Picture 2

Picture 2

Feb 15, 2016

Scalia's Original Intent is Vital to Preserving the Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been dead about 36 hours when liberals started to explain that Senate Republicans had a duty to confirm whomever President Obama nominated as Scalia’s replacement.  Liberals are really big on explaining etiquette to conservatives, etiquette they would never follow themselves if anything important was at stake.  In all situations, but especially in this situation, Republicans should play by the rules that the Democrats apply to themselves.  

Antonin Scalia was the voice of reason on the Supreme Court.  He believed the Constitution had to be interpreted according to how it was understood by the people who wrote it.  He also believed that a judge had a duty to rule on what the law was, not on what the judge wanted the law to be. 

In contrast, “living Constitution” liberals believe the Constitution changes based on what people believe is a reasonable interpretation today, without regard to what the people who wrote it understood it to mean.   “Living Constitution” is how the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 when homosexual acts were illegal in every state, is interpreted to require gay marriage in every state under the Equal Protection clause.  Whether you like the outcome or not, how “living Constitution” Justices got there is ridiculous.

Scalia was the best jurist on the court for upholding the rule of law and making the law understandable and predictable.  Replacing Scalia with a “living Constitution” liberal will allow the Supreme Court to destroy what little remains of structure of checks and balances during the appointee’s time as a justice.  Republicans can’t allow that and preserve the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

From the chatter on liberal media on the morning of the 15th, it's obvious that Obama is considering a recess appointment. The Senate is in recess now until February 22.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should call an emergency session of the Senate immediately to remove the any plausible argument that a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice would be valid now. Any and all complaints about short notice should be met with the explanation that 5 Justices can change the Constitution anytime, even if one of the 5 is a recess appointment temporary hire.

All whining about how the Senate needs to confirm Obama's pick for the court should be met with a quote. I agree with President Obama when he said, "Elections have consequences." We won the 2014 elections. Under the Constitution, the Senate's consent is required to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. We do not consent. That's the end of it.

The article starts to surrender already by saying Republicans could allow a recess appointment to escape pressure from the press. It's time to stop escaping. Hit the Pravda Press right in the teeth.  If Trump can do it for his ego, we can do it for our principles.  It’s easy to state why we will not confirm Obama’s nominee, and we should do so until everyone in the country can recite it like an advertising slogan.  We believe, as Justice Scalia believed, that the Constitution should be interpreted based on what the people who wrote it understood it to mean. We also believe, as Justice Scalia did, that a Justice should decide what the law is, not what the Justice would like the law to be. These principles are more important to us than skin color, gender or ethnic background. We should make this perfectly clear to the Pravda Press. We should refuse to engage on any smoke screen questions. We should respond to red herrings by repeating our reasons for refusing to consent.

Feb 14, 2016

Government: An Intollerable Monopoly if a Private Company

As a thought experiment, try thinking of the federal government as a private monopoly.  They control the services they offer and prevent any competition by outlawing it.  They set their prices, in this case taxes and fees, with minimal input from their customers.  They force you to buy their services, even if you don't want them or even need them.  Rich people who make "contributions" get lucrative contracts.  The monopoly's leaders say they are selfless saints doing good for the disadvantaged.  While they say this, their employees get pensions worth multi-millions and former officials generally end up with huge sums of money normal folks can't match with a lifetime of earnings.  The monopoly is constantly announcing new services you will have to buy. 

Would anyone allow a private company to do this?  Why does the fact that it's the federal government make this behavior acceptable?  If anything, this behavior backed by abusive government power makes it even more threatening.