crafted to bypass a confirmation process biased against the unborn.

    If she turns out to be a marginal conservative, in other words an establishment liberal, like so many other pathetic Republican presidential judicial nominations, it would be tragic. Personally, I do not think she will disappoint us. I think God is actively involved in the process because he cannot bear anymore bloodshed.

    • Yes, I certainly do not expect her to give ammunition to Republican senators only awaiting the excuse to not vote for her. One of them could, in fact, be Romney.
      Interestingly, RBG herself created the precedent that she can refuse to say anything about how she will decide. It would insult her memory 😉 to hold Coney Barrett to a different standard..

  1. Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The ticket edition – Adam Piggott

%d bloggers like this: