Whenever the MSM writes about Republican-appointed judges who issue rulings against conservatives and conservative principles, they are quick to commend the judges, labeling them with words like “fair,” “reasoned” and “independent.” NBC quoted a left-leaning law professor at least twice in articles recently referring to Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett with language like “cautious” for ruling against him. The articles always claim that these judges rule against Trump because they refuse to be intimidated by Trump and do his bidding.
But Trump didn’t create the legal philosophy of originalism, which means ruling according to the founding fathers’ intent when they drafted the Constitution. He didn’t create the conservative principles of restraint — as opposed to judicial activism — and of adhering to precedent. When Barrett and other judges rule against those principles, that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or loyalty to Trump. If anything, it could be the exact opposite — maybe these judges are motivated to rule against Trump, because why else would they desert their conservative principles?
Over the past year, Barrett has racked up a list of anti-Trump rulings. She sided with the left-wing justices on SCOTUS and Chief Justice John Roberts last week to block Trump’s temporary halt of USAID payments. Justice Samuel Alito issued a scathing dissent almost 10 times as long as the majority’s opinion, joined by the other conservatives on the court.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he asked. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
Recommended
Barrett authored an opinion last year joined by the three left-wing justices plus Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Republican states and social media users that accused the Biden administration of illegally coercing social media companies to take down negative content. Barrett claimed the plaintiffs didn’t have standing.
Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He said this was “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” He said the plaintiffs had proven an Article III injury necessary for standing, but the majority applied “a new and heightened standard.”
NBC quoted Jonathan Adler, who was only described as a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Adler praised Barrett’s opinion, stating that it was drafted with “a degree of judicial humility.”
NBC failed to reveal Adler’s progressive positions, including hostility towards Trump. He was a founding member of the attorney organization Checks and Balances, which has issued multiple statements criticizing Trump. Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo said he found "the underlying premise of the group rather offensive.” Adler endorsed a carbon tax to address climate change. He is known for convincing people that man is responsible for global warming.
Barrett sided with two of the left-wing justices against the other six justices in a dissent on a J6 lawsuit, refusing to narrow the scope of the federal obstruction statute used in many of the January 6 prosecutions. Writing for the majority, Roberts said, “The Government’s theory would … criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist[s] to decades in prison.”
Barrett broke slightly from the five conservative justices on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution regarding Trump’s 2020 election challenges last year, stating in a concurrence that a president's official acts can be shown to a jury as evidence of a crime. She said it didn’t matter that it might prejudice a jury. Writing for the majority opinion, Roberts said presidential immunity is absolute for official acts, citing holdings in previous case law.
In January, Barrett voted with the left-wing justices and Roberts to allow criminal sentencing of Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. The ruling was only three sentences long, and the three conservative justices who dissented did not provide any reasoning.
Yes, Barrett has sided with the conservative wing of the court numerous times. But that doesn’t excuse her bad rulings. Why should she get a free pass, especially when she is sometimes the tie-breaking vote in some of the most important cases during our lifetimes?
Trump’s other SCOTUS appointments, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, have also sided several times with the leftists on the court, although Barrett appears to be exceeding them. It came out after the trio were nominated that they were never the Federalist Society’s top picks for the court — one was added to a Federalist Society list after the original list was created — but unfortunately special interests convinced Trump to choose them over more solid conservatives in the style of Thomas and Alito. But don’t expect the MSM to reveal that in their biased articles about their decisions siding with the leftists on the court.
Instead of labeling Trump-appointed justices “principled” for ruling against him, why doesn’t the MSM look into the merits of the cases, and attempt to provide a real explanation of how rulings against conservative legal tenets like originalism are principled? Ironically, they use the word principled to describe conservative judges who turn on conservative principles.
Republicans are tired of appointing so-called conservative judges to the bench only to have them backstab us and side with the Democrats. Why do they do it? The good news is that in this era of increasing scrutiny, eventually we will find out why. Is it blackmail?
How many judges have their children’s educational opportunities and career paths threatened, their memberships jeopardized in key institutions, opportunities crushed, blacklisted from parts of society and bombarded by protesters everywhere they go? It’s a thorny problem without an easy solution, and evidence of how far the left will go to undermine “democracy.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member