[Jim W N]

Read what I wrote.

It would take the Court to begin basing their decisions on the Constitution, overturning unconstitutional decisions with sound constitutional-based reasoning, and if they exist, citing constitutionally-based decision(s) as precedent.

Reinstating the Constitution and seating a sound Court are part of what is necessary to restore our Free Constitution Republic which should be our primary political focus and goal for the next 20 to 30 years.

It has already started. With Trump, there is a good chance we may get the first solid conservative SCOTUS majority since FDR.

Without the miraculous Divine Providence of God’s help, America would never have been birthed. Resorting our Free Constitutional Republic will be no less miraculous in freeing this country from the Enemy Within.

Faith and an intellectually or politically coherent program or strategy are not mutually exclusive. They were not at our Founding, and they are not now. BOTH are needed and as it was at our founding, faith being probably the most important component of the two.

[Rockingham]

Do you really think that overturning Social Security and Medicare, making sweatshops and Jim Crow possible again, and otherwise weakening the protections of the Bill of Rights would be a political winner? Or that these views can be sold on the basis that they are more in keeping with a document written centuries ago by white men in periwigs who met in secret, wrote with quill pens, and thought slavery tolerable?

Moreover, a comprehensive and abrupt reversal of more two centuries of judicial precedents to arrive at a true, original view of the Constitution is simply not going to happen and is not desirable. Many of the changes in constitutional doctrine that conservative scholars are critical of in the abstract are popular and election-winning. In many instances, Supreme Court decisions were the trigger for essential changes in American life like the end of segregation.

There is no way around the need to learn and engage with the body of American constitutional law as it is and to fight for changes, case by case, based on good reason from where we are, not where we would prefer to be. Originalism, or textualism as Justice Scalia took late to calling it, is a powerful critique of modern constitutional law but should not be fashioned into an engine of destruction.

The better approach is to appoint reliable conservative judges who will gradually undo the worst doctrines and decisions. In other words, the better approach is to win political power and then exercise it in a conservative and responsible manner.