CAL THOMAS COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
THE HANDLING OF THE BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT REMINDS MANY OF WHAT THEY HATE ABOUT WASHINGTON. THE ATTACKS ON A JUDGE WHO HAS RECEIVED THE HIGHEST RATING FROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ARE DEPLORABLE.
NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT. THAT’S ONLY A SIDE SHOW. THE REAL ISSUE IS THE CONSTITUTION AND KAVANAUGH’S VIEW OF IT. LIKE ANTONIN SCALIA AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, KAVANAUGH BELIEVES OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. IN SOME WAYS IT IS LIKE SCRIPTURE. YOU EITHER BELIEVE IT OR YOU DON’T; YOU ADD TO IT, SUBTRACT FROM IT, OR ACCEPT IT AS-IS.
FOR DECADES THE LEFT HAS ADDED TO AND SUBTRACTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA IT KNOWS WOULD NEVER HAVE PASSED CONGRESS. THESE HAVE INCLUDED, AMONG OTHER ISSUES, PRAYER AND BIBLE READING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ABORTION ON DEMAND.
I AM REMINDED OF WHAT THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES SAID A CENTURY AGO: “THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT THE JUDGES SAY IT IS.” NO, THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT IS. THIS IS THE GREAT DIVIDE IN MODERN JURISPRUDENCE. IT IS AT THE HEART OF THE KAVANAUGH MATTER. I’M CAL THOMAS.
