Share
Commentary

Huckabee Stays True to the Constitution, Reveals Top Priority for Supreme Court Justices

Share

In many ways, the debate over Brett Kavanaugh’s accession to a seat on the Supreme Court will center on what the role of a judge ought to be.

Should judges interpret the Constitution strictly or use certain parts (say, the 14th Amendment) as an escape clause to write utilitarian opinions that interpret the Constitution as a “living document” that suits the needs of the moment?

Given the way I framed that, you can probably guess where I stand. You can probably guess where former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee stands, too.

Sure, he’s probably best known as the father of a certain White House press secretary at the moment, but being a successful governor and serious presidential contender has given him a certain insight into the nature of judicial activism that few have.

In an appearance on Mark Levin’s Fox News show this weekend, Huckabee absolutely nailed the problem facing the judiciary today — and how to fix it.

Trending:
Country Star John Rich Releases Bible-Inspired 'Revelation': 'There's Never Been a Song Like This Song'

“The judicial branch has become a legislative body,” Huckabee told Levin.

“I want to say to people wearing black robes, ‘If you want to become a legislator, take your robe off, resign that position and run for Congress. Then you can be a legislator.

“‘But if you’re sitting on the court, you don’t get to make law, you get to simply look at the Constitution through the clearest, most focused eyes you can and forget whether it’s conservative or liberal, but is it right or is it wrong in the context of the Constitution?'”

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee?

Precisely.

The big debate around Judge Kavanaugh seems to hinge upon whether or not Roe v. Wade would be reversed. Liberals have insisted that Kavanaugh say whether or not he intends to preserve the decision — and if he doesn’t say he does, there’ll be hell to pay.

But here’s the thing: Roe is a bad decision. It’s based on an expansive view of the 14th Amendment that nobody could have imagined at the time it was written.

This point gets glossed over too many times in analyses of Kavanaugh’s effect on Roe, which have nothing to do with the original decision. If the 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when several states had laws banning abortion, which it was, that means the “right” was invented, more or less, out of whole cloth.

Were it repealed, what would happen? It would go back to the states, where it belongs. And given that an attempt to ban abortion failed on the ballot even in deep red Mississippi, it’s questionable whether this would have any effect whatsoever.

Related:
Camera Caught Biden Team's Faces as He Called Trump His Vice President - Their Reaction Says It All

However, the point is that the people have the right to decide without laws being made up from the bench. That’s what the Constitution says. That’s how the Founding Fathers intended it.

It’s time we had judges who realized that.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , ,
Share
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).
Birthplace
Morristown, New Jersey
Education
Catholic University of America
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
American Politics, World Politics, Culture




Conversation