Letters to the Editor: Kevin McCarthy is the kind of politician who lets democracy die.
By The Editorial Board
It used to be that the worst thing President Obama could do was to appoint a politician – whether Republican or Democrat – to the Supreme Court. In Obama’s lifetime, this has now become the second-worst, as a Supreme Court justice is now one of the president’s first choices.
And why? Because Obama cares more about his ideological pals, and lets the judiciary die because it’s against his worldview. This is something that the president clearly does not understand, because he has a worldview that’s diametrically opposed to the court’s.
For instance: In his view, the United States should not have a single elected president because he thinks politicians are a bunch of suckers who always do what their political bosses tell them to do.
Now he has just nominated the one person who thinks that politicians are the best thing in the world – and he’s chosen a well-known “liberal” to fill one of the highest courts in the land.
The first step in understanding the difference between Obama and the court is to look at Obama’s record on the court during his first two years in office.
Obama has a low threshold for appointing those with an ideology that matches his own.
Over the last two years, he has nominated at least 13 people who have never received a vote of confirmation, five of whom, according to the American Constitution Society, had lifetime appointments and have since been confirmed, along with two lifetime appointments whom no one has ever bothered to confirm.
Obama has given lifetime appointments to many of his ideological “friends” who have never been confirmed (including the likes of Elena Kagan, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor). The Washington Post’s Fact Checker recently called this “inappropriate.”
Now let’s look at Sotomayor. Sotomayor is a known liberal. She opposes same-sex marriage and has written opinions to that effect, has said that her role in the Supreme Court should be limited to a lifetime appointment, and has said that judges have a duty to interpret law and not reach conclusions.
In contrast, according to the American Constitution