One Liberal Justice Away

Justin Smith writes of the dangers to America’s Constitutional Republic as created by our Founding Fathers, if Obama successfully places another Left Wing Activist Justice on the Supreme Court. This is an awesome Editorial!

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************

One Liberal Justice Away

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

"Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question."  - Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

So much more than the Office of the U.S. President is at stake in the November election. The direction of a partisan U.S. Supreme Court is also a consideration, since the next president will quite likely select two or three of the next Justices; and if the Progressive Democrats and their unconstitutional and anti-constitution agenda control the Court, the future for our children will be damaged and liberty in America will be in grave danger.

Too many Justices from years past to the present have abandoned objective reason and impartial arbitration concerning our fundamental law, and they have consistently produced rulings that were distorted by their own personal feelings and prejudices, especially in cases seen as representing some aspect of "social justice." This has resulted in the Supreme Court overstepping its own Constitutional authority by creating new de facto law through its rulings. And, when the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot read the same law in the same way on the same day from the same Constitution and U.S. legal code, splitting along party lines in almost every case, we no longer have a court of law -- we have an elitist body politic.

For thirty years, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the judicial activists of the Supreme Court, until his death in February. He rigorously defended the U.S. Constitution in all areas, irrespective of the issue. His strong adherence to the fundamental law of the Constitution stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the Constitution as an infinitely malleable "living document", and he opposed all who attempted to turn the latest left wing fads into the law of the land.

In past years, Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent more fundamental than the Constitution itself. But in a 2009 interview, Scalia suggested that state constitutional amendments may take precedence to prevent abortions, effectively overruling Roe v. Wade; he also noted that nothing in the Constitution, especially in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically delegates the power to fund abortions to the federal government. So under what constitutional authority does the federal government mandate abortion policies over the states?

To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, America is one liberal justice away from having Her religious liberties erased and from the Supreme Court forcing us to violate our religious conscience upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. America is one liberal justice away from open abortion on demand -- one liberal justice away from the Ten Commandments being erased from the countryside and from every government building wherever they are found -- one liberal justice away from our Second Amendment being eradicated and one liberal justice away from U.S. law becoming subservient to The Hague and international law. [Bold Italic emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

Under the Leftist agenda, homosexual "marriage" is sanctioned by unelected judges, the innocent unborn can be murdered, gun ownership is only for the government, healthcare penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, religious liberty only protects private belief and the president can rewrite U.S. law at will.

In this political environment, the Republicans are well within their rights to reject all of Obama's nominations to the Supreme Court, since Obama treats jurisprudence as a weapon of political warfare. In 2006 and well before the midterm elections, Obama, then a Senator, filibustered Justice Samuel Alito and demanded a 60-vote threshold; and, since his election in 2008, Obama has brazenly abused executive power and ignored Congress, in his race to embed his hard-left agenda within our American culture and force a fundamental transformation away from our Founding Principles.

Let's not forget that then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and 21 colleagues joined Obama against Alito. Let's not forget Obama's explanation that the Constitution requires "an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology and record", as he criticized Alito as "somebody who is contrary to core American values."

Nobody is more "contrary to core American values" than Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee, who advocated for the acceptance of the integration of some aspects of Sharia law into the U.S. jurisprudence in 2006 when she was the Dean of the Harvard School of Law.

Does anyone really believe that Justice Sotomayor exemplifies "core American values"?

The Democrats are two-faced, when it concerns the Supreme Court, they fight dirty and they fight for keeps. They have two standards for judicial appointments - one for themselves and another for Republicans, but now they are crying "foul."

So what if the Democrat controlled Senate under Pres. Ronald Reagan confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy on February 3,1988? They only did so after excoriating and brutally impugning the honorable reputations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

Obsessed with identity politics and social justice, make no mistake, the brawlers in the Democratic Party, such as Senators Schumer and Reid, would be blocking Republican nominations, if the situation was reversed. In fact, they did filibuster one of Bush's federal court nominees, Miguel Estrada, in 2003, simply because they thought he might make it to the Supreme Court one day. And more significantly, Obama voted against John Robert's nomination because of Robert's "overarching political philosophy."

It is also worth noting that despite the Democrats' insistence that Justice Scalia's seat must be filled quickly, the Court is designed to function with very few Justices, if necessary, and it has throughout history. In 1789 there were only six Justices, but a quorum of four was required to do the Court's business. In 1801 there were five Justices; ten existed in 1863 and Court held seven in 1866: There is no such thing as a rule of nine.

Think of all the narrow 5-4 decisions in recent history that upheld fundamental rights such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and one will see this 2016 election to be an historic juncture of the utmost importance to America. Therefore, U.S. Senators have the obligation to the American people to prevent the confirmation of any liberal justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would use the Court like a continuing constitutional convention. They are obligated to defend the U.S. Constitution against all who would dismiss our rule of law in favor of their own arbitrary, arrogant and authoritarian rule of men, and this requires U.S. Senators to reject any of Obama's radical judicial activists for a lifetime on the Supreme Court: Senators have the duty to advise and consent, not to say "yes."

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

© Justin O. Smith