|The Hand-Crafted Leather Wing-Tip That Will Prance on Your Face for the Next 12-18 Years|
Obama and his media allies have promoted Garland's candidacy in terms of his technical skill. Having been lectured by the Left, e.g., here, about how there is no law, no legal method nor technique that determines constitutional justice, we should try to understand the meaning of the nomination in the Left's terms. When they speak about Garland's technical skill, you should imagine a hand-crafted leather wing-tip stepping with technique on your face forever. You will be made to serve Mammon in Babylon with commas and citations in perfect order.
No one outside a remnant of the American right believes that law or legal skill in interpreting law should be the touchstone of American constitutional justice. For the rest, enforcing the elite's amoral ethos and bludgeoning the American people with its idolatry is American constitutional justice, not faithful implementation of preexisting constitutional law. Constitutional law exists for the Left, and most Republicans, only as a tool for transforming America into a piece of the global market, never as a break on its economic and social goals. Even the ability of Supreme Court justices to produce predictable law is important to the Left only to the extent necessary to be useful to its corporate allies and to coordinate the mop-up work against the last resisters and the policing of the achievements of the American social revolution.
Garland, like Obama's previous non-diverse nominees Sotomayor and Kagan, belongs to the same American "meritocratic" class which defines itself in terms of cosmopolitanism, intellectual ability and hatred of God's ordained social orders. They hate nation, church, family, tradition. The meritocratic class disdains any particular loyalties, except for carefully cultivated ethnic grievances useful for pushing the further marginalization of the remaining customs and identity of the American people. Like Garland, this class certainly does not practice any religion.
His non-diverse nomination ensures that the Court will continue to look like Harvard Law School's entering class and unlike America. Many on the left, e.g., as Joseph Stern here, have complained violently that Obama dared to nominate a "non-diverse" white man who is married to a woman to the Court. White males, even if they aren't Gentiles, are supposed to be ineligible for the Court now. They miss the real nature of the Court's non-diversity entirely.