Originalism’s Charade | David Cole

The Supreme Court’s decision in June 2022 to overrule Roe v. Wade and erase the constitutional right to abortion was the culmination of a

Over the past 2 years we’ve been told that losing and calling into question the results is a threat to democracy. Thank goodness it is a threat to democracy because I don’t live in a democracy. I live in a representative republic.

Of all of the things that a president does, I believe that the most important is appointing judges. Most importantly appointing judges to the Supreme Court. The people that sit on the bench make decisions that affect us all for years, maybe decades, after a president leaves office.

A good choice moves things in the correct direction, a bad choice moves things in the wrong direction.

For the left, the job of a justice is to look at society and make judgements to modify existing law to better match what is best for society or which “most” of society wants. For the right the job of a justice is to follow the law as written.

We call judges making rulings from the bench to overturn laws to fit society “legislating from the bench.” If congress passes a law that says that federal highway funds can not go to a state with any speed limit in excess of 55 MPH that is very likely within their constitutional powers. The power to tax and the power to budget are defined in the Constitution.

The President ordering that Customer And Border Patrol follow the law and apprehend people crossing the border anywhere it is not a port of entry is well within the constitutional powers granted to the President.

We, the people, granted certain powers to the federal government. Those that we did not grant to the federal government are retained by us or the states.

Laws are created in a very well defined way. A bill is created, it is voted on by a chamber, if it passes it goes to the other chamber where it is voted on, if it passes both houses it is sent to the President for him to sign or veto.

But any federal judge can place an injunction on any law extending over the entire country. We saw this with multiple executive orders under Trump and even some laws that were signed by him.

In this case, one man, unelected, gets to decide on what is or is not allowed. One man can look at an amendment to the state constitution and declare that the amendment is unconstitutional by the state constitution.

I really wish we could do that one. “Oh look, they passed an amendment restriction gun ownership to people in the militia which is the federal military. But it is unconstitutional because of the 2nd.” That is not how the amendment process works. If they were ever to pass an amendment affecting the right to keep and bear arms you can be darn sure that anything to do with the 2nd would not be allowed.

So the left lost the Supreme court. Trump managed to get three judges on to the court wich moved the court from the “living constitution” methodology to the “originalist” methodology. As the court has stated, the people had their say in regards to the constitution, when they ratified the original constitution and when they ratified every amendment to the constitution. The people spoke.

Leftist don’t get to say “well we want a do over! Things changed!” THey scream this, but that’s not how it works.

So they are attacking the court has hard as the can. I’m seeing as many as 20 articles a week denouncing the supreme court. People that had no issues with a court decision that split along party lines for the left now have weeping jags and whine that the court isn’t fair when it splits along party lines for the constitution.

Is the Supreme Court turning the Constitution into a homicide pact?

There is no logical, sensible or moral reason to confine today’s gun laws to the provisions favored by 19th century property owners.

Congress should nip the independent state legislature theory in the bud

The ISL idea is a two-edged sword that could come back to smite the GOP, while further poisoning politics in America.

Editorial: Supreme Court justices are not immune from oversight

As the Supreme Court faces a crisis of credibility, another blow has landed in the form of former anti-abortion evangelical leader the Rev. Rob Schenck’s allegations about the leak of a pivotal decision eight years ago. The detail that’s most captured the attention of lawmakers and the public is the…

An Unequal Liberty

Liberty does not have to mean what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

Opinion: Bombshell report deals another blow to the Supreme Court’s reputation | CNN

A report about anti-abortion groups allegedly gaining access to the Supreme Court will test if the justices have to care about the court’s legitimacy after all, writes law professor Mary Ziegler.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faces calls to recuse herself from LGBTQ case over Christian faith

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Christian faith and alleged ties to the group People of Praise are again called into question before the Supreme Court is set to hear an LGBTQ-related case.

With conservative Supreme Court, religion always wins

The rule is steadily becoming more apparent – religion always wins – but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.