THE FIGHT FOR CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES: WHAT'S THE POINT ANYWAY?

ICHEOKU says presidents always nominate and fight to have confirmed, associates Justices of the Supreme Court who share their ideological viewpoint on the direction of the country. They do this primarily just in case an issue in which they are interested make it to the Supreme Court, believing that their confirmed Justices will understand the imperativeness to rule in favor of their position. 

This is why severe battles are usually fought in the process of anchoring Justices in the apex court of the land and why only Judges who share the president's policy thinking and objective directions are always the preferred nominees. They are chosen with an implicit but unspoken understanding that they will always stand by the president in their decisions. It is believed that by their appointment, an unbreakable bond of shared policy objectives have been established between them and the president. But when some of these supposedly conservative Justices continuously rule against the policy direction and objectives of a president, who nominated them and fought so hard to get them confirmed, it triggers the question whether the war for their confirmation was even worth fighting for. 

Why would such Justices become a thorn on the flesh of the president or did they not accept the nomination with a  basic understanding that their appointment came with a condition, a string, that they will always reciprocate the gesture of their appointment by ruling in favor of the president's policy initiative and direction. Is it possible that they lied during their interview process that they share the same policy views as the president, only for them to, after confirmation, reassume their old true self and left the president wondering if he was duped by them. 

This reasoning is poignant because there were so many other dye in the wool candidates who could have been nominated for the position had the president known that those he was nominating then were not deeply vested in his line of thinking on the policy direction of the country. Why did they accept a job with a condition subsequent when they know that they are not going to keep their own side of the bargained benefit. Such makes the persistent complaint by the president of an existing Deep State cabal in Washington DC ever more plausible. Watching these seemingly concerted effort to always diminish and embarrass the president by everyone in Washington DC, including those in silky black robes somewhat gives the existence of the Deep State some credibility, otherwise why the concert of anti Trump tendencies. 

It is always conservative Justices who often engage in this shifting of loyalty and are always aligning forces with the political left, instead of deferring to the political right that got them into the Supreme Court. They seem to unduly seek the approval of the left and to show their objectivity on issues, unlike their liberal democratic counterparts who always go for the broke, all or nothing decisions in favor of their leftist agenda. Similar deference to leftist causes also happens in the Congress as Republicans members of Congress sometimes see merit in their Democratic opponent's argument; but their opponents never reciprocate the gesture of "understanding an opposing viewpoint" but rigidly follows their own party's policy position unapologetically. 

So, why does Congressional Republicans and their conservative Supreme Court Justices often cross the aisle of "understanding the issues of the other side", but which favor is never returned by their Democratic and liberal Justices counterparts. The later are always opposed to the Republicans and their conservative ideals, regardless of the merit or persuasion. The liberals are usually not persuadable and they see conservatism as being parallel opposed to what they believe and stand for. But the frequency of the  Republicans  bending over to cede a position to the Democrats is such that it would be better just blending them into the Democrats and forget about them, instead of the pretentiousness of having two ideologically opposed two parties. 

Why is the president the only one who seem to be indeed concerned about conservative causes and is often left alone at the business end of the liberals long swords, while other supposed conservatives look on, askance and seem to cheer and enjoy the public spectacle being made of the president by forces bent on remaking America in their own warped utopian image. Several times have the Justices made rulings and decisions which support the opponents of the president's position and you wonder whose side are they really on anyway. They seem to be oblivious that they were put in the Supreme Court as Generals to cover that flank on the cultural/social reengineering war going on in America. But cases after cases, instead of being loyal team players for conservative causes, they continued to overrule the president and you wonder how frustrated it must be for a president who went into the battle of repositioning America only to discover that his Generals were not as committed to the cause as he is and had expected. 

ICHEOKU is not questioning the wisdom behind these rulings which always went against the grain of the primary reason they were put in the Supreme Court, but wonders why it is only the supposed conservative Justices that are prone to delivering this anti conservatism rulings. Why doesn't the liberal Justices similarly rule against liberal causes and as frequently often as their conservative Justices rule against conservative causes. As most people knows, most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are usually political in nature, seeking a pronouncement to back an ideologically driven political position. They are competing positions, usually on a highly contested cultural/social issue of great importance to both the right and the left of the political divide, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what goes and what stays, The proverbial last bus stop, yet they rule as if the conservatives have another layer of authority they can appeal to. 

Why don't the Justices understand what is at stake, an ideological battle between two polarities, and then align forces accordingly as expected of them. It should not be a question of choice between conservatism and liberalism, as the Justices should have automatically queued up behind the right causes as members of Team Conservatism. This was the main reason they were nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, to always rule in favor of the party's position and not aspire to earn the admiration of the Democratic liberals. Election has consequences, the Democrats will readily tell anyone who questioned their stringent positions on things when they are in power. So, why can't the same ideological imperativeness guide the conservative Justices in their rulings. If President Trump had not won the election based on his conservative promises, the Justices would not be seating in the Supreme Court today. 

But it appears that the Democrats ate their cake and still kept it. The same liberals who  viciously attacked and opposed the nomination and confirmation of the Justices are now the ones benefitting from their rulings. They are the ones winning and gaining all advantages by the presence of this Justice in the Supreme Court. Is it a case of caveat emptor, buyer beware; otherwise what is the point then of fighting to have certain philosophically and ideologically minded Justice in the Supreme Court. What do the Justices expect Congressional conservative Republicans and the President, who fought to put them in the Supreme Court, to do in the face of such several disappointed decisions and rulings against their policies. This forces the question, whether it was worth the effort put in the fight to nominate and confirm them; was it worthy of the trouble. 

It does not make sense ruling against the president and by their agreeing with the liberals, they are telegraphing a message that the conservative ideology is stale, no longer tenable and should be discarded. They are asking everyone to yield and agree with the liberals viewpoint and position on things, to queue up behind liberal's take no prisoner approach to issues, to allow liberals to remake America as they see fit and finally to shut their traps in supreme obedience to liberal take over of America. If the president will not get his Muslim travel ban upheld, his immigration order upheld, his repeal Obamacare order certified; his Census citizenship question requirement upheld; his gay civil rights order upheld and his DACA order signed off on by the Justices, what then is the benefit of having them appointed to the court or overall utility of their conservative credentials. 

To the knowledge of the Justices, these promises were the cardinal issues upon which the president ran for election and was elected into office in 2016 to fulfill. They were appointed to the court by the victorious president and suddenly they now have issues with the same policy objectives that got the president elected and which, peradventure, also got them appointed to the Supreme Court. They literary owe their associate membership of the Supreme Court to these policies, because without them the president would not have been elected into office, without which he could not have appointed them to the court. So, why then make rulings against the president's implementing the same policies which got him elected and also got them appointed to the Supreme Court. 

It is simply not easy to comprehend, although they could be trying to balance various competing interests with their liberal rulings which is reflective of the broad spectrum of American people. But why is it always conservative Justices and not their liberal counterparts that always do this, trying to make the other sides happy by ruling in a particular way. If it were their liberal counterpart, they always rule with a predetermined mindset that "elections have consequences" and that in reaping the fruits of a hard won election, they will rule as their Democratic constituents, supporters and donors want. 

Like former Secretary of State Tillerson once said that he plays for the team, ICHEOKU asks why can't these Justices play for the team which put them in the Supreme Court; or at least enter a quid pro quo bargain with their liberal counterparts where for every decision they make in favor of a liberal cause, the liberal Justices will also return the favor through a reciprocal ruling for a conservative cause. This way, their often 'one-sided please I crave your approval' rulings which they make for liberal causes and which goes against conservative causes will not be so glaring disadvantageous. Anyway, those Justices do not contest for elections and they also have a life term in office, so what do they care if a president's campaign promises were not kept. But it is disappointingly very sad watching these conservative Justices always ruling against the president and conservative positions and causes. Was the fight for their confirmation worth the trouble?