Left-wing opponents of an impartial and independent judiciary have picked another target: appeals court nominee Steven Menashi.

It’s one thing to be honest about a nominee’s record, but disagree about whether he belongs on the bench. The attacks begun on Menashi, however, amount to nothing more than dishonest smears.

View Comments (7)

Menashi, whose Jewish family came to the United States from Iran, received his law degree from Stanford before clerking first for U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg and then for Justice Samuel Alito. He became a partner at one of America’s premier law firms and has taught at two prestigious law schools. . . .

Understand the controversy surrounding President Trump’s judicial nominees and pray for justice with our prayer guide: Appealing for Our Courts.

President Donald Trump nominated Menashi for the same reason his critics oppose him: Menashi will be an impartial, not a political, judge.

In 2009, Menashi reviewed a book by liberal law professor Cass Sunstein. The book’s title spoke volumes: “A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn’t Mean What it Meant Before.”

In his review, Menashi wrote that “living constitutionalists” like Sunstein “aim to establish not a ‘living’ but a zombie Constitution; they want to take the corpse of constitutional text and reanimate it with new principles in every generation. But this Constitution is at war with itself. … The living Constitution is always an unstable mix of living and dead elements, chosen according to the preference of the assembler.”

To the left, saying that the Constitution and statutes mean what they were intended to mean at the time they were enacted, and not what judges want them to mean today, is the unforgiveable sin. And they have Menashi in their sights. . . .

If the left believes that the Constitution should mean whatever a federal judge wants it to mean, it should be honest and try to defend that position.

If it believes that any five members of the Supreme Court should be able to create, modify, or delete rights and liberties at will, it should fess up and make its case.

If it believes that elections really don’t matter because unelected judges should have the last word on what our laws mean, it should have the decency to say so.

That radical position, however, is indefensible. It is the opposite of how America’s Founders designed our system of government in general, and the judiciary as part of that system in particular. So it instead concocts false claims and relies on the public’s acceptance of its smear.

Back in February 2001, only a few weeks after President George W. Bush took office, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., vowed that Democrats would use “whatever means necessary” to fight judicial nominees they opposed.

It seems like their allies in the liberal media are continuing the revolution. (Excerpt from the Daily Signal, commentary by Thomas Jipping.)