Posted on 02/16/2016 11:40:06 AM PST by Kaslin
The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia is a terrible loss for our nation, and a reason for Republicans to rethink their approach to the judicial branch of our government. Scalia's departure leaves conservatives at a 5-3 disadvantage on the Supreme Court for all-important social issues, with the prospect of a Democratic president increasing that margin to a commanding 6-3 majority.
Nearly all the Republican presidential candidates urged the Senate not to allow a lame-duck president to fill that vacancy. They pointed out that this vacancy hangs in the balance for the upcoming presidential election.
Several GOP candidates promised to appoint a justice who will interpret the constitution as it was written, rather than changing it as liberals want. But by now it should be painfully obvious that picking good judges is not sufficient to stop liberal activism by the courts.
Of course, senate Republicans should block President Obama from filling this Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, and they have 80 years of precedent on their side. But Republicans should go further and block nominations for all the other vacancies in the federal judiciary, too.
Obama has already placed more than 300 judges on the federal bench with little or no opposition by senate Republicans. He has already handpicked roughly the same number of federal judges as George W. Bush did in his entire two terms.
Let's not pretend that merely electing a Republican President will repair the damage caused by liberal judges. President Reagan had three vacancies on the Supreme Court, yet placed only one conservative there, Justice Scalia, and President George W. Bush picked a Chief Justice who wrote two decisions upholding Obamacare.
Less than two years ago, the five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court had the opportunity to end the power of labor unions to collect compulsory dues from government workers such as teachers. But they blinked amid liberal objections, and instead awaited a future opportunity, and now their 5-4 majority on this issue is lost for the foreseeable future.
It's fine for the Republican presidential candidates to point out that a vacancy on the Supreme Court is part of the upcoming election, and to promise to fill Justice Scalia's immense shoes with someone similar. But even if a Republican wins the upcoming presidential election, even if he picks another Justice Scalia, and even if he is confirmed by the Senate, the federal judiciary will still be stuffed with hundreds of activist judges appointed by Obama, Clinton and even Jimmy Carter.
The Founders gave Congress everything necessary to take power away from this runaway federal judiciary. Congress can deprive the federal courts of power over immigration, abortion and marriage, and can completely defund enforcement of bad federal court decisions that are already on the books.
Congress spent months trying unsuccessfully to defund Planned Parenthood, a laudable goal, but Congress can more effectively defund enforcement of the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage decisions by the judiciary without sparking a phony "war on women" debate.
Congress should also defund use of taxpayer money by the Department of Justice to push the liberal agenda in the liberal courts. Congress should cut back on the funding for the courts themselves, too, and eliminate rather than fill some of the vacancies.
While some presidential candidates promise to work with Congress, none of them promise to rein in the Supreme Court in the absence of Justice Scalia. None of them promise to stand up against an unconstitutional order by an activist court by refusing to enforce it, as the next president could do with respect to activist Supreme Court rulings on immigration, abortion and marriage.
Justice Scalia left us with his brilliant, colorful writings both on and off the bench. One of the best was his stinging dissent from the same-sex marriage ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges.
Scalia recalled Alexander Hamilton's assurance that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch of the federal government, because it "must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm," and of the states, "even for the efficacy of its judgments." Scalia concluded: "With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them -- with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -- we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."
The answer is not gimmicks like a constitutional convention being pushed in some state legislatures -- which Justice Scalia properly called a "horrible idea" -- but a Congress and a new president who do their constitutional duty to limit the power of the Supreme Court to change our laws on immigration, abortion, and marriage.
Sometimes I wonder which side she is on.
As for an Article V Convention of States being gimicky — blame the Framers. They put it in there. As for Scalia’s opinion, his comment was about a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of states. Ww do not know what he thought about amending the Constitution in order to restore states rights. I can tell you that Schlafly’s plan is only good for as long as brave Republicans control congress. How often does that happen? As soon as it goes to Democrat control the deal is off. The Article V Convention of States liberty amendments would apply at all times no matter who was in control.
Furthermore, a toolbox is for using all the tools necessary. There is no reason to choose between Congress controlling the purse and a Constitutional Article V Convention of States. We should use every tool available to us just as the left does. In this case the answer is “All of the above.”
The big lesson here for conservative’s... no matter how much you love getting stuff for free... don’t accept a free weekend at a “ranch” resort out in the middle of nowhere next to the Mexican border from a Democrat insider.
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax, “ said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! “
Although this Phyllis Schlafly article proposes that Congress block any further judicial appointments proffered by the Obama administration, in an aside she condemns a "constitutional convention." Some comments on this thread are about that condemnation.
Either way, the President rules by decree where his party can prevent an override of his veto.
I need to go re-read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer but my understanding is that this is all "legal."
Mail.
Corrected.
Also consider;
With the change in the USSC over the weekend, The NBC status of Cruz and Rubio is going to be a train wreck. It makes it very important that neither get the nomination.
Anybody that thinks this is not going to be litigated by the democrats if either of the two gets the nomination is not accepting reality. A liberal or even tied USSC does not bode well for a decision that favors Cruz or Rubio.
Alito, Thomas, and... who? Roberts?!?
-PJ
Unfortunately they do not make them like Phyllis Schlafly anymore. Even more unfortunate is they don’t make them like Scalia anymore either.
However, 103 years into a constitution with the 17A, there is no remaining institutional pride in the senate. The vast majority of senators can't see beyond their reelections and will do nothing to risk them. It is an institution whose once noble purpose has been corrupted into rubber-stamping whatever the half-black guy wants.
Still, I'm amazed she is so opposed to Article V. It certainly isn't a gimmick any more than the other recognized individual and societal rights peppered throughout our Constitution.
Good question. When he was appointed, Roberts gave every appearance of being a good choice. And for a few years, he did indeed stand shoulder to shoulder with Alito, Scalia and Roberts.
Then, along came the 0bamacare case ...
And he switched sides faster and less explicably than did Benedict Arnold.
I think he's compromised, and responds to threats.
They are all being spied on by the NSA.
Scalia was Breitbarted.
Again the timing was right before Andrew was going to come out with some major video on Obama. The timing again was quite remarkable.
The mind control of the public is astounding.
Phyllis is a little slow, actually a lot.
We know, and you’ve seen my posts, that it doesn’t matter whether we have Batman or the Joker in the White House, selecting Supremes determines the course of the country longterm. We know RR gave us Anthony Kennedy who gave us marriage perversion and persecution of Christians.
The key amendment is (as first formed by Mark Levin and others) in effect, a ‘30-State Quash Authority’.
I repeat here the illustrations of two amendments that should be lasting (and that contain valuable Freeper input):
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
and,
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXIX
To enhance federalism between the States and their Federal Government, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 2.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
The above provisions could be combined into one amendment or various provisions can be stricken or moved as seen fit by convention delegates and their state legislatures in order to move to consensus and cross the 34-state threshold.
However the provisions might be arranged, it is important that the provisions be written adroitly to bar any federal entity from misinterpreting or interfering with the provisions. Phrases such as “subject to ... state legislature”, “subject to ... voter referendum”, “shall be set by ... state legislatures”, “upon a vote ... in state legislature” are tantamount to keeping control of the amendments under the jurisdiction of states and state voters and impeding the federal government from having an opportunity to encroach and meddle.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3306719/posts?page=238#238
Those touting mere application of the 10th Amendment should be mindful that the 10th was never worded to explicitly give a state quorum power to administer its application. Thus, federal agencies and federal courts have conspired to make what they will of the 10th Amendment, and in effect, it becomes a nice thought of a bygone era.
For the edification of those reading and desiring more insight, I leave the following exercise to ponder over:
Abolition of the Electoral College by amending the Constitution would result in California and New York electing the President of the United States. How was the 17th Amendment similar to such a proposed abolition of the Electoral College and what were the longterm effects of the 17th Amendment?
Untimely??
Psalm 90:10
Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
Oh; they do to!
We've just not heard of them yet.
Daniel 2:21
He changes times and seasons;
he deposes kings and raises up others.
He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
I think sudden would be more correct.
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.