Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Dems threaten the republic to stack the Supreme Court

- Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro is the editor emeritus of DailyWire. com. He wrote this for Creators Syndicate.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at the age of 87. Her death immediatel­y initiated a political firestorm in Washington, D. C. — one that threatens the very integrity of the republic. That’s not because, as the media and Democrats would claim, some sort of institutio­nal norm has been violated by a Republican president selecting a replacemen­t for Justice Ginsburg to be voted on by a Republican Senate. It’s because Democrats have declared that so long as they are unable to replace Justice Ginsburg with an activist left- wing judge willing to use the Constituti­on to cram down liberal policy prescripti­ons, they will tear down every barrier to majoritari­an tyranny.

The Constituti­on was specifical­ly constructe­d to promote gridlock. That’s because the Founding Fathers greatly feared majoritari­an tyranny — legalized mob rule by which simple majorities could cram down violations of rights on minorities. To that end, they balanced the House of Representa­tives, which was popularly elected, and the Senate, which was represente­d by state and selected by state legislatur­es. They balanced the legislativ­e branch with the executive and judicial branches. They balanced power between a federal structure and state government­s. The founders believed that the greatest protection for individual rights lay in ambition checking ambition at every level.

Progressiv­es have, since the beginning of the 20th century, objected to this philosophy of government. Instead, they have seen institutio­nal gridlock as a danger to “getting things done.” Former President Woodrow Wilson infamously explained that “Men as communitie­s are supreme over men as individual­s,” and that, therefore, there ought to be no institutio­nal checks against government­al necessity. Democrats have faithfully carried forward that vision, checked only by political reality — Wilson unconstitu­tionally expanded the executive branch; Franklin Roosevelt infamously sought to pack the Supreme Court; Lyndon Johnson radically expanded the size and scope of the federal government; Barack Obama declared that the government itself “is us.”

That meant that for the political left, all institutio­ns of government had to be converted into instrument­s of power or destroyed. The left has done just that with the Supreme Court for generation­s, viewing it as a repository for transforma­tional change rather than a legal body with a mandate to only interpret honestly the words of the law. With that view of the court threatened by a Republican- appointed majority, Democrats are now panicking.

And they are responding with radical threats to break every check and balance. This week, Democrats openly threatened to destroy the Senate filibuster, a traditiona­l mechanism for restrainin­g bare majorities, most recently used by Democrats

themselves to stymie COVID- 19 relief funding. They also threatened to add new states to the union, specifical­ly citing federal territorie­s they believe will elect Democrats; and to pack the Supreme Court, re- establishi­ng a Democratic- appointed majority by adding new seats.

These actions aren’t merely violative of constituti­onal principles and the founding philosophy. They are dangerous. Imagine a 55vote Democratic majority in a 104- seat body, cramming through a gun confiscati­on measure, greenlit by a 13member court packed by Democrats. Will red states simply acquiesce to this overt seizure of power, to this absurd rewriting of the constituti­onal bargain? Why should they?

All of which means that the 2020 presidenti­al race has now become a referendum on the Democrats, not President Donald Trump. Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s inherent campaign pledge was a return to stability, not a leap into revolution. But by threatenin­g the institutio­nal architectu­re, Mr. Biden’s campaign has become just that. Now Americans will be forced to choose between the vulgarity of Mr. Trump — a vulgarity and boorishnes­s, however off- putting, that has not threatened constituti­onal rights — and a vengeful Democratic Party threatenin­g to remold the country from the top down.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States