Perfect pitch

I understand that the recent appointment of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a controversial one, from both an ideological standpoint, as well as a procedural issue. The role of Supreme Court Justices, in my opinion, is widely misunderstood and unappreciated. SCOTUS nominees, with their lifelong appointments, too often die in the saddle. Personally, I look forward to retirement where I can wake up at 5 a.m., go to the driveway, turn my left blinker on, then return to bed until noon. Supreme Court nominees do not enjoy that privilege.

The ideological issues of concern stem from the fact that the current administration has appointed three such Judges in a short four years, which is extraordinary in itself. It also raises the count of the presumably conservative majority to six, out of a total of nine.

The procedural issues, however, strike me as the same sort of false narrative that has soiled this electoral season from the start. The argument that an administration should not name a nominee in advance of an election is every bit as bogus now as when it was used by the Republicans against Merrick Garland under the Obama Administration. There are no three-year terms under the U.S. Constitution. There are no three-year powers or responsibilities either.

What we should have had then as now, was intellectual honesty. The President at the time simply did not have a majority in the Senate to push the nomination through, and he was nearing the end of this second term. Period. End of story.

No further embellishment would be necessary, yet Senate Republicans asserted that it was “too close to an election” to bring the nomination to a vote. That was B.S. then and it is B.S. now.

Well, pick your favorite aphorism. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” and “what goes around comes around” both come to mind. I’m sure there are others.

What’s interesting about our system of government is that when one party sets such a precedent, it’s only a matter of time before it comes back to haunt them. Such was the false narrative of fourth-year nominations, but as before, the Republicans held the Senate and had their way. My concern is that they will not always, and mark my words, there will be the devil to pay.

Having said that, I understand the concerns of liberals about that majority, and in fact, an old high school friend of mine from the east coast and I have had a (mostly civil) conversation about that issue over the past several days. She has raised concerns about judicial “originalism” and was led to believe that an originalist interpretation would set the clock back to the days when slavery was legal.

That is precisely the sort of misinformation that the left has been doling out this season, and I must admit that I take particular pleasure in having watched a lady with two adopted children of color be sworn in by an African American. I found that reassuring.

Concerns of other, more liberal voters include perceived threats to Roe v. Wade, the Affordable Health Care Act (AKA Obamacare), and a potential challenge to the results of the Nov. 3 election.

The worst thing that can happen to Roe is that it gets sent back to the states, and if recent decisions in New York are any indication, the right will think twice before doing that. ACA needs to be replaced, but for reasons that escape me, there seems to be no rush to do so in Congress.

When it is replaced, rest assured that it will be replaced with guarantees for pre-existing conditions. The preservation of competition is a key premise of capitalism and portability will be preserved just as it has been allowed with cell phones. Not to worry…. The election, that’s a different story. That could get messy.

The nomination has been a point of considerable controversy, and there have been enough false narratives on both sides of the argument to discourage me from even bringing it up, but I found her acceptance speech to be so bright, so pitch-perfect, that if you missed it, it’s worthy of review.

In her acceptance speech, she said, “It is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. Of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate, perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences.

It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy rolls aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them.

Federal judges do not stand for election.

They have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.

This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence, not only from Congress and the president but also from the private belief that might otherwise move her.”

If you are so cynical; so jaundiced, that you believe her words to be insincere, then I have nothing to offer you but sympathy. Her statement and her philosophy should be a comfort to conservatives, centrists, and liberals alike.