Read on Twitter
I let this go yesterday because I’m trying to ignore the blithering nonsense that rolls out of this counterfeit senator’s mouth.
But I want us to take a few minutes and understand what Joshua means when he talks about “judicial imperialism.”
https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1288460445251182592
But I want us to take a few minutes and understand what Joshua means when he talks about “judicial imperialism.”
https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1288460445251182592
So first—Roe has basis in the Constitution. It’s a privacy rights case.
Simply put, citizens have the right to their own privacy and that includes privacy with a physician.
For abortion to be illegal, the government would need to know your private medical decisions.
2/
Simply put, citizens have the right to their own privacy and that includes privacy with a physician.
For abortion to be illegal, the government would need to know your private medical decisions.
2/
That’s a huge abuse of government power and should not be allowed
But I want to focus on the more troubling rhetoric Joshua brings up—the term “judicial imperialism.”
You may not have heard it before—that’s fine. It’s not a frequently used term.
3/
But I want to focus on the more troubling rhetoric Joshua brings up—the term “judicial imperialism.”
You may not have heard it before—that’s fine. It’s not a frequently used term.
3/
It’s used by men like Robert Bork to explain the concept of judicial activism.
Judicial activism is when a judge becomes an activist by changing the law to meet a particular end as opposed to simply interpreting the text as it is.
4/
Judicial activism is when a judge becomes an activist by changing the law to meet a particular end as opposed to simply interpreting the text as it is.
4/
Judicial imperialism is the idea that “elites” have virtues separate and apart from the common man and they seek to impart those virtues over mere mortals.
You can read about Bork’s theory below.
5/ https://www.aei.org/articles/judicial-imperialism/
You can read about Bork’s theory below.
5/ https://www.aei.org/articles/judicial-imperialism/
He suggests that judicial imperialism is not rooted in any law—only these elite morals that others neither share nor recognize.
He provides examples to things like the Nuremberg Trials, which he suggests had no basis in the law.
6/
He provides examples to things like the Nuremberg Trials, which he suggests had no basis in the law.
6/
He speaks out against corporations being held accountable for environmental harm + similarly suggests there was no legal reason to call giving the death penalty to a 15 year old “cruel and unusual punishment.”
7/
7/
You may be asking yourself, “Who is Robert Bork?”
Bork was an accomplished lawyer, who President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Senate refused to confirm him because Bork supported poll taxes and rolling back civil rights laws.
8/
Bork was an accomplished lawyer, who President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Senate refused to confirm him because Bork supported poll taxes and rolling back civil rights laws.
8/
Bork also believed in the supremacy of the executive branch.
You see, during Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon asked his AG to fire the Special Prosecutor for Watergate, Archibald Cox. His AG saw it was illegal and refused.
So Nixon asked Bork to do it + he said yes.
9/
You see, during Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon asked his AG to fire the Special Prosecutor for Watergate, Archibald Cox. His AG saw it was illegal and refused.
So Nixon asked Bork to do it + he said yes.
9/
Bork was a man without concern for morality or the law—and that’s whose writings and rhetoric Missouri’s junior Senator continues to parrot.
I’ve said this before—and I’ll say it again—Josh Hawley is an authoritarian.
10/
I’ve said this before—and I’ll say it again—Josh Hawley is an authoritarian.
10/
You don’t go around quoting Bork without sharing his views of executive supremacy.
But Hawley has stood with Bork since his days at Yale Law.
When Alito was nominated and faced opposition similar to Bork’s, 3L Hawley proclaimed that Yale “stabbed [Bork] in the back.”
11/
![You don’t go around quoting Bork without sharing his views of executive supremacy. But Hawley has stood with Bork since his days at Yale Law.When Alito was nominated and faced opposition similar to Bork’s, 3L Hawley proclaimed that Yale “stabbed [Bork] in the back.”11/](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeJkiFJXgAAb61D.jpg "You don’t go around quoting Bork without sharing his views of executive supremacy. But Hawley has stood with Bork since his days at Yale Law.When Alito was nominated and faced opposition similar to Bork’s, 3L Hawley proclaimed that Yale “stabbed [Bork] in the back.”11/")
But Hawley has stood with Bork since his days at Yale Law.
When Alito was nominated and faced opposition similar to Bork’s, 3L Hawley proclaimed that Yale “stabbed [Bork] in the back.”
11/
So here Joshua is, still carrying the torch, using rhetoric conservative lawyers recognize to signal his belief in executive supremacy.
Meanwhile, the headlines focus on abortion—once again missing the bigger issue—that Hawley consistently undermines the law.
12/
Meanwhile, the headlines focus on abortion—once again missing the bigger issue—that Hawley consistently undermines the law.
12/
Because once you repeal section 230 so user-generated content can’t be shared—
And you remove a way for citizens to see their country with their own eyes—
And you give into executive supremacy—
And appoint judges who disregard the law—
You have full control. Endgame.
13/13
And you remove a way for citizens to see their country with their own eyes—
And you give into executive supremacy—
And appoint judges who disregard the law—
You have full control. Endgame.
13/13
