During Senator Chuck Schumer’s last days as majority leader, he spoke bluntly about his m.o. with respect to pushing as many judicial nominees through the Senate as possible. In an interview with Politico, he said, “I don’t know exactly what [Trump will] do. But I can tell you this: The judiciary will be one of our strongest—if not our strongest—barrier against what he does.” That shows an unusual level of candor for Washington, though Schumer’s recitation of what he feared from the next administration included the typically deceptive Democratic lingo—such as “anti-women’s rights” (the reductionist insult to those of us who would protect all innocent life), “anti-environment” (a narrowly focused climate agenda that fails on its own terms and destroys jobs), and “anti-working people rights” (ignoring which party the working class just voted out of office and why).
“We knew that getting more judges on the bench would help protect our legislative record,” Schumer admitted. “The two did go hand in hand. If you asked me which one was more important, I wouldn’t want to pick among my children.”
That’s funny. Many of us are under the impression that judges are supposed to faithfully discern what the law is and apply it evenhandedly in cases that come before courts. They are not supposed to legislate from the bench or to put a thumb on the scale in particular cases based on policy preferences. But of course, that is how the activist judges pushed by Democrats for years—by the outgoing administration and its Democratic predecessors going back generations—have approached their positions. Schumer’s remarks are uncommonly candid. Remember them when we hear the more typically pretextual Beltway arguments proffered by Democrats in opposition to judicial nominees over the next four years who are committed to originalism and the rule of law.