Have you ever wondered why they wear black robes?
In most nations, Supreme court justices are public figures who enjoy a great deal of pomp and ceremony – ergo, they dress much snazzier than ours do. The have much more public authority and enjoy a much higher level of celebrity.
They wear everything from gold braid on their sleeves or furry bedroom slippers too funny little wigs and goofy hats – Our Justices, however, are limited to overpriced Choir robes.
I can remember how odd Chief Justice Rehnquist looked after he decided he should look as snazzy as the Judge in an Opera adding some stripes and color to his robe. Once he was gone, so was the goofy looking Opera gown.
Sandra Day Occonor, added a White Judicial Collar to her Robe, to give it a gender appropriate feel, and some of the other women Justices have followed suit, but even today the basic robe is just a simple black smock with absolutely nothing that could be misconstrued as remarkable.
So… why the bland robes? We can get back to that a little later. First, we need to look at what is happening with SCOTUS today.
Justice Kenedy is retiring – OH MY!
Those to my left will tell you the Sky is falling and those to my right will declare the Alt-right messiah has risen.
The ignorance of the American populace is embarrassing.
I’m pretty sure I will lose readers, friends, and followers with this article – I’m accustomed to getting Nasty-Grams and posts from those on the right telling me what level of idiot I am, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be the readers on my right who unfriend and unfollow me over this. Most of them will just rip me a new one and make their opinion known.
I cherish every nastygram I get. If you surround yourself with like-minded people – you will remain like-minded with those people even when they are wrongminded.
“The only way you can be sure you still believe what you think you believe and that what you think is right, is still what you believe is right…
is to know what the other guy believes… and why he believes it.”
The Constitution for the United States includes a set of responsibilities conferred on the President, amongst these mandatory actions is the appointment of Supreme court Justices.
Constitutionally, the executive branch has only one responsibility and only one authority regarding the Supreme Court – To make sure the Supreme Court is complete.
In the event a Justice resigns or dies, it is incumbent on the president or in this case, the person occupying the oval office too, as swiftly as possible, nominate a replacement to the vacancy.
“ (POTUS) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, … … and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … …, Judges of the Supreme Court …” Art II Section 2, Constitution for the United States.
Appointing Supreme Court Justices is not a presidential privilege, it is not a presidential right or a matter of the president having the authority to do it – IT is a COMMAND, a constitutional requirement.
The President SHALL appoint Supreme Court Justices …” – there is no wiggle room.
Either you accept Constitutional law, or you do not.
This is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of responsibility.
It then becomes the obligation of the legislative branch.
Delaying hearings is simply wrong and a violation of the congressional oath.
Granted, McConnell and the Alt-right engaged in an act of sedition bordering treason by altering the rules of Constitutional law and blocking the last POTUS from fulfilling his responsibility.
BUT… Ask yourself… is that grounds for YOU or ME to show the same contempt for the Constitution as Alt-right Neos? – I think Not.
If the right starts ripping non-white children from their mothers for seeking asylum… to never be returned… would that mean you should molest babies in retaliation?
If Sanders advocates replacing our republic with a Democratic Socialist (Stalinist) regime – Does that mean you should have a Constitution burning in retaliation?
If the enemy is incapable of truth – does that suggest you should take up Twitter, too?
Did you answer NO to any of those?
Then why would you compromise your own integrity on this issue?
Would you compromise your integrity and go against the constitution, just because McConnel and the Alt-right puled a “Natwarlal” on the American people? That makes no sense.
You can’t blame McConnel for his vile personna; it is simply the nature men like he and Paul Ryan. Anyone who didn’t recognize their base character wasn’t paying attention.
In McConnel’s defense, I doubt he had any idea the character of the average American had degraded to the point Putin could get his candidate elected. McConnel was sure the American people still had some sense and would choose a criminal over an obvious Putin operative.
Mitch was just trying to lessen the impact of a having a low life like Clinton in the oval office. – You could almost respect that if he were honest about it.
In spite of the overwhelming stench of rotting democracy, the good people of this nation should still be able to exhibit some integrity, common sense and respect for the Constitution. We as real Americans must be better than the alt-right Neos in control of the Oval office, or we are no better than those Alt-right Neos.
A short perusal of the last 15 nominees, both rejections, and appointments, bears out the fact that when a Jurist gets to the point where he or she is eligible even to be nominated to SCOTUS, they are already people of intense good character.
Think about John Roberts – “King George’s Revenge” as many on the left referred to him. based on nothing but his expressed personal opinions, writings and political position it was obvious that he was going to be the end of the Supreme court as we know it… Surprise!
He shocked everyone, especially me, when he turned out to be able to stow his bias and act according to the law. The most impressive Jurist I have ever followed.
The Notorious RBG’s nomination was a blight on the court if you asked the GOP – everyone was sure she would be the end of SCOTUS justice, but somehow her opinions were relatively centrist and based on good law. When her nemesis, Justice Scalia passed, it came to light that she and he were best buddies. Ginsberg was known to consult and discuss cases and opinions with Scalia. – even in dissent, the two often complimented each other’s opinion.
The sky above SCOTUS is not falling…
and no matter how corrupt and unamerican you think this administration might be – it does not reflect on the nominee. He stands or falls on his own merit, not the level of corruption of the individual nominating him.
I wonder how many of those who automatically oppose Kavanagh’s nomination have read anything he published, beyond the articles being passed around as a reason to reject him. Maybe I need to point out the difference between a Legal Opinion from the bench and a personal opinion published in a law journal or other article. It is not uncommon for a Jurist to express his personal opinion in a publication that is opposed to how he has ruled in the past or may rule in the future.
Personal opinion is always based on personal bias, Legal opinion is always based on the law and becomes law upon delivery of the opinion. The two can be and are often diametrically opposed.
“But we can’t let the trump appoint a justice who might hear the criminal case against him – Justice is not a possibility if he owns the court.”
This might be true if it were true, but it is not.
Does anyone remember: Warren E. Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, or William Rehnquist?
Or…. who appointed them to SCOTUS?
Even more important do you remember the conflicts and dissension to each of their nominations or how they altered the course of history?
I do – I followed Watergate and the Nixon administration’s corruption with great dedication. The Democratic party was experiencing aneurisms over each of Nixon’s Scotus nominations – Like today, the person in the Oval office was at the pinnacle of corruption. Nixon may not have been sponsored by a foreign enemy, but he was just as corrupt. The world knew that he owned SCOTUS.
The Nixon legal team announced that a president could not be subpoenaed, or charged with any crime because he was the chief law enforcement officer and he was the law.
They declared that the president was not capable of obstruction – it would be obstructing himself as the top law enforcement officer.
The GOP declared Watergate to be a witch hunt – the mantra as “no evidence -Just corrupt investigators looking to damage the presidency.” Like today, several white House lieutenants were already in jail or pending conviction and a Presidential pardon given to his VP to prevent cooperation with Special Counsel.
The trump’s legal team is a mirror of Nixon’s in almost every way, and the case is a mirror of the Nixon Case only with the addition of a foreign enemy at the helm.
Any fool can see that the trump cannot be allowed to appoint the Jurist who will preside on parts of his criminal trial. – WRONG
Constitutionally … the trump must be allowed to nominate, and the Senate MUST confirm unless there are significant conflicts that warrant rejection.
“But… can’t you see… There was no way in hell Nixon would ever be held accountable; he appointed his choice of Justices to hear the case against him.” No, I can’t see that – What I can see the is an over 100-year track record for SCOTUS appointees to have integrity and respect precedent.
There was also no way Nixon would ever be held accountable if he was allowed to appoint his choice of Justices to hear the case against him. Yet he appointed 4 of them.
These are Americans who have made it their life’s mission to render opinions according to the law.
The can’t just turn into scumbags overnight – no matter how bad some on the right wish it were so or how hard some on the left want to believe it … it just doesn’t happen that way.
The left cries out… “It’s just like NAZI Germany” – Well not really; at least not in this case.
NAZI Germany was a Pure Greek Democracy, ruled by-elections that were decided only by those white enough to vote. Hitler required a loyalty oath for a Justice to be installed, and selected form devout party members.
The US is not at that point yet.
The court is equipped to deal with recusals and conflicts of interest if needed. Fortunately, it would take a lobotomy or complete Schizophrenic personality alteration for men like Gorsuch, Kavanagh or any other SCOTUS nominee to become what the opposition asserts.
FYI – Nixon didn’t just have two Justices in his pocket, as the trump believes he does, Nixon believed he had four Justices in his pocket. Including Chief Justice. Sure, the trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh because he disparately needs a sleeper on the Bench to keep him out of prison. He expects Kavanagh and Gorsuch to back his claim of Omnipotence under the law. They won’t.
They both have integrity; it comes with the robes. – there politics might be off kilter but you can rest easy, they can be neutral.
I read Kavanagh ’s published articles and other opinions that are giving the Left fits today. Sure, it is biased and hard to accept as a legal opinion … but it isn’t a legal opinion. So don’t try.
So… Back to my first question… Why do they wear simple black robes?
It is an acknowledgment that they are not part of anything. Belong to NO ONE. They Adhere to No school of thought, No political, moral or religious group. Once they put those robes on they are Neutral and years of Scotus opinions and actions prove this to be the norm.
It is time to stop playing follow the leader and mooing about how the sky is falling above SCOTUS. Time to comply with the Founders’ intent, they had a good idea what they were doing.