Saturday, July 23, 2016

SCOTUS Nominee Reality Check

On the issue of Supreme Court nominations. This post has nothing to do with how you cast your vote, it is intended to inform you of reality from the perspective of one that has been reading, dissecting, and instructing SCOTUS written opinions/rulings for a very a long time. I have now advised / consulted for three United States Senatorial and Congressional candidates on the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I've taught Constitutional Law for going on 16 years. And when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I've actually authored / rewritten state law that retrieved lost liberty in that area (see South Carolina General Assembly, S308 signed by the Gov. 11 Feb 2014). So the very last thing you want to do is tell me "you don't care or understand about the 2nd Amendment" .

Yes, I am giving you my "resume" so that you can understand that I'm coming from a position of expertise, I certainly don't know it all...but I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject ....more than the average Joe or TV pundit.

That established, let me paint a crystal clear picture...again, this is not about your vote....I understand all the reasons for voting for the Republican nominee and I honestly am not trying to change your mind. I AM trying to help you understand what is to come so that WE ALL can be prepared no matter how we vote. Ok, so I'm not the enemy, I'm just trying to give you some information from at least one experts position. Others can disagree, but at least check their credentials before deciding who has more accuracy in their assessment.
Right now, there are two solid Originalists on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Sometimes referred to as "Constructionists" because of their belief (and mine) in the original construction of the United States Constitution. The late Justice Scalia would have referred to them sometimes as "textualists"....I like that term more myself as it accurately depicts what an Originalist jurist does....he/she interprets the meaning of the Constitution directly from the text....not the inferred meaning which is most often skewed by pre conceived viewpoints and current trends in culture. The Originalist jurist will start with the plain text...and when the plain text answers the question, thats the end of it. When the plain text does not answer the question before the court, the Originalists goes to source documents, the actual writings of the framers which we get from three primary sources (Madisons notes of the federal convention of 1787, the notes from the ratifying conventions, and the Federalist papers), there are other sources...but those three are primary for the Originalist jurist.

Today, there are two proven Originalists left on the Supreme Court of the United States; Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito, Alito not in the class of Thomas or Scalia, but close. Roberts is not an Originalist, he fooled most of us during his confirmation hearings. Justice Kennedy is a liberal who sometimes plays conservative advocate, but he is a liberal activist jurist who believes in the "Living Constitution" as much as the left wingers on the court. All of this assessment is based upon their written opinions and rulings, not my emotional like or dislike of any of them.

That said, you need to be aware of the fact that NONE of the nominees that Mr. Trump floated a few weeks back to fill the SCOTUS vacancy were Originalists. All but a couple will talk like an Originalist and they will "present" in confirmation hearings that they are Originalists just like Justice Roberts did. But I can assure you that they will end up ruling in many cases, but most certainly on the pivotal issue cases of government expansion and retraction of state made decisions in the area of social engineering....they will end up ruling with the hard core left wing of the court. This is not conjecture, we have seen it time and time again with Roberts and Kennedy.

I write all this to help you understand that practically speaking, there will be no difference between Trump nominees and Clinton nominees. I'm not trying to be gloom and doom and I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. Just want us all to be sober minded about what we are about to go through in this country in the coming years. Sort of "buckle up" warning.

Lastly, because of all I described above, the 2nd Amendment as intended by the framers WILL be eviscerated and succumb to the unending assault from the left. Yes, it will fall. You can say that this is just my opinion, but if you do....I ask you to show me your study that reveals otherwise. It will not go down in one fell swoop most likely, but it will go. It will start with the court accepting a case on what was otherwise settled case law with the Heller decision, and it will reverse course on the individual right conclusions arrived at by the Scalia decision in the landmark Heller ruling, and then it will all unravel from there.

This is what we are about to face with either candidate friends, better to know now than to be deluded into thinking that it will be stopped by the guy with the "R" beside his name.

Neither Presidential candidate has any intention of rolling back federal power. Both will increase it for different reasons, but they will increase it all the same. The time is now for an Article V Convention of States to do what neither of these candidates will ever do.

No comments:

Post a Comment