They brought it on themselves

The Katzenjammer Kids and the GOP Senate Majority "He brought it on himself, Miss Twiddle.  He brought it on himself." Those are the words little Lena would say to her prim and proper aunt in The Katzenjammer Kids comic strip whenever -- which was all too often -- a smart-aleck little boy named Rollo got himself into trouble. Except for Susan Collins, who may well be the only grown-up Republican in the entire United States Senate, every Republican senator during the shamefully untimely vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court reminded me of Rollo bringing trouble on himself. Why that comparison?  Because self-government cannot work by means of raw power alone.  As with other non-tyrannies, America's system of government gains citizen consent more through moral authority than by raw power. What does any of that have to do with the Senate's elevating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States?  The answer has to do with both substance and procedure. Concerning substance, Judge now Justice Barrett's confirmation has undercut any semblance of the Supreme Court's neutrality as an institution.  Though some scholars say that the Court's judicial neutrality is more myth than fact, attempted adherence to it is essential for public acceptance of the Court's decisions. How has Justice Barrett's confirmation seriously undermined or possibly even destroyed outright the essential principle of judicial neutrality?  As was well-known by the GOP majority when they confirmed her, she has dogmatically spoken out on at least two key issues -- the ACA and Roe v. Wade -- that are very likely to come again before the Court. Concerning the ACA, then-Professor Barrett wrote in 2017 that the Supreme Court's majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” And with respect to Roe v. Wade, then-Professor Barrett joined an anti-abortion-rights faculty group and added her name to a letter in the South Bend Tribune criticizing Roe’s “barbaric legacy.” In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Barrett promised to uphold the rule of law and gave this assurance: “My personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases.” Why is such assurance bogus at best? Because most cases get to the Supreme Court because the applicable law is unclear. To say that a Justice's personal moral views would have no effect on how she would resolve legal uncertainties is as preposterous as it is intellectually dishonest. Procedural shenanigans?  In its eagerness to confirm Judge Barrett's nomination just before the November presidential election, the GOP Senate majority cast its own prior principle -- solemnly invoked in refusing to even consider President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland almost eight months before the 2016 presidential election -- to the wind. By conveniently nullifying their former sacred taboo against considering Court nominees "too close to a presidential election," the GOP stooped to a dangerous cynicism that makes a mockery of principle itself. Dangerous cynicism?  The danger from cynicism in government is that it can spread to the citizenry with a forceful speed that can make the spread of COVID-19 seem almost glacial in comparison. Imagine if Justice Barrett is part of a Supreme Court majority that strikes down the ACA or, even more politically dangerously, overrules or emasculates Roe v. Wade?  Would either of those outcomes have sufficient moral authority to deter extreme civil strife? My reluctant prediction is that either of those outcomes could result in social unrest not seen since the 1960s -- social unrest that (Remember Watts) could easily result in widespread violence. If, but God forbid, that should happen, I too will be sad and sorrowful.  And like little Lena, I'll have to say of the 52 senators who voted to confirm Justice Barrett, "They brought it on themselves, Miss Twiddle.  They brought it on themselves." And they just may have brought it -- loss of confidence in the Court and therefore loss of confidence in the rule of law itself -- on us all.