≡ Menu

Kavanaugh: “The American rule of law depends on neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be.”

Found at: Kavanaugh Review of Judging Statutes

Or, put another way by a founder as per footnote 8:

The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the Executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist  /78 

Alert the Authorities!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • AbigailAdams July 10, 2018, 1:08 PM

    I’m very glad you posted something about Federalist 78 today because I caught the tail end of a remark made by someone last night on FBN, quoting the same writing. I forgot to write it down in order to look it up today — and here it is. Thanks, Gerard.

  • ghostsniper July 10, 2018, 1:53 PM

    The day human bias is eliminated will be the day only robots occupy the world.

  • lpdbw July 10, 2018, 2:33 PM

    But, ghostsniper, it is nonetheless a goal or standard to judge by. A yardstick, if you will.

    Personally, I have no issue with activist judges, as long as they are first activists for America, Western civilization, and freedom. The main problem I see is that all the activist judges are for socialism, statism, and anti-Americanism.

  • Rev. Hoagie July 10, 2018, 2:40 PM

    Ghostsniper, I don’t think Kavanaugh is saying human bias will be eliminated , I think he’s saying it’s not supposed to be the deciding reason. BTW, I think it’s too late in the game to start with the “original intent” stuff. The left has bastardized the Constitution with the “living Constitution” idea because what they really want is no Constitution. Once we have the numbers we need to use their very tactics to reverse their treason. We’ve been playing by the rules for decades as the country went further and further left. Now just like it’s time to jam the “no filibuster” rule down their throat so is it time to use their own tricks on the Court. Screw’em. Build the Wall or we will be overrun by Hispanics and Africans and we will not only never save the Republic but we’ll be lucky to escape with our lives. The left isn’t stupid. They will never again allow a “Trump” to win. As you read this comment there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of leftist lawyers, operatives and propagandists figuring how to get, force, steal and counterfeit every possible vote come November. They will try to steal this election and if successful will never again be out of power. That’s called a one party state. That’s what leftism always is. Do not underestimate the enemy.

  • Wolf July 10, 2018, 5:28 PM

    The Founders got Article III wrong. Hamilton, in Federalist 78, saw nothing wrong with a judiciary that had no check and balance of its own. He simply could not foresee the rise of progressive ideology and their willingness to abuse this weakness in the Court system. The one person who foresaw it clearly was Judge Robert Yates, who was arguing with Hamilton in the Anti-Federalist 78-79, when he wrote:

    “The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.”

  • Donald Sensing July 10, 2018, 6:12 PM
  • Howard Nelson July 10, 2018, 8:27 PM

    What are the standards, characteristics, qualities by which we would recognize an honest, highly competent candidate for the SCOTUS?
    Would the candidate need to have demonstrated infallibility or at least meeting the minimum standards?
    Does the candidate need a law degree or is expertise in scholarship in all aspects (historical, philosophical, purposeful) of the Constitution and respect sufficient?
    Who’s composed the 843 pertinent questions to ask the SCOTUS candidates while they’re being monitored, as would any counter-espionage triple agent candidate, for excess stress response?
    Will a Manchurian, Patagonian, or Coney Islandian candidate be confirmed? Will pathological liars pass all tests?
    I know the truth but I’d be lying if I told it to you.

    In our P.T. Barnum world of fake news and ordured olds (Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Islam/Stupidism) sanity is considered by the treasonous as betrayal.
    Our guideline is Credo Quia Absurdum Est, I Believe It Because It Is Absurd.

  • Ten July 10, 2018, 8:33 PM

    While not visible in the excerpt, elsewhere Kavanaugh uses intentionalist language to make what we can only hope is the case for textualism. Even here he refers to precedent.

    Precedent is no virtue in and of itself whatsoever, and to claim repeatedly that judges are to ‘interpret’ the law – as he has – leaves me cold. Add Wolf’s observation above and there’s nothing inherent in anything I’ve seen about Kavanaugh that says he’s an automatic constitutional textualist, or in other words, a reliable jurist where the Constitution goes.

    Having the ostensible right gush raves on the man because God, family, and a Republican appointment are also not merits, they’re just more political partisanship over an office permanently and indelibly marred by it.

  • ghostsniper July 11, 2018, 4:43 AM

    Rev Hoagie, you do realize, don’t you, that a “wall” with no human presence is no security at all.
    The flatheads will just lean a ladder on it and be right over it in a second. The heavily mined and “walled” east german border was my home away from home many times as a soldier with a gun.

    So if a human presence is required on that “wall” why isn’t that presence there already, and doing it’s job? Google maps is your friend, go take a real close look.

  • Glenda T. Goode July 11, 2018, 5:39 AM

    In the past, the sovereign of the kingdom was the chief magistrate. The rules of the society were interpreted as this person saw fit. Decisions made in this manner could not be anything other than what suited the times.

    In establishing this nation, the founders went out of their way to ensure the citizens of the nation and not the ruler(s) of this nation have ultimate power over the law. Yes, the means in which a citizens could affect change was typically indirect but in making the process in this manner, it was ensured the people did have the appearance of superiority and the rule of law was supreme.

    The ascension of the deep state which grew out of what has become a permanent ruling class within our society has derailed the connection between the citizens and the law. This permanent class includes politicians, bureaucrats and the judiciary whose survival and livelihood depend on protecting and extending their power and control further into our daily lives.

    The Originalist who looks to the Constitution for definitive meaning threatens this class as any decision based on original intent will typically take power away from this growing threat to our nation. The deep state is devoted to itself zealously and will do whatever it can to destroy any competing notion as to how the nation should be governed. The truth is an anathema to the deep state ruling class. It is the light of day shone upon the deep ugly inner workings of their corrupt machinations. This cannot be tolerated.

    The battle over the confirmation of Kavanaugh will be the equivalent of Ali-Frazier in our time. The fighting has just started and I expect it will be an epic struggle as the forces trying to arrest the growth of the deep state and the socialist agenda itself face off.

  • BillH July 11, 2018, 7:29 AM

    You’re on a slippery slope lpdbw. Once you give activism and inch, it will take a mile. Then another. Then 10 more…. Lock it out as much as you can.

  • Rev.Hoagie July 11, 2018, 8:10 AM

    “So if a human presence is required on that “wall” why isn’t that presence there already, and doing it’s job?” Ghostsniper, I would suggest the US Border Patrol would be a tad upset with you saying they don’t exist and are not doing their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of illegals are intercepted and returned per year. A high, strong well guarded wall will cut the illegals down to almost nothing. As an example, Israel had a problem with Hamas illegally entering and bombing Israeli’s to the tune of about 1000 per year.. They built a wall with guard towers and patrols. Last years incursions: 0.

    I am going to take your advice though and Google Map the Southern border. I am interested in seeing exactly what has or has not been done. Thanks.

  • ghostsniper July 11, 2018, 1:54 PM

    It’s not the one’s that are caught that are the problem, hence, your belief in some silly wall.
    Like I suggested to Howard a few days ago, you should spend some quality time with yourself considering your thoughts on this stuff.

    BTW, when I pulled border guard if even one person got through I would still be in jail today. Do you think the border guards down south would suffer such a fate?

  • SoylentGreen July 12, 2018, 8:23 AM

    Judges in fact are answerable to another branch of government: Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
    Judges are Civil Officers. 15 judges have been impeached of which one was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase appointed by George Washington (though he was later acquitted in 1805).