A turning of the tide?

Leftists are in full meltdown over the announcement Justice Anthony Kennedy will step down from the Supreme Court July 31. This action provides President Trump an opportunity to nominate yet another Constitutionalist like Neil Gorsuch to the court. Should Trump serve two full terms, it is likely he will nominate the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well.

The enemies of our Constitutional system are in abject terror over the possibility, now increased, the Court will undo decades of judicial activism. Unable to enact their agenda through the ballot box, the Left sought to impose it instead by abusive judicial fiat. But just as unconstitutional executive orders by Obama could be undone by corrective orders from Trump, the shredding of the Constitution can be reversed by a Supreme Court made up of Justices who respect it.  The impact of these nominations on the next 20 to 30 years cannot be overstated.  It’s vital to elect America First Constitutionalists (sadly, only a subset of the GOP) this fall, and ensure Trump’s reelection in 2020.  Things are going well for patriots lately, but as Glenn Reynolds frequently channels Han Solo, “don’t get cocky, kid.”

On other fronts:

-The Supreme Court, even with Justice Kennedy still on it, has issued a couple of key rulings, freeing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers from being forced to provide information on how to obtain an abortion, and denying unions the ability to force payments from non-members (which usually ends up in liberal political campaigns).

– The reputation of the FBI is hardly helped when Peter Strzok answers a Congressional subpoena to testify in a classified forum, but reportedly refuses to answer the most germane questions by claiming “it’s classified” or declining to answer “on advice of counsel.”  What are the FBI’s lawyers encouraging him to continue hiding?

– A former Hillary 2016 Campaign officer has been indicted for soliciting sexual access to children as young as two years old.  And from the “you can’t make this up” files, he was also chairman of the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict charity.  As they say, fishermen go where the fish are.

– Without Obama propping them up with pallets of cash, the Iranian regime is suddenly experiencing a popular backlash again.  The previous administration’s failure to support Iranian dissidents was inexcusable.  Worth noting: “Q” indicated a week ago Iran was about to get interesting again… another tick of credibility for those keeping score.

– The GOP seems to have a few more members with spines lately, as the latest attempt to pass an amnesty for illegal immigrants has been soundly defeated.  Eternal vigilance is required on this issue, however.

Keep praying hard!  If God can resurrect His Son or an army of dry bones, He can certainly revive our nation!  Let’s seek daily to have our nation bless Him, that He may show favor to us even at this late hour.

Sauce for the goose…

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has some sage advice for those on the Left who both want to have a “living Constitution” and block the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch: “Be careful what you ask for, because you won’t like it if you get it.”

He has a point.  One reason for Leftism’s steady march to ascendancy is that they play fast and loose in the courts with the meaning of the Constitution (even its most clear sections), whereas Conservatives (so far…) are loathe to use the judiciary as activists for change.  Reynold’s point is that Gorsuch is an ‘originalist’ when it comes to the Constitution, not a proponent of a “living document” that changes over time, and the Left should be glad for that.

Otherwise, they potentially would face a swift judicial rollback of their most cherished victories over the Framers’ original intent during the past 50 years:

During the New Deal era, the Supreme Court — after being threatened with “court packing” by FDR — endorsed a massive expansion of governmental power on the ground that it would lead to greater efficiency in the economy. Instead, we got a bloated bureaucracy with serious accountability problems, and a disastrous expansion in spending, regulation and federal debt. Based on this experience, I can imagine a conservative justice who sees the Constitution as a “living breathing organism” that must be kept in tune with the needs of the day deciding that the New Deal Court’s decisions were mistakes that violate the Constitution, and must now be rolled back.

To be honest, there is one point about this with which I disagree with the Instapundit.  A truly “originalist” court would indeed roll back much of the New Deal, because it was recognized even at the time as a fundamental transformation of the relationship of the Federal Government to the States and the People… one that clearly violated the Constitution on several grounds.  Rather than fight activist legislating from the bench with more of the same, however, it would be far better to undo these poor decisions via Congress, so long as the judiciary would let stand changes clearly rooted in the original meaning of the Constitution.

Reynolds’ main point is sound, though: the Supreme Court needs to get back to a strict constructionist view of our charter, rather than blow hot and cold (or Left and Right) with the prevailing political winds.  If Gorsuch is confirmed and succeeds in tacking the court that direction, it will bode well for the future.

Legal obstructionism

That’s the only term that can be applied to the decision by Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to stay enforcement of Trump’s executive order blocking the entry to the U.S. of citizens of seven foreign nations.

As this overview demonstrates, she has no grounds for such an order.  The president clearly has the authority to deny entry to the United States to any class of people he believes poses a threat to the nation.  Those who hyperventilate that this is somehow a “Muslim ban” need to note it doesn’t include the most populous Muslim nation (Indonesia) or one of the wealthiest (Saudi Arabia).

In fact, what it does is built on Trump’s predecessor’s actions!  Obama was the first to list travelers from these seven nations as needing extra scrutiny before entry into the U.S.  All Trump has done is bar *any* entry from these turbulent areas until his administration can ensure screening procedures adequately protect the nation.  This would seem a reasonable precaution during a change in administration, when there are serious questions about the effectiveness of visa and refugee admittance procedures.

Having lost in an election, the liberals are doing what they always do: try to use the courts to overthrow the express will of the people.  This is an effort to further deligitimize Trump as a president and his actions as somehow being arbitrary.

On the contrary, he appears to be one of the few elected leaders in recent memory who has quickly set out to do exactly what he said he would do… and what a large number of Americans wanted.  This is what propelled him to the presidency in the first place.

Trump’s administration needs to push back hard and relentlessly on this judicial activism, placing his executive order into its proper context and showing this particular court as the partisan tool it is.  This period is a struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans, who are still trying to decide whether Trump was a mistake or represents the final chance to put several issues back into balance before they destroy the nation.  A coherent communication strategy (yes, including Twitter, which bypasses the media gatekeepers) is essential to this task of maintaining public support.

Buckle up.  The next few months are going to be quite the ride, I suspect.

‘Judiciously’ protecting election fraud

Once again, judges are tossing out the express wishes of the voters:

A federal judge in Milwaukee struck down Wisconsin’s voter identification law Tuesday, declaring that a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sided with opponents of the law, who argued that low-income and minority voters aren’t as likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them. Adelman said the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection…

Tuesday’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal challenges in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere. There are 31 states with laws in effect requiring voters to show some form of identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Seven states have strict photo ID requirements similar to the one a state judge struck down in Arkansas last week; that decision has been appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Pennsylvania’s voter ID law has been put on hold because of court challenges.

Once again, we see the difference in approaching an issue with no consideration of “responsibilities.”  Not one of these laws ‘disenfranchise’ (true definition: “legally bar from voting”) the elderly, the poor, or minority voters, despite the lucrative shrill claims of the SPLC and its fellow travelers.  What it does is impose a responsibility commensurate to accessing that right, in the same way people who exercise their ‘right’ to drive must obtain a license to do so legally.  Those who fail to do so are self-selecting for disqualification.

Let’s be frank here.  No matter what the pundits quoted in the article say, VERY FEW people today can get by without having some form of the ID in question.  And for those who do, a case could be made that they interact so little with modern society as it’s currently structured that they probably don’t have the familiarity with the issues to be voting anyway!  The bottom line is this: if you can get yourself to the polls on election day, there’s no reason you can’t get yourself to the appropriate agency to obtain an ID.  ‘Legislating from the bench’ to throw out these popular provisions to protect the integrity of our electoral system is simply catering to those who like to game and rig it.  It waters down the value of our citizenship by allowing undocumented aliens and the dead–for starters–to cast votes — perhaps even several at a time.

What I find most egregious is the judge claiming that ID requirements violate the equal protection clause.  Far from it!  If anything, it’s the strongest measure we can take to ensure the principle of “one person, one vote.”  I applaud anyone, of any political persuasion, who wants to be active in our electoral system.  If you value that participation, do what it takes to be eligible… including being in the country legally, and obtaining the appropriate credentials.  Given all the Americans who have literally died protecting your option to do so, it’s the least you can do.

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” — Thomas Paine

 

Note: this post written not just in protest of the legal decision, but in honor of groups such as North Carolina’s Voter Integrity Project, who have done true patriots’ work in exposing how our lax election laws undermine the integrity and legitimacy of the entire system. These groups and individuals, on the front lines of these legal challenges, deserve our support and our thanks.