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.
Good article. Ken Blackwell appears to be resisting infection with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Even a truly Conservative President will not be able to get much done if Chuck Schumer is Senate Majority Leader.
The Republicans (RINOs and all) need to hold onto the Senate for at least the next two years. The President and the Congress would then have two years to undo the last 8 years of Obamanation. Any RINOs that refuse to support the President and help roll over the Democrats would be at the top of the list for replacement in the 2018 and 2012 primaries.
Yep, we all know *everything* passed by Congress is just hunky-dory. Maybe, even ‘blesses’ by SCOTUS as legal...
/s - just in case.
Has there ever NOT been a clarion call to the voting booth? If it’s not the ‘end times’ in one fashion or the other: SCOTUS, roll-back of XYZ, or...
Course, I’ve not seen anything BUT a continual shift to the Socialist Left in my 25yrs of voting age, so I’m not exactly sure where, let alone IF, those brakes will kick-in.
If we can get past this election and hang on to the Senate, the numbers will favor us moving forward. But this year, 24 of the 34 seats up are held by Republicans, so we're incredibly vulnerable.
A newly elected Senate is not bound by any rules of the prior Senate. They can make up whatever rules they want, including no filibusters, reducing the number necessary for a quorum, etc..
In other worlds, if the Democrats win the Senate this November, you can expect to see them hold incredibly expedited hearings on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and fam through that confirmation before the new President is inaugurated. Totally legal/Constitutional.
Which means we could lose the Supreme Court before the new President even takes office, even if the current Senate GOP hold firm.
No it’s not “all about SCOTUS”.
SCOTUS always has the same importance as a vacancy can open on any given day.
Other issues rise and fall in importance, but SCOTUS is a constant.
This is one of the many reasons why I believe that all the ‘conservatives’ who are claiming that they won’t support Trump will eventually come around to vote for him. There is simply too much at stake.
Before the Fed came into being, JP Morgan and other big New York money center bankers performed the backstop function that the Fed is tasked with doing.
Morgan and his fellow bankers did it out of necessity and what they were doing was in a gray area legally. After the Panic of 1907 they knew that the US economy had grown too big for them to backstop and they pushed for the creation of a central bank to free themselves from having to try to bail out the US banking system.
The Fed was created to be a consortium of private banks with some government oversight.
I used to.
Ted has so jumped the shark with me, I don’t want him anywhere near decision making on my behalf.
The McConnell-led majority would much rather confirm the Obama nominee than Ted Cruz. The last thing they want is a Justice who actually knows and supports the constitution.
Probably so.
I’m not for that either.
Appreciate the info.
So, the idea was to give a BIGGER group of (independent) foreign interests/people this ‘backstop’ authority; over a system that couldn’t be controlled prior, backed by the taxpayer. Gotcha. ‘Gray area’, indeed.
I still seem to be missing that Central Planning Amendment that must have been passed some time ago. I’m sure I’m missing something.
A Democrat controlled Senate is not bound by any rules.
The only reason that Harry Reid did not abolish the Supreme Court filibuster when he unilaterally abolished the filibuster of all other presidential appointments is because there were no Supreme Court vacancies at the time. If Scalia had died while the Democrats still controlled the Senate there is no doubt whatsoever that Reid would have unilaterally abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments as well.
So you are absolutely correct that this is yet another reason why the Republicans (RINOs and all) need to hold on to the Senate this election. If not, then in January you can count on every single judicial vacancy (from Supreme Court down to the district courts) being filled by Obama and Schumer before the next President is sworn in.
In your opinion, how has he jumped the shark?
If that doesn't tell you all you needed to know about Ted and his dedication to getting our borders under control, nothing will.
There are two powers above Scotus.
God Himself.
We the People.
It is way past time to trim the wings of a morally twisted Scotus. Article V is right in front of our noses.
Didn’t John Roberts’ betrayal on Obamacare destroy the argument that we need a GOPe president for SCOTUS appointments.
If you don’t know by now that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Rats and the GOPe, you are either part of the GOPe scumbags or you’re just plain stupid.
“So, the idea was to give a BIGGER group of (independent) foreign interests/people this ‘backstop’ authority; over a system that couldn’t be controlled prior, backed by the taxpayer. Gotcha. ‘Gray area’, indeed.”
No foreign interests involved.
“’backstop’ authority”- Banks require a lender of last resort.
” over a system that couldn’t be controlled prior, backed by the taxpayer. “ Taxpayers are not involved.
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.