After 250 good years, now is not the time for major changes

September 22, 2026

We are living in a time of rage. The outlook of so many people is one of anger, and impatience with things they disagree with, instead of understanding and accepting that it is okay that not everyone thinks alike. It’s been a long time since we have seen this level of anger.

It is quite disturbing to observe so many Americans being so adamant about changing our system of government and amending or destroying the U.S. Constitution. 

Maybe they just dislike some aspects of the system. Or, maybe they do not understand how this unique and wonderful system of government came to be, and why it has worked so well for 250 years. 

Today, the left has a long list of radical changes they want to make and things to eliminate. 

One thing on their list is the United States Supreme Court, which they want to pack with “friendly” justices that will vote their way on legal or constitutional matters. Some of them would rather eliminate it completely.

There is a very sensible reason for our Constitution and our body of laws. The Constitution controls how the government operates, and the laws protect its citizens. But the left does not want a system of government and a body of laws designed to be followed as created.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder thinks packing the Court should be a priority. Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says the Court is illegitimate because it does not follow “widely held public opinion,” It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

And, former Rep. Eric Swalwell agreed with Warren, saying the Court “defies the will of the people.” And that is correct, because that is not its purpose.

The popular New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wonders why we have a Supreme Court, asking, “How much does the current structure benefit us? … I don’t think it does.”

And, if those perspectives are not enough, the court-packing faction thinks it will make the Court “less partisan.” Seriously? And, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg wants the Court to have 15 justices consisting of five from each party, who will then select the remaining five.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley explains that a “non-partisan, independent judiciary,” such as what we have, “serves two essential purposes: it plays a vital role in preserving the separation of powers, which prevents all government power from being concentrated in one place, and it stands as a bulwark in defense of minority rights against a majority faction. To ensure its ability to perform these essential roles without being threatened by the political branches — the Congress and the executive branch — the Constitution gives federal jurists life tenure and salary protections.”

Another of the changes they want to make is to abolish the Electoral College.

The United States of America is by design not a pure democracy, where the majority always rules. A good example of why a pure democracy isn’t a good idea is this: In a pure democracy, in a group of twenty people, eleven can rule that the nine must go to jail.

Under such a design, a few large states would decide every presidential election, easily dominating the smaller states. 

Different states and areas of the country have different ideas about things, like what is good for them, and what is not good. But what is better for giant states like New York and California, may be very bad for others, like Vermont and Wyoming.

The Federalist Papers noted that there are 43 states with a smaller population than Los Angeles County, CA, meaning that the votes of each of those 43 states is less than one county in another state. If Los Angeles County was a state, it would be the 11th largest in the nation.

That’s why we have the Electoral College: so that the largest states do not always dominate and choose the president, based on the candidate that will do the most for them.

After much debate, the Founders settled on a compromise of ideas where instead of the raw vote totals of each state being added together to decide who will be president, the decision would be made by state-appointed electoral intermediaries — one for each senator and representative of each state — who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency. This tends to help balance the smaller states against the larger ones.

A lot of Americans do not like the Electoral College, and want to do away with it, because they feel it unfairly and improperly elects the president. However, in 250 years, in the 60 elections of our 47 presidents since 1789, only five times have presidential candidates won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote. That’s about 8 percent of the time. It doesn’t seem to be the problem they want everyone to believe it is.

You do not have to have a PhD. in The Art of Deception to realize that following the left’s plan will create a situation where the left will forever dominate elections, and will rule the country until it surpasses Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, and dies.

Our system has worked well for 250 years. We need to keep it.

Stabilization is badly needed in legal and scientific matters

September 8, 2026

I have for many years appreciated Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. That appreciation stems mostly from his originalist and textualist view of laws and the United States Constitution. Thomas may become the longest serving Justice ever.

Originalism is the idea that the Constitution is not a living document, the meaning of which changes with the evolution and changes of our society. Originalism is based upon the sensible idea that the Constitution means what it meant when it was created, as do all of our laws.

Thomas and other originalists are referred to as “conservative” justices. That term has nothing to do with political philosophy, it only has to do with adhering to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution.

This is a concept that eludes the understanding of many present and past justices, as well as many people who prefer a living Constitution and laws that can mean whatever somebody wants them to mean at any given moment in time, and under any circumstances.

Another originalist was former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who served on the Supreme Court from 1986 until his untimely death in 2016. Scalia was referred to as the intellectual anchor for the originalists and textualists on the Court.

Regarding the idea of originalism and the tendency among some Justices to apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution, Scalia said, “The Constitution means what it says. You figure out what it was understood to mean when it was adopted and that’s the end of it. If you want more rights, create them by statute, if you want more constitutional rights, create them by amending the Constitution.”

He also maintained that this approach is the only way to safeguard the purpose of the Constitution. The Founders worked hard and over a significant period of time to develop a unique and improved system of government. 

It is a constitutional federal republic with a national government divided into three distinct branches — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This arrangement balances power between the federal government and individual states through a system of checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny.

The Constitution is the guide of that system, and it must be correctly interpreted, based upon what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it.

The appropriateness of this concept is so obvious that it is truly troubling that so many people trained in the law do not follow it when it does not suit their preferences.

Another area where what is supposed to be right is often not right is in the area of scientific work. In science, the problem is that there are sometimes so many different scientists working on the same question, and they often all come up with different results in their exploration of the question at hand.

This situation was addressed in the Hillsdale College publication “Imprimis” by Jay Bhattacharya, who became the Director of the National Institutes of Health in 2025. He is a physician and former professor of medicine at Stanford University.

In the Imprimis article, he notes when the findings of a study are made available on TV, in newspapers, on podcasts, etc., people accept those findings. Other scientists often perform the same experiments and come up with different results. But, which results are the correct ones?

“How do we address this,” Bhattacharya asks. “We begin by recognizing the fact that most ideas hatched by scientists do not work or are not true. That is completely normal in science and always has been.” He then cited a paper written in 2005 titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The idea of replication is a good one, as it has many scientists seeking the truth, and checking one another by replicating their research and checking their results against the others, or using different methods to find the same results. Eventually, the correct answers come forth.

However, recently a problem has reemerged, one that had been eliminated by the scientific revolution years ago. That problem is the idea that there is a “scientific authority” that determines what is and what isn’t true. 

“Unfortunately, we find ourselves back in a situation today,” Bhattacharya wrote, “as demonstrated a few years ago by the Covid lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, where a relatively small number of people — directors of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (prior to Bhattacharya taking the leadership), heads of international agencies like the World Health Organization, and editors of prestigious journals — have the power to say what is true or false in science.

Like political and social ideas, scientific theories must not be censored. And adjustments to constitutional ideals and laws cannot be done because someone dislikes them, or they don’t fit preferences, 

If science has produced conflicting results, none of those results can be determined to be “the one” arbitrarily by some person or group. If a law or constitutional tenet is found to be unsatisfactory, it must be changed through established procedures.

Honesty and professional integrity are demanded of persons in these positions. 

America did not become the great country it is by substituting under-the-table tactics for appropriate legal processes. 

A big Supreme Court decision, and crazy things in blue cities

July 1, 2025

The United States Supreme Court has at long last ruled on an important issue. After months of federal district court judges issuing rulings opposing and halting actions by President Donald Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are legal and constitutional.

Not only was it found that the decision on birthright citizenship was valid, it also tells these judges to stop issuing these universal injunctions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, stated: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson commented in a dissenting opinion: “Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” she wrote. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”

However, Barrett promptly and properly corrected Jackson’s flawed reasoning. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

She further clarified that when these judges issue injunctions to block Trump’s actions, they cannot apply the injunction to more than those parties involved in the case, classifying these nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.

There are 677 authorized judgeships for these federal courts, with each of those judges having authority over a tiny sliver of the United States of America’s judicial system.  

One has to wonder exactly what these judges, supposedly trained in the law and our Constitution, were thinking when issuing these injunctions. Did they forget their extensive training in the law? Or, did they stuff their judicial integrity under the courtroom bench, and replace legal elements with political preferences?

Does this un-judicial behavior warrant some disciplinary action for those guilty judges.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves … not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump commented. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”

Elsewhere, in San Francisco and New York City, we find the “progressives” hard at it.

Recently, the California Senate reportedly passed a law making it illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters.

Old Navy, which is headquartered in San Francisco, announced that it will close its flagship store there. When asked why, an Old Navy store manager said that his store is hit by shoplifters at least 12 or 14 times a day.

Other name brands have also left the city, including Walgreens, T-Mobile, Whole Foods, Amazon Go, and Nordstroms.

Other downtown stores are merely waiting for their leases to run out, and then they will also leave.

The City of San Francisco just released a $6 million tourism campaign, and the next day the two largest hotels in the city shut down, blaming street conditions, and apparently not believing the tourism campaign would make a difference.

State Farm Insurance has announced that it will no longer provide business and property insurance in California, following Allstate, which left six months ago, due to policies that encourage lawbreaking.

These foolish leftist policies are producing exactly the results that their critics predicted.

And in New York City, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani, is the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the first Muslim nominee, and a supporter of radical policies.

Predictably, he has an extremely radical plan for New York, should he win the election. 

"This is a city where one in four of its people are living in poverty, a city where 500,000 kids go to sleep hungry every night," he said recently. "And ultimately, it's a city that is in danger of losing that which it makes it so special."

He has proposed the following radical ideas to cure New York’s problems: Free bus service citywide, rent freezes and stricter accountability for negligent landlords, a chain of city-owned grocery stores, and universal childcare for children aged six weeks to five years.

As with so much of the liberal/socialist/progressive mantra, these things sound pretty good. But they don’t work as imagined. Ideas like defunding police, not enforcing some laws, rental price freezes, having the City own and control the grocery stores, and some of his former “solutions” are a recipe for disaster.

Just ask the businesses and residents in San Francisco.

Many Americans do not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court

July 9, 2024

In the recently ended term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court rendered some decisions that have a lot of people upset. They believe that their political/ideological perspective should be the way of life for all. And when the Court’s rulings do not follow that line of thinking, the Court has made a terrible and unforgiveable mistake.

The reaction of some of these people is that one or more of the justices should be impeached, and/or the Court must be packed with additional justices who hold political/ideological beliefs that align with theirs, and will rule accordingly, resulting in politically satisfying decisions.

This position is far removed from the original intent and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. Its job is to ensure the promise of equal justice under the law and it also functions as guardian and interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is information from Justia online regarding the function of the Supreme Court: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlines the scope of judicial power. Under Section 2, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts may hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under their authority, among other matters. 

“With a few exceptions, the Supreme Court is limited to appellate jurisdiction, reviewing cases previously heard by other courts. Federal courts may hear only actual, ongoing cases or controversies, which means that someone bringing a claim must have ‘standing’ to sue. In general, they must have suffered a concrete injury for which a court can provide an effective remedy.

“One of the most important and frequently exercised powers of federal courts does not appear in the text of Article III. This is the power of judicial review. Barely a decade into its history, the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury v. Madison that it holds the power to determine whether a legislative or executive action is constitutional. Many of the most famous Supreme Court decisions have relied implicitly on the notion that the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the founding document.

“On the other hand, the Court has developed a doctrine of judicial restraint in the area of ‘political questions.’ The six factors outlined in Baker v. Carr largely define this doctrine, which is based on the idea that courts should remain aloof from politics. Thus, a federal court should decline to hear a case that presents an issue heavily laden with political implications.”

Now, those who disagree with the Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, and other similarly unpopular decisions, will claim that the immunity issue is rife with political implications. But the important factor is that the decision protects the actions of presidents of any and all political persuasions, not one in particular. These days, nearly everything has political implications, but that was not the issue of the immunity decision. It was a question of Constitutional intent regarding the actions of presidents while in office.

The judicial branch, of which the U.S. Supreme Court is a part, is the only one of the three branches of our government in which no one is elected. The president and vice president in the executive branch are elected, and the members of the two houses of the Congress are elected in the legislative branch.

Those seeking one of those positions run for president/vice president, the Senate or the House of Representatives on a platform of things they support and oppose. But future federal judges and justices do not campaign for, or run for a seat on a court, let alone have a platform of things they support and oppose that they will exercise if selected for a seat. Judges and justices are expected to be politically and ideologically neutral. The law is supposed to be applied without prejudice or preference.

Those chosen for a seat in a federal court are there not to please Republicans, Democrats, or any group. They are there to interpret the Constitution and laws of the nation as they were written and intended to be understood without political bias or interest.

Imagine if the Democrats were somehow able to gain total control of the government. How would the non-Democrats feel about their country, if they were forced to live under the dictates of the Democrats, many of whose rules they would strongly dislike, and which might have serious negative effects on them? 

And then, what if in a few years the Republicans somehow managed to take control, and force their ideas on the country. How would the non-Republicans like that?

That is the reason the federal court system, and indeed, all of our courts, must be politically neutral and maintain America’s pledge and history of being the one place on the planet that guarantees its people fairness and the greatest amount of personal freedom in the history of mankind.

And each of us must take a deep breath whenever the Supreme Court, or any court, makes a ruling with which we disagree, and move on. And if a change is desired, we must make those changes through the proper processes, and not through brute force. 

The left does not understand the purpose of our Supreme Court

March 12, 2024

In reviewing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court did precisely what it is supposed to do: review the case and determine if the court’s ruling will stand or not, based upon the Constitution and the laws.

The majority Democrat-appointed Colorado justices — four of the seven —ruled that Trump was an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from running for President. However, three of the Democrat-appointed justices disagreed with the four. Of course, Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection, or even formally charged with the crime.

The Colorado court has no authority to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. And neither do officials of the states, media persons or Democrat/leftist opponents of Trump. That is a legal process that has not even begun, let alone been concluded.

Democrats and other leftists claimed to be protecting our “democracy” by preventing Trump from running. Curiously, in attempting to unilaterally block him, they were trying to save our “democracy” by anti-democratic methods. 

The citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote are who make the decision on who becomes president, not some individual or group with a political objection to someone.

Properly, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Colorado court, with the three liberal judges joining the conservative majority in the decision. How much stronger a decision can be made?

Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley assesses this decision: “The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the ‘real Supreme Court justices’ that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.”

Leftists in Congress, the news media, and elsewhere were stunned and infuriated by this decision. They apparently believe that the Supreme Court’s duty is to rule on issues in a manner that suits their narrow and highly political idealistic dreams.

But the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation’s court system is designed to apply the Constitution and the laws in an unbiased and politically neutral manner.

And just imagine what might have transpired had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as the left believes it should have. Trump would have been blocked from several state ballots, and they would have been rapturous, euphoric, and thrilled. But then, other states would also be able to block candidates. Maybe President Joe Biden would be blocked. Or other Democrats. Or even all Democrats. Another sound reason in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Do those on the left not understand the structure of the United States of America? The tripartite government with executive, legislative and judicial branches that are independent of each other. And a system of checks and balances that prevents authoritarians from taking control is superior to other governmental systems. Without this system we would be as wonderful as China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others.

Or, do those on the left actually understand our system, and completely despise it and want to replace it — by hook or by crook — with a system they can control forever?

Had the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the Colorado decision, the left would be somewhat closer to “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional republic into a one-party, leftist-controlled authoritarian democracy.

This is the end that the left and the Democrat party have in mind and are working tirelessly to achieve.

Even as the left progresses toward a socialist/communist nightmare, it also imposes politically correct rules on what can be said.

The man charged with killing 22-year-old college student Laken Riley was referred to, by “progressive” President Joe Biden, as an “illegal” in his State of the Union rant. The left went crazy, criticizing Biden for that comment, even as they celebrate his dangerous and illegal policy on the open border. Biden quickly apologized for his faux pas.

But the accused, Venezuelan Jose Ibarra, did not enter the country properly, and is therefore an actual “illegal.”

In their hyper-sensitive bubble, they refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants,” or “migrants.”

What exactly is the definition of an immigrant? It is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” And what is a migrant? “A person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.”

Both are very general terms. To immigrate to the U.S., or to be an immigrant, there is a process. And if you don’t follow the process, if you enter by crossing the Rio Grande and not coming through a port of entry, you are not an immigrant or a migrant; you are an illegal alien. 

That is the correct legal term. It may not make some people feel good, but that is reality. And dealing in reality is far more important than how that may make some people feel.

The fundamental transformation of the United States is well underway

August 22, 2023

Way back when Barack Obama was campaigning for President of the United States he famously said, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Years later, in an interview with then-Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, then-President Obama somewhat walked back his statement. But looking at what has happened between Obama’s original statement and today, it is pretty obvious that the Democrats are indeed working to fundamentally transform the country.

Democrats are increasingly comfortable attacking foundational principles and elements of American governance. Here are some of the efforts now underway.

They want to enlarge the U.S. Supreme Court by adding Democrat appointees to it. Unhappy with recent rulings, they want to add more liberal justices to the Court. 

This idea ignores the reality that the judicially conservative justices they want to put in the minority make rulings based upon existing law and constitutional principles that are understood today as when they were enacted. They are “originalists.” 

Democrats prefer instead to change these principles using a liberal majority on the Court. They want to pack it with justices who will reinterpret laws, not support them as intended.

They favor doing away with the Electoral College. One point made to support this transformation is that in a democracy, the winner of the popular vote should be President. However, as has been said here and elsewhere before, the United States is not a pure democracy; it is a republic. Thus, by design, not all decisions are to be made by 50 percent-plus-one vote.

And, only four times in the election of 46 Presidents in over 240 years has the Electoral College been in conflict with the popular vote. 

However, without the balancing of the varied interests of Americans provided by the Electoral College, every Presidential election would be decided by the big states and big cities. The rest of the country would be at their mercy. It is not what the Founders believed was best, nor is it in the best interest of all Americans for Presidents to be forever selected by a few states.

“Democrats in the Senate have introduced legislation to make Washington, DC a state, and they’re seeing overwhelming support,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., wrote in an email. More than 40 Senators support this idea, including Virginia Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, but not West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

“Democrats know they can’t win with standard tactics,” McCaarthy wrote, “so they’re making a power play by trying to flip the game board to their advantage!” 

But here is why it can’t happen: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state. It is a neutral district where representatives of all the states can meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business. DC as a state, or any state, would carry too much power.

Federal regulations — both existing and planned — are limiting Americans’ ability to choose items they want and need, and making many things more difficult and expensive to produce.

Gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles are discouraged in favor of electric vehicles. Many household appliances that work on natural gas or other fuels are targeted for replacement, as are incandescent lightbulbs.

The massive set of federal regulations tell Americans things they can no longer do, and things they can no longer purchase. 

All of this is done under the premise of making things better. But ultimately, they increase the control that the federal government, under Democrat control, will hold over the people, and reduce our freedoms.

Biden’s failure to adequately secure the southern border, as required by the Constitution and laws, has allowed a huge increase in illegals entering the country.

“According to Customs and Border Protection, since January 2021 when Biden took the oath of office, there have been 5,118,661 encounters with illegal immigrants along the southern border,” as reported by Townhall.com. “Add to that the number of known ‘gotaways,’” which are illegal immigrants who were not apprehended.

“Through the first half of Biden's term from January 2021 through January 2023, Customs and Border Protection reported 1.2 million ‘gotaways.’”

While most of these people may be good people looking for a better life, others carry disease, are criminals or drug or child traffickers. The negative effects of illegals on cities and states is enormous, and the number of drug deaths has climbed.

Further, these illegal “residents” may eventually be given citizen status by the Democrat administration, without earning it, as in the past. This is both foolish and dangerous.

The ideas of Democrats/liberals/socialists are unable to win among all Americans on their merit. So, they want to gain control over the rest of us, and will do nearly anything to gain that position, and fundamental transformation is their number one tool.

And in the pure democracy into which they want to transform America, on a vote to end all fossil fuel uses, ban guns, limit free speech, have abortion after birth, or any wild idea, all it will take is a 50 percent-plus-one vote to accomplish that, or a Supreme Court with “law makers” instead of “law interpreters.”

Our Founders would be proud of the Court’s recent decisions

July 4, 2023

The U.S Supreme Court did its job quite well last week. In three notable cases, the Court did exactly what it was designed to do: it ruled according to the language and the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

In the case ending affirmative action in higher education, it ruled that affirmative action, the measure which for decades was used to end discrimination, was itself discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional.

In the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis a graphic designer refused to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple, due to her religious beliefs. However, her refusal was in breach of Colorado’s discrimination law. But the Court upheld the designer’s free speech rights and religious beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

And in the case where President Joe Biden tried to make the taxpayers bailout people with outstanding student loan debt through an Executive Order, thereby bypassing Congress, the Court again properly ruled that the president of the United States does not have the Constitutional authority to do that. 

Interestingly, some years ago, before he was President, Biden publicly said that the action he later took was not Constitutional. That sentiment was also expressed by Nancy Pelosi, when she was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2021.

And, predictably, the liberal’s reaction to these rulings is both strong and off the mark. Some of them probably do understand why the Court, doing the right thing, ruled as it did. Others are going to complain, despite that reality.

Contrary to the idea that many people have, the Supreme Court’s job is not to make Biden or Trump, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, or any group happy with its rulings. 

Its job is not to make decisions that are politically based, or to reinterpret the Constitution or laws to make a ruling that is more likeable or pleasing to anyone. Its job is to correctly interpret the Constitution and the laws of the country.

And that is what the justices who are judicial conservatives did. And the liberal justices opposed them with their votes, which also opposed the meaning of the Constitution.

While Biden’s attempt on the student loan bailout would have made thousands of people very happy, allowing that to happen would be allowing the President to exercise powers that are reserved for the Congress. Fortunately, the proper understanding of the Constitution’s tripartite federal government held by the judicial conservatives on the Court, led to the correct ruling in the case.

A very timely and effective look at the difference between judicial conservatism and judicial liberalism occurred in the opposing positions on the affirmative action ruling. And the two sides are represented by black/African-American Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Jackson is the newest member of the Court, taking her seat this year. When asked during her confirmation hearing by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to define the word "woman," she replied, “I can’t.” Shortly after that, she added, “not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”

And her dissent on the affirmative action ruling said this: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that [the University of North Carolina] and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

“No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes things worse, not better,” she continued.

Thomas, on the other hand, took a vastly different view in his concurring opinion. “The solution to our Nation’s racial problems thus cannot come from policies grounded in affirmative action or some other conception of equity,” he wrote. “Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism. Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated in our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to our race. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors.”

Jackson’s argument focuses not on the constitutionality of the discrimination favoring one race over others, which was the question before the Court. Her argument focuses on her concept of racism and whether or not it is important.

This is a common mis-focus of the liberal justices: social justice, not justice by law. They argue for social justice, even if in doing so the principles of the Constitution are ignored or trampled on.

Our founders created a brilliant Constitution, and made a special point of guaranteeing certain rights, without which rights a free nation cannot exist. We must always honor those guarantees, even if doing that is inconvenient for some of us.

What is wrong with America? The Left wants to dramatically change it!

October 25, 2022

Those among us who grew up when people learned about their country’s real history, agreed with its sensible principles, and appreciated its fundamental freedoms are very uncomfortable today. 

We watch as our traditions are being ignored or actively discarded, resulting in deconstructing what is generally regarded as the most free and successful form of government yet designed.

Mark Levin is a lawyer, former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and a conservative author, broadcaster and commentator. He discussed many things that are wrong with America today in a speech recently. 

“We don’t want to change the Constitution. We want to uphold the Constitution. They’re changing the Constitution. These people don’t even believe in the Constitution. 

“They don’t even believe in American history. They’ve destroyed Madison’s home. They’ve destroyed Jefferson’s home.

“They’re destroying our colleges and universities. They’re destroying our public schools. They’ve destroyed the southern border. They’re destroying our currency and our economy. They’re destroying our military; they’ve destroyed police forces across the country.

“We don’t need lectures from them about us destroying anything. We are the ones that want to uplift this country and believe in this country.”

“They” are the political Left. The Left is responsible for most of our current problems.

Our federal government as it was designed is virtually unrecognizable today. Under federalism, the system upon which the United States of America was formed, there is a balance between the federal government and the states. The federal government has certain authority given to it by the U.S. Constitution, and states have authority in areas not given to the federal government. The result was a limited federal government.

But the federal government has grown well beyond its intended size and scope. And the result is a gargantuan bureaucracy that costs a fortune to operate, and has produced bountiful regulations that so often interfere with the freedom our system was designed to insure.

Why should the federal government be telling people in the states what they can or cannot do with their property? Why should the federal government have any authority over how states and localities educate their children? Why should the federal government, control what businesses across the country pay their employees?

Why do elected officials continue to grow the size and influence of the federal government, increasing the need for higher taxes, and encroaching on the personal freedom of their constituents? Why is the Department of Justice paying any attention to parents in local school districts who attended board of education meetings to object to what is going on in their schools, and labeling them “domestic terrorists” for wanting to protect their children, which is their primary duty?

And why is one group of non-violent people facing large teams of armed federal agents confronting them to arrest them for non-violent crimes, while other groups are peacefully arrested for the same sort of crimes?

The political Left has a very different outlook on life in America. Since excellence in so many things is so critically important, why do they think it is better that good jobs or rewards be delivered to all ethnicities and genders equally, rather than all people having an equal chance to earn these things through performance and merit?

Since the best way to make good decisions is to be aware of the different possibilities that exist, why are ideas that liberals do not agree with being censored from being read or heard to the benefit of everyone? Why promote the ending of an unwanted pregnancy up to, and even beyond the minute of birth, rather than encouraging and assisting in the prevention of pregnancy, or suggesting adoption of the baby? 

Why do those in positions of authority in education or who teach in our public schools think it is okay to diverge from the approved curriculum and/or covertly insert controversial and often-dangerous social concepts into classwork?

Why is it suddenly necessary to change things that have worked to our benefit as a country for more than two centuries by trying to do things like packing or doing away with the Supreme Court, eliminating the Senate filibuster, or eliminating the Electoral College? Why do Democrats in the federal government not insist on a secure southern border that is able to prevent deadly drugs, child and sex traffickers, criminals and other illegal aliens from coming into the country so easily?

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden, who ended America’s energy dominance, now uses our Strategic Petroleum Reserve — which is intended to be used to provide fuel during real emergencies, not to lower Biden’s price increases by a few cents for a few days — to attract voters to Democrats in the mid-term election two weeks from now.

If America does not very soon reject these subversive efforts and return to the tried and true traditional values upon which it was established, it will be only a relatively short time before we will be kneeling to and obeying the Communist Chinese, or a cabal of Chinese, Russians, Iranians and North Koreans, all of whom are working hard to take us down.

Democrats are upset by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

“Conservative” justices are not political conservatives. They are Constitutional conservatives, originalists. The conservative view of the Constitution is that it means today and forever what it meant to the Framers when they wrote the Constitution.

Liberal/activist justices do not view the Constitution the same way as the originalists. They see the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with time and our culture.

This essentially means that we don’t really have a Constitution if its meaning can be determined differently at any time, depending upon the views of nine unelected justices.

The late and brilliant Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had it right: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

If the principles of the Constitution should ever turn out to be wrong, or hurtful, it can be changed through a process of amending it. But it should not — must not — be ignored or changed with the fickle winds of social “needs” or “wants.” The faithful allegiance of the conservatives/originalists is the great obstacle the left cannot conquer.

What so many do not understand, or prefer to ignore, is that what the Supreme Court did regarding Roe v. Wade was merely to undo a previous wrong action by the Court. It did not deny women a Constitutional right. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to due process are among those specifically mentioned in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. But the word “abortion” does not appear in the document, and stretching the meaning of privacy to include abortion was a gross error 49 years ago.

The Court’s action simply returned the decision about if there can be legal abortions and what the rules are regarding abortion to the states, where it belongs.

The concept of federalism, upon which the United States of America is based, holds that the states have certain authority over how they do things, and are not always at the mercy of the federal government. Laws on abortion, if there are such laws, belong in the states, not the federal government.

The radicals among the Democrats and liberals are ready to totally rebuild the United States so that their un-American ideas can become the norm.

They want to do crazy things to shove their ideas down the throats of every American. Such things as:

* Packing the Supreme Court with activist/liberal justices so that they can push their ideas through the legal system 

* Getting rid of the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority so that their majority can easily have its way 

* Making the District of Columbia and/or Puerto Rico a state, so that they will have additional electoral power; 

* And even trashing the Electoral College, which protects the smaller and less populated states against the tyranny of a few states with large populations

These are some of their radical solutions to their inability to convince a majority of Americans to support those ideas.

Two recent decisions by the Court last Thursday provided fodder for more Court criticizing, one on the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the other on the EPA’s actions.

The latter focuses on the fundamental structure of our government as established in the Constitution. That structure established three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each one has its specific function, and the Constitution imposes a separation of powers, meaning that each branch must not stray into the given area of another branch.

The legislative branch makes the nation’s laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce or carry out those laws. The judicial branch has the power to apply and interpret the laws.

In recent decades the departments of the executive branch have taken on power, making rules with the power of law. But laws are to be made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The EPA ruling puts the brakes on the executive branch’s straying into the legislative branch’s area.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent from the majority opinion, paints a picture of environmental catastrophe if the EPA is not allowed to continue its growing control of things that produce pollution.

Accusing the conservative/originalist justices of making themselves the "decision maker on climate policy," she wrote, "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."

Well of course not. The justices are not supposed to know about climate change, or any other such topic. They are supposed to know about and rule on laws and the Constitution.

How wonderful and helpful it would be if people would understand that our government is never going to do only those things that everyone agrees on, because there is little or nothing that everyone agrees on. The government is charged to do things that benefit the people as a whole, not any specific segment.

How nice it would be if we all understood what a wonderful, if imperfect, place America is, and how fortunate we all are to be able to live here.

Will the United States Supreme Court correct a previous error?

 

May 10, 2022

The United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that may reverse Roe v. Wade, which the History website explains “was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

The History website also explains that “In May 2022, the nation's highest court agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, regarding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case presents a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”

The news broke when a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to and published by Politico. This draft opinion, secretly and wrongly provided by someone associated with the Court, has started two huge reactions. 

One reaction is outrage that the decision beloved by abortion supporters may be reversed. The other is disgust and anger that the leak has damaged the integrity of the Court as never before in its history, and that it was done by someone on the inside.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

He also wrote that while defenders of Roe point to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to justify the decision, they are mistaken, CNN reported.

“In the draft, Alito batted away arguments that other provisions of the Constitution dealing with privacy or liberty might be relied upon to uphold a right to an abortion,” the network’s story continued.

“That's because, according to Alito, while the Due Process Clause might guarantee some rights that aren't mentioned explicitly in [the] Constitution, such rights have to be ‘deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. The right to abortion does not fall within this category,’ he said.”

Alito went on to say that Roe was "egregiously wrong" from the start and its reasoning is "exceptionally weak," CNN reported.

His conclusion was that the issue must be decided by the states, not the Supreme Court. "That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand," he wrote. "Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated," he added.

Paul Stark, writing for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (mccl.org) on Jan 20, 2017, provided three reasons why Roe was an improper ruling.

“First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. ‘Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,’ explains a leading embryology textbook. ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’"

“The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the ‘right of privacy’ found in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is ‘broad enough to encompass’ a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that's true.”

“Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.”

A National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) factsheet estimates that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, "18 states would protect unborn children immediately." This is due to laws implemented prior to the Roe ruling, or “trigger” laws that would go into effect upon Roe’s reversal, or both.

The NRLC also estimates that action to “allow abortion either through legislatively-enacted statute or a court ruling interpreting the state constitution to convey the right to abortion” would occur in 23 states. 

The leaked document predictably has liberals and conservatives blaming each other. PBS online said, “Republican members of Congress are suggesting a sinister left-wing plot to derail the outcome of the final decision. Liberals are alleging machinations from the right to lock the justices into their preliminary vote.”

Regardless of who leaked the opinion and why, this is a serious problem for the Court, which has been immune to such scurrilous behavior, thus far.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the act “absolutely appalling.” Appearing at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta, Roberts said he hoped “one bad apple” would not affect “people’s perception” of the Court, adding that “the person” or “people” who leaked the document are “foolish” if they think it will affect the courts work.

Put abortion in the hands of the states, and punish the leaker accordingly.

Politics control the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee brings to the fore several issues. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2021. Prior to that, she was a district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014.

She is expected to be confirmed by the Democrat majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate, maintaining the current liberal and conservative numbers on the Court.

She has been criticized for her record of letting sex offenders off with sentences well below the recommendations of prosecutors and sentencing guidelines. She defended her actions in the confirmation hearing. That prompted Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall to comment that such actions raise concerns about her being soft on crime. 

She refused to answer the simple question from Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, of what is the definition of the word “woman?” Jackson said that she could not define the term. “You can’t,” Blackburn asked? “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. 

The same Democrats who so enthusiastically defend this African American woman’s nomination opposed another African American woman nominee several years ago.

Jackson refused to condemn the radical idea of packing the Court to establish an ideological or political majority. Some Supreme Court Justices and other officials have condemned this as dangerous to the ideal of justice, because of the political influence it would inject into judicial matters.

She has embraced radical philosophies, like critical race theory. She was asked about it by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX: “Do you think that’s an accurate way of viewing society and the world we live in?”

“Senator, I don’t think so, but I’ve never studied critical race theory, and I’ve never used it,” Jackson responded.

Cruz then said, “you gave a speech in April of 2015 at the University of Chicago in which you described the job you do as a judge.” Cruz then quoted part of her speech: “Sentencing is just plain interesting … because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, of course … constitutional law, critical race theory.”

Among those issues is also the controversial one of judicial philosophy, which appears to be a factor in some of the issues noted previously. Jackson appears to be an activist judge, not an originalist. Judicial activism is a dangerous thing for the law and for America.

What is judicial activism? “Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and instead decide cases to advance their preferred policies,” according to the Britannica website.

The other side of that is the conservative, or originalist, philosophy. Originalism holds that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written and passed. If there are good reasons to change some things, it must be done through amendments, not by the actions of judges.

The 11th Chief Justice of the United States, from 1930 to 1941, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, offered the idea that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

This statement is absurd on its face. If words mean only what the reader thinks they mean, or what he or she wants them to mean, the world would turn upside-down.

The Framers of the Constitution carefully wrote that document to address important concepts. They are broad principles. They were not written based upon the minute details of that time, but intended to last into the future. 

If the originalist interpretation leads to unpopular or undesirable things, then the Constitution can be properly amended, but not subjected to the whims of a judge, or a majority of five or more of the nine unelected justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this question in a 1996 speech. “The Constitution means not what the Court says it does but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratification conventions understood it to mean ... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution.”

Despite the fact that Judge Jackson’s supporters condemn how she was questioned, the questions were perfectly acceptable, and many even necessary in a confirmation hearing for such an important post. 

Further, when compared to the horrid and disgraceful treatment by Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Jackson is getting respectful treatment.

And Justice Thomas was also treated contemptibly during his confirmation hearing. Part of his response to his disgusting treatment was, “it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves…”

We need justices and judges on the federal bench who understand and respect the broad and sensible principles stated in the Constitution and will adhere to them, rather than supplant them with personal or political ideals. Judge Jackson falls short of this standard.

However, in today’s highly political atmosphere, such ideals will not carry the day.

Biden’s reasoning for who to appoint to the Supreme Court is flawed

So, President Joe Biden gets to pick a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on the campaign trail he pledged to choose a black woman for the position. Why? Because, he said, it’s time.

If there is any good news in this situation, it is that with 99.9 percent certainty his selection, if approved, will not affect the balance on the Court. 

Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the Court, will almost certainly result in the nomination of a liberal/progressive, keeping the activist — “make law from the bench” — number at three, against six who usually follow the strict constructionist or original intent philosophy when interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.

America was once a nation where one earned his or her place on a court bench, in a hall of fame, or at the top of a rating or activity through merit. We are now, more and more, selecting people based not upon their abilities and accomplishments, but on their race or gender. This system is referred to as “equity.” It is more about evening out numbers than seeking out the best.

And there is the possibility that the person Biden nominates may feel that she got the nod only because of her race and gender, not because of her positive attributes.

If we are going to start picking justices for the Court based upon these new criteria, when will the time be for a Hispanic male, an Asian man or woman, or a transgender person? And who will decide when the time is right?

Many or most times — and filling this Supreme Court vacancy is one of those times — the proper choice is the most qualified person. That may well be a black woman. But it might be someone else.  And, if no others are even considered, how can we the people be sure that we are going to have the best possible person nominated for this crucial position?

Every Justice on the Court should be someone trained in the law, who understands and is devoted to the task of upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land as written and intended. There are already three on the Court who try to make law from the bench.

The nominee should be someone who has held a judgeship long enough to be familiar with the job, and without regard to their race, gender, political preferences, or the wishes of the woke.

Hopefully, Biden will nominate a black woman with abilities and qualifications equal to Clarence Thomas — who is a black man and one of the greatest Justices of any color, ever — and others seated on the Court.

From SCOTUSblog.com, which has covered the U.S. Supreme Court since 2002, here is some information on potential nominees: “Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

“Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process,” the blog continues. “Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals.”

The report goes on to say that “The president’s bottom-line calculus may reduce to the following. Jackson was recently confirmed by the Senate, making a Supreme Court confirmation process likely to go smoothly. Kruger has never faced Senate confirmation.”

That distinction matters, because if Democrats lose control of the Senate later this year, that would be important if hearings on the president’s nominee were substantially delayed until after the election, or if the first nominee is rejected. A candidate that has cleared the Senate previously would likely speed the process.

Several other names have also been mentioned for the position.

And exactly when did Biden catch the fever for choosing justices based upon the race and/or gender?

His disapproval and opposition to current Justice Thomas in his 1991 nomination hearing gathered headlines. As the then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Biden actually tried to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

“I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety,” Biden said after Thomas’ opening statement. “And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would’ — not could, would — 'strike down laws restricting property rights.’”

Thomas responded by denying what Biden accused him of, but Biden didn't buy it. “Quite frankly, Biden said, “I find it hard to square your speeches with what you are telling me today.”

So, while opposing a well-qualified black man 40 years ago, who despite Biden’s opposition was confirmed, he now believes a black woman should be the next associate justice because “it is time.” 

Time will tell whether Biden intends to nominate the next potential justice for the best reasons, as polls show Americans want. But given his support for the radical left’s agenda, we should not hold our breath.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has passed away: What happens now?

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away last week at the age of 87 from cancer. She is receiving much praise for her life’s work. Ginsberg was the second woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, being appointed by President Bill Clinton and taking her seat in 1993. The first woman to serve on the Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, starting in 1981.

Among the many praises of Ginsberg’s life and work was this one from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg selflessly pursued truth and justice in a world of division, giving voice to the voiceless and uplifting those who were pushed aside by forces of hate and indifference,” he said. Cuomo said that New York will erect a statue honoring the legacy of Justice Ginsberg in her native Brooklyn. 

Her passing resulted in much sadness and regret, and it has also brought forth a hot political issue: How and when to fill her seat on the Court?

Democrats say President Donald Trump must not nominate anyone. They are horrified at the prospect of the President doing so this close to the election. 

Some Republicans also think an appointment should wait until after the election. However, with millions more mass-mailed ballots in this election, the results may not be known for several days, a few weeks or even months. With this possibility, we need a full, nine-member Supreme Court to address potential issues.

Many people have expressed their opinions about this situation. One of them is Mark Levin, attorney, author and chairman of Landmark Legal Foundation, who had this to say: “I can think of no president who has chosen not to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs, regardless of when that vacancy occurs. Whether the Senate confirms or not is a wholly separate issue. But for a Republican president not to try to fill a vacancy with a Republican Senate (despite some weakness among certain senators) is irrational. The Democrats have not and would never do such a thing.”

What PJ Media reported may also carry some weight: “When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it.”

“That’s their job,” Ginsberg said in July, 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.” And, a few months later she said, “Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her at the time, agreed: “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“The Republican position on filling vacancies arising during a presidential election year has been consistent and follows historical norms,” wrote judicialnetwork.com. The record is as follows:

* “When the same party controls the White House and the Senate (e.g., now), the confirmation process proceeds as usual and the nominee is almost always confirmed. A new justice has been confirmed 8 out of 10 times this has happened.”

* “When different parties control the White House and the Senate (e.g., in 2016) the confirmation process either does not proceed or proceeds and the nomination usually fails. In the handful of instances when such nominations proceeded (excluding one case in which there was a recess appointment), they failed 4 out of 6 times.”

Some accuse the Republicans of trying to rush the process. However, other confirmations have been completed in a short time frame.

“According to Senate records,” The Federalist reports, “Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all confirmed in a short period of time. Stevens’s confirmation in 1975 took 19 days, O’Connor’s confirmation in 1981 took 33 days, and Ginsburg’s confirmation in 1993 took 42 days.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Ga., offered additional information. “The two biggest changes regarding the Senate and judicial confirmations that have occurred in the last decade have come from Democrats. Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees, dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open.”

And, each side has produced comments from members of the other side that contradict their current positions. Fox News “Media Buzz” host Howard Kurtz noted that politicians do exhibit “flexibility” from time to time.

However, there are activist justices on federal courts, including the late Justice Ginsburg, who insert their personal or political beliefs into their work. They view the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with the winds of cultural evolution or personal preference, instead of applying the Constitution’s original meaning. That destroys a stable judicial system. Justices and judges must apply the law, not make law.

If removing President Donald Trump from office was a legitimate effort to protect the country, then stabilizing the judicial system with judges who honor the Constitution and laws as they are written, and not as they wish they were written, certainly is, also.

Red flag laws; Democrats threaten to restructure the Supreme Court

Who among us is not disgusted with senseless mass murders? People demand that something be done to solve this horrible problem. Proposed solutions include weapons and accessories bans, universal background checks, and red flag laws.

Clearly, some people should not have access to guns: the mentally ill, those addicted to drugs or alcohol, people with a history of violence, or those who have displayed suicidal tendencies, etc. Identifying these people is often difficult.

Shortening its summer recess so that it can meet on Sept. 4 to address these tragedies through legislation, the House Judiciary Committee will look at bills addressing high-capacity magazine bans, preventing people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from purchasing firearms, and a red flag law to deny firearms to those deemed to be a danger to themselves and/or others.

The New York Times explains that red flag laws “are state laws that authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order, allowing the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from people who are deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others.”

Requests for confiscation may come from persons who have legitimate concerns about an individual, such as suicidal tendencies or comments about violence, or actual threats. Authorities may also request such an order.

The key factor in gun violence is the desire to harm or kill people. But keeping guns away from those likely to misuse them may be the most sensible and successful approach to ending or reducing mass shootings. 

These laws must be written and enforced to protect not only the public from potentially violent individuals, but also to protect the Constitutional rights of all individuals.

Without laws that are properly written and executed, all that might be necessary to have police show up at someone’s home, demand or force entry, and confiscate legally owned weapons is an allegation that sounds legitimate to the judge in a red flag action.

Baseless, vindictive allegations of potential violence are an all-too-real possibility. The U.S. Constitution guarantees each of us the right of due process in such cases. Any legal procedure in which allegations are made against an individual must allow the individual to have legal counsel and to be presented with and counter the allegations.

The Indiana red flag law carries protections for citizens concerned about any limitation on their Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Other state laws may or may not provide these protections. However, every red flag law must protect these rights.

And there must be a significant punishment for fraudulent or baseless referrals for red flag actions. 

*****

Democrats, liberals, socialists – or whatever term may be used to identify today’s radical leftists – are set on changing nearly everything that makes the United States of America the special nation that it is.

Granted, the USA is not perfect. But it also does not require dramatic changes. 

A fairly recent target of the left is the U.S Supreme Court. Since the appointment and approval of two new justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the Court now has an originalist/conservative majority, and that does not sit well with those on the left.

Originalists view the Constitution through its original language and support the principles it emphasized when it was written. This is a significant obstacle to the fundamental transformation of the country the left has in mind.

Five U.S. Senators have expressed their dissatisfaction with certain rulings with which they disagree. They are Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. They feel the High Court suffers from an affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” according to a legal brief produced by the five senators, as reported by Fox News. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

This not-so-veiled threat assumes that a sufficient outcry of agreement with the senators’ opinion is all that is needed for the U.S. Senate to “restructure” a federal body that is not subservient to the Senate, or even to the whole of the Congress.  The Judicial Branch is co-equal with the Executive and Legislative branches. The senators also mistakenly suggest that their misadventure is something other than “politics” itself.

The essence of the message is that unless the Court makes decisions more politically suitable to these senators and those who think like they do, rather than decisions based upon the laws and/or the Constitution, the senators will somehow act to structure the Court with more liberal justices and fewer originalists.

The Founders provided proper methods for making changes to the federal government, to the Constitution and laws. Loading courts with liberal judges who will make the “right” decisions, such as threatened by the five senators, is not one of them.

*****

Correction: Last week’s column contained a quote attributed to Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. The quote was found in two different sources, but turned out to be a false attribution; she did not say what the quote attributed to her. I regret the error.