Posted on 02/29/2016 8:51:16 AM PST by Kaslin
For 30 years Antonin Scalia sat on the Supreme Court. He was a legal giant, unimpressed with the pretensions of power and resistant to liberal orthodoxies. He was unafraid to skewer what typically passes for legal "reasoning," even--or perhaps especially--when expressed by his colleagues. And he sometimes surprised even his critics, rigorously defending the Constitution irrespective of the issue.
His death in the midst of a heated presidential campaign will place the Supreme Court squarely within the vortex of partisan politics. President Barack Obama is likely to choose as his nominee someone dedicated to the concept of a "living Constitution," which means a document that is infinitely malleable, always available to turn the latest left-wing legal fad into the law of the land.
In recent years the left's legal agenda has become ever more unconstitutional, even anti-constitutional. Welfare is a right, the unborn are subject to destruction, marriage can be radically redefined by unelected judges, equal protection requires racial quotas, religious liberty only protects private belief, health care penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, gun ownership is for government, and the president can rewrite laws passed by Congress.
Every Democratic nominee is expected to embrace this agenda. Over the years many Republican judicial appointees have charted an independent, even liberal course, from Earl Warren to David Souter. It is hard to think of a single Democratic justice who has broken with left-wing orthodoxy.
In confirmation hearings Democratic senators have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent, apparently more fundamental than the Constitution itself. When ObamaCare came before the high court no one doubted that the four Democratic appointees would unite to back the law.
President Obama treats jurisprudence as another weapon of political war. For instance, six years ago he nominated his Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who also had served in the Clinton administration. The president merged justice and politics.
No doubt he will do the same with his appointment to replace Scalia. The Senate has an obligation to stand for the Constitution and rule of law.
The Founders separated powers and allowed the different branches to check one another. One of the most important limits is the Senate's duty to "advise and consent" on top government appointments. Legislators have an independent authority, even obligation, to scrutinize nominees.
There is no more important duty for a Supreme Court justice than to uphold the Constitution. There will naturally be disagreements over how to apply fundamental principles to changing circumstances. However, that doesn't mean any result can be justified in the name of judicial interpretation.
The Constitution assumed a sea of liberty within which a few important islands of government power were created. Justices can argue about the islands' sizes. But a jurist who imagined the Constitution as an ocean of government power with just a few spots of liberty would not be qualified to hold office.
Moreover, if the nation's fundamental law isn't rooted in something permanent, then there is no certain protection of any liberty. If justices can act like a continuing constitutional convention in which five men and women can transform settled law on whim, we have passed from the rule of law to the rule of men. Sitting on the high court does not place one above the Constitution.
Thus, the Senate has an obligation to reject any nominee pledged to enshrine liberal zeitgeist as law. There's no need even to refer the nomination to committee or hold a hearing if the appointment is political. The Senate has a duty to advise and consent, not to say yes. Past Senates, including those controlled by Democrats, have rejected 25 presidential nominees to the top bench.
Indeed, the president's party set the precedent. In 2003 Democrats filibustered the appointment of the well-qualified (and Latino) Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2007 Chuck Schumer urged fellow Democrats to use their new majority to block any appointments by George W. Bush to the high court.
Then-Sen. Obama forthrightly opposed President Bush's 2005 nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (and joined 24 colleagues, including then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, in attempting to filibuster the nomination). Sen. Obama explained that the Constitution requires "an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record" and criticized Alito as "somebody who is contrary to core American values." Similarly, Sen. Obama voted against the nomination of John Roberts because of the latter's "overarching political philosophy."
Sen. Obama's arguments really do apply to anyone President Obama is likely to nominate.
Members of the U.S. Senate are obligated to defend the Constitution. That requires them to reject any attempt by the president to install another radical judicial activist for a lifetime on the bench.
Ping
I think just as important, it is about who the President appoints as Fed Governors.
No on has asked the question if Yellen would be given another term, or would she be replaced. And what is the basis for his potential appointments to the Board of Gov. of the Federal Reserve?
Anyone appointed to the Fed is window dressing. They set their own rules to make themselves money.
Why do people act as though the Fed is in any way part of the US Gov’t? They are a non governmental institution owned by a group of banks.
“Why do people act as though the Fed is in any way part of the US Gov’t?”
Because the enabling legislation that created the Fed was passed by Congress, would be my guess.
2016 is all about Borders.
No 2016 is about deciding if America will be made up of Americans or not.
And if they will have jobs.
Does anyone here actually know?
I thought it was about the WALL ?
This is true, but an emphasis on SCOTUS does not help us. We need as much apathy as possible among the baby-killers and parasites on the loony left. SCOTUS, as an issue, might bring them to the polls even if they are indifferent to their treasonous nominee.
Very good article, but bad title.
And if Trump does end up winning, I do hope he appoints Ted Cruz.
A logical corollary to Blackwell’s point is that the GOP must retain the Senate. But apparently, advocating that the GOP retain the Senate is contrary to the agendas of some around here....
In my mind this coming election is all about immigration, just as it will be for every upcoming election in the Developed World. Trump is the only candidate who expresses the view of the vast majority of American voters that immigration must be controlled and borders secured if we are to protect our homes and families. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t think personal security is a top priority. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the single, most important factor uniting a deeply divided American public to enter World War II. Unfortunately the passage of time has dulled the memories of this generation that a very similar event happened on September 11, 2001.
..., but an emphasis on SCOTUS does not help us. We need as much apathy as possible among the baby-killers and parasites on the loony left. SCOTUS, as an issue, might bring them to the polls even if they are indifferent to their treasonous nominee.
*********
This type of thinking is what keeps the issue of our rogue Supreme Court from ever being addressed. Sooner or later, we must get our talking points ready and take the offensive on this issue, or that Court will continue to turn our constitution into the platform of the Democratic party.
You dont think that Presidential appointments to head the Fed are not crucial?
I understand they are an “Independent” bank. But the BOG are about as political as you can get.
Getting rid of the Keynsians on the Board would be a nice step.
This election is about much more. Specifically it is about breaking up the politicians and the cash cows that buy their votes. That is why only Trump can stop this damn mess in DC. Look at the VA and all the damn lies we have heard from Shinseki to present about cleaning the damn mess up. We have received nothing except more lies and false and misleading figures that appointment waiting times have been reduced. This is all BS. The damn IG of the VA has lied and gone after whistle blowers. Our entire government is like Clinton, Obama, Holder, Lerner (IRS) etc. These crooks and the faggot and lesbian loving PC MC military generals and admirals they appointed will continue leading our decent troops, marines, airmen, and sailors down the path to hell and destruction. Only Trump can change this.
This election is about much more. Specifically it is about breaking up the politicians and the cash cows that buy their votes. That is why only Trump can stop this damn mess in DC. Look at the VA and all the damn lies we have heard from Shinseki to present about cleaning the damn mess up. We have received nothing except more lies and false and misleading figures that appointment waiting times have been reduced. This is all BS. The damn IG of the VA has lied and gone after whistle blowers. Our entire government is like Clinton, Obama, Holder, Lerner (IRS) etc. These crooks and the faggot and lesbian loving PC MC military generals and admirals they appointed will continue leading our decent troops, marines, airmen, and sailors down the path to hell and destruction. Only Trump can change this.
Even if the Senate Republicans somehow find the minimal balls necessary to block Obama's far left-wing liberal replacement for Scalia, there are still three Justices left on the Court who will be over 80 years old next year. The next President will determine the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years
The Constitution now says whatever the hell 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices want it to say. Either we will have a far left-wing oligarchy of Justices legislating from the bench for another generation or we will not. This election will decide.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.