Tuesday, June 28, 2016

SCOTUS Is a Life Sentence

Photo credit: http://militantlibertarian.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/judicial-activism.jpg
It is inconceivable that out of 324+ million people in the US, the lesser of two evil potential nominees for president are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and one of them will be appointing justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Consider the SCOTUS stance on basic human health and safety standards at abortion clinics around the country as placing "undue" burden on women, then consider them upholding the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare and the 70K pages of undue burden placed on the American people.

What's good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander when half of the justices shred the US Constitution when it serves them politically. For non-political entities, they sure do sit and wriggle in it.

Still, it is clear that judicial activism is alive and well in the US, which means that everyone who dislikes Trump, including myself, should make very careful consideration before taking the #NeverTrump stance if he becomes our nominee. Perhaps voting for someone who might lean pro-choice but appoints pro-life justices, isn't such a bad stance after all.

People are claiming that Hillary will be made immobile with a Republican Congress, but that is a total fallacy. Who is it that has given Obama nearly everything he wanted over the past three plus years? Our Republican-held House and Senate certainly haven't stopped him, even with a change in power at the top, removing crybaby Boehner for wussy Ryan.  It is a false sense of security to believe that Republicans will not approve a Clinton nomination or two, which would prove utterly disastrous.

Other people are claiming they'll just invoke Article V and call a Convention of States to undo everything that Obama or Hillary does, however they are putting their faith into a never yet used procedure. Article V merely provides false hope and still requires Congress to "call" the convention as well as decide who are selected as delegates.

The problem with invoking this option is that a convention would not serve just conservative amendment ideology, but also loony liberal ideology, as they show up in droves to contribute their own socialist amendments. A Convention of States is not an exclusive event designed solely for conservatives to rid themselves of everything they don't like.

Though Congress can set strict instructions, once convened it is purely on the honor system. Oh, and who resolves questions? The very Congress or Supreme Court for which the Convention is being called to deal with. For this very reason, now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia said that calling a Convention of States would be a terrible idea. Frankly, I'm with him on this one.

As we watch the SCOTUS sway in the liberal gas-bag winds, it is incumbent upon us to make a calculated decision at the polls in November.

Which evil will be the lesser of the two? That answer is fairly clear.  A president is only four to eight, but SCOTUS is a life sentence.