Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to
nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin
specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
JRH 7/9/18
********************
Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy's Replacement
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM
Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a
tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and
Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our
bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody's
right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they
certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called
"good", as the nation witnessed with the Supreme
Court's ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be
the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers
to no one and places itself above all.
In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony
Kennedy's impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question
potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and
whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance
to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was
given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its
will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the
so-called "right" to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and
they manufactured it out of thin air.
President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn't be
"appropriate" to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over
60
million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated
that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the
despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of
"precedents"
must somehow be viewed as "set law" as she parroted Democrat talking
points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld
the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?
Any person who views overturning the activist decision of
Roe v Wade as a "big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn
child's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They
are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the
murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they
are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.
If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn't Plessy
v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still
the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would
still have segregation under the "law". These were overturned by a
later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.
However, ever since Marbury v Madison
(1803) and the Court's assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the
Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and
increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and
act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which
is contrary to the Founders' Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the
Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does
not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind
other parts of government.
Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted,
"All power exercised over a nation ... must be either delegated, or
assumed ... All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is
usurpation."
The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of
Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our
Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However,
activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe
the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed
rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography
on demand, abortion and homosexual "marriage".
Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a "moderate"
because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but
how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at
some major cases. Kennedy
voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda
in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4
percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas's sodomy laws, the upheld
Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual "marriage",
aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of
marriage -- the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before
God. This is not a "conservative" or a "moderate".
By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his
pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett,
the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who is a
pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong
Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student
award from Notre Dame Law
School in 1997.
President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal
anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the
conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America's founding ideas,
those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending.
As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they
will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy
Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the
constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders'
Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to
meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment,
during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly
made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to
accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.
As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot
speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion
industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year
in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a
"right".
And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary
effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the
admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great
anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution's ratification debate,
has become our present-day reality: "The Supreme Court under this
Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and
subject to no controul ... There is no power above them, to controul any of
their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be
controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of
the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in
this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.”
[Italic bold by Editor]
America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from
arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state
governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it
sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop
the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the
historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a
nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.
By Justin O. Smith
____________________
Edited by John R. Houk
All source links as well as
text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
© Justin O. Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment