Most of us were not surprised to see WA State A/G Bob Ferguson sue President Trump, seizing his moment in the limelight, however, many of us were surprised and disappointed that President George W. Bush appointee, Judge James Robart, became his accomplice.
The judge's support includes "false facts" and defiance toward the Constitution in the name of "fairness."
Why do Republican judicial appointees all too often go "wobbly" once seated on the bench?
The word "wobbly" is not new, including here in the Northwest.
In Seattle, Spokane and a number of other towns and cities around the state, "wobbly" activities were common in the early 1900s. In fact, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a wobbly organizer, was arrested in Spokane in 1906 because the city had outlawed "street meetings" and she was organizing meetings in the streets. The upshot of it was that 500 people were also arrested and 4 were killed.
The wobbly movement was founded in June of 1905 at a convention of activist socialists, anarchists, and Marxists in Chicago. Their purpose was to organize a radical organized union movement.
And the unions say to this day they are unsure as to why they were called "wobblies."
I'm using the word with certainty. I'm talking about judges and justices who claim to be "originalist" but when seated, become uncertain or "wobbly" regarding the Constitution and the law.
They're "wobbly" because they are unpredictable and sometimes unstable---and sometimes misleading in what they claimed to believe when appointed. Rather than basing their rulings on the Constitution, they rule in favor of what they believe to be "fair."
They are activists.
Fairness is subjective. Justice must be based on fixed law.
That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded. And when she is displayed without the blindfold, it's because a far-Left progressive has removed it.
The International Times published this a few days ago:
According to transcripts of the testimony given by him during his confirmation hearings, Robart remembered giving pro-bono legal services to “people who in many times felt that the legal system was stacked against them” while adding that he felt that the law “could be, if properly used, an opportunity for them to seek redress if they had been wronged.”
In 2016, Robart used the phrase “black lives matter” during a case regarding several allegations leveled at the Seattle police department which included the use of excessive force and police bias. Prior to that, in 2011, he put a halt to a change in state rules that would cut government funding for disabled children and families in Washington.
“When faced with a conflict between the financial and budgetary concerns and the preventable human suffering, the balance of hardships tips in the favor of preventing human suffering.“ Robart wrote in an opinion, according to Reuters.
Compassion is a virtue rooted in Judeo-Christianity---all Christians are called to show and express compassion. Godly compassion.
However, when that becomes the basis for administering the law and upholding the Constitution, it becomes subjective and influenced by emotions rather than, in this case, the Constitution of the United States.
"Fairness" is a favorite expression of the far Left, especially the religious Left. When "fairness" is placed above the law, "fairness" is then in the eye of the beholder. It's relative.
It becomes a "relative" value---fairness is what I say it is. Or what I think it is.
This is why far Left progressives insist that the Constitution is a "living" document---a living document can be adapted to support the agenda of the day. The religious Left also apply this thinking to the Bible---a living document that "teaches" the truth, rather than being the infallible, unchanging Word of God---absolute Truth.
And this is why conservatives insist on "originalists" or "constitutionalists" being appointed as judges---the Constitution is what it is and the Constitution says what it says.
While James Robart may have fooled President Bush when he was appointed to his seat in Washington State, several Supreme Court nominees have also become "wobblies."
History shows that you can't always tell a book by its cover.
There has been a decades-long frustration within the conservative community about men (and one woman) that have been named to the High Court because of their conservative, originalist philosophy regarding the Constitution.
Again and again, Republican nominees have become supporters, even authors, of some of the most "liberal" Court decisions, while, at least in recent decades, Democrat nominees have been less inclined to go "wobbly."
Justice Byron White, President Kennedy's first appointment to the Court, dissented in the Roe v Wade case calling the right to an abortion under the Constitution the exercise of "raw judicial power."
Sounds more like Justice Scalia, than a Democrat appointee. However, that was the end of the line. From that appointee forward, Kennedy's appointees held a liberal, progressive "living Constitution" philosophy.
And that extended through the Obama administration.
The Republican's picture has been dramatically different.
Two of Eisenhower's appointees, Warren and Brennan, championed more liberal than conservative causes.
Nixon actually made the issue a campaign issue promising to, for sure, appoint conservatives. However, it was Nixon who appointed Harry Blackmun, who became one of the most liberal justices ever---becoming a strong supporter of abortion, and Warren Burger who supported Roe v Wade.
Ronald Reagan chose Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. She became a self-acknowledged "swing justice" rather than a dependable conservative justice. he became a kind of apostle of privacy.
George W. Bush picked David Souter. President Bush and Chief of Staff John Sununu told us he was a "strict constructionist."
Justice Souter is a consistent liberal vote on the Court.
We were promised that Souter would be the last "wobbly" justice.
However, John Roberts---Chief Justice John Roberts'---also a Bush choice--- two votes salvaged the Affordable Care Act, aka., Obamacare.
Hopefully, Judge James Robart has had his 15 minutes, and he will wobble on toward retirement.
What about going forward?
I have read all I could find to read about Judge Gorsuch. Personally, I believe he is not a "wobbly." I believe he does mirror the late Justice Scalia.
Todd Starnes wrote a clever column this week. He notes that "Republicans have a bad habit of putting closet liberals on the bench. Democrats," he says, "nominate liberals who stay liberal."
"We not only need extreme vetting at the border, we also need extreme vetting in the courthouse."
And we need a citizenry that is informed, discerning, vigilant and prayerful.
Most importantly--Be Prayerful.