On December 20, 2024, The White House put out this statement:

“Today, President Biden’s 235th life-tenured federal judicial nominee was confirmed. This marks the largest number of confirmations in a single term since the Carter administration. These highly qualified men and women—all committed to the rule of law and the Constitution—will serve the federal Judiciary for decades to come.”

The 235 confirmations include:

• One to the United States Supreme Court
• 45 to the nation’s courts of appeals
• 187 to the nation’s district courts
• Two to the United States Court of International Trade

Even with all of the negative legacy that swirls around the Biden Presidency that will keep historians busy for infinity, the damage Joe has done to the courts might be the most devastating destruction the senile president leaves behind. When a president appoints judges with a progressive ideology, the effects on the judiciary and the broader legal landscape can be significant, often leading to concerns about the integrity of the judicial system. These concerns are not limited to the political implications of such appointments but extend to the potential erosion of objectivity, respect for the Constitution, and the undermining of clear legal principles.

One of the most prominent negative effects is the potential for politicization of the judiciary. The judicial branch is supposed to be an independent entity that interprets and applies the law impartially. However, when a president appoints judges who lean toward a progressive agenda, the risk of the judiciary becoming a tool for political and social engineering grows. Judges with such a mindset may prioritize advancing progressive causes over adhering strictly to the law, leading to rulings based on personal or political beliefs rather than constitutional text.

This creates an environment where judicial decisions could be perceived as reflective of the personal biases or political leanings of the judges, rather than impartial legal reasoning. A notable example of the problems stemming from progressive judicial appointments is the case of the nomination of a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court who, when asked to define what a woman is, could not provide a clear answer. Such an appointment is emblematic of the broader concerns associated with appointing judges from a progressive or left-wing perspective.

Progressive ideologies often reject clear, traditional definitions of concepts like gender, which are crucial to the functioning of the legal system. The inability or unwillingness of a judge to provide a clear and logical answer to a basic question like “What is a woman?” raises alarms about their capacity to interpret and apply laws based on unambiguous definitions. Gender, for example, is a central issue in many areas of law, including civil rights, employment law, and the rights of individuals.

A judge’s inability to define a woman accurately could undermine their ability to make fair and consistent rulings on cases involving gender-based discrimination or the application of sex-specific laws. When the fundamental legal definitions of terms such as “woman” or “man” are up for debate or subject to fluid interpretation, it becomes increasingly difficult for the legal system to offer consistent and fair treatment under the law.

This could result in a judicial environment where individuals, organizations, and lawmakers face greater uncertainty about how laws will be interpreted and applied. Moreover, progressive judicial appointments can also lead to an erosion of judicial restraint. Rather than interpreting laws according to the original intent of the framers, progressive judges may feel emboldened to legislate from the bench, creating new rights or expanding existing ones in ways that were never intended by lawmakers or voters. This trend of judicial activism can shift the balance of power between the branches of government, as the judiciary oversteps its role as an interpreter of the law and begins to make new laws. This undermines the democratic process, where laws should be made by elected representatives, not unelected judges.

Finally, when progressive judges are appointed, it can deepen divisions within society. The decisions made by the judiciary, especially at the highest levels, set important precedents that affect all Americans. If these decisions are perceived as ideological or partisan, rather than based on neutral legal principles, it can lead to a loss of faith in the judicial system. People may come to see the courts as an extension of the political battles of the day, eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary and its ability to function as a check on power.

In conclusion, the appointment of progressive judges to the bench, particularly in the case of individuals who struggle to define fundamental concepts like “woman,” can have negative consequences for the rule of law, judicial independence, and public trust in the judiciary. These appointments may lead to politicized rulings, inconsistent interpretations of the law, and an erosion of democratic principles. The ability to define basic terms and apply them impartially is essential for judges to serve as effective stewards of justice, and any deviation from this undermines the integrity of the legal system.

C. Rich

CRich@AmericaSpeaksInk.com

C. Rich

C. Rich is the voice behind America Speaks Ink, home to the America First Movement. As an author, freelance ghostwriter, poet, and blogger, C. Rich brings a “baked-in” perspective shaped by growing up on the streets and beaches of South Florida in the 1970s-1980s and brings a quintessential Generation-X point of view.

Rich’s writing journey began in 2008 with coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and has since evolved into a wide-ranging exploration of politics, culture, and the issues that define our times. Follow C. Rich’s writing odyssey here at America Speaks Ink and on Amazon with a multi-book series on Donald Trump called “Trump Era: The MAGA Files” and many other books and subjects C. Rich is known to cover.  CRich@AmericaSpeaksInk.com

“America Speaks Ink is a Google News approved source for Opinion”