With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, everything politically and economically changes.
This powerful intellectual defender of the Constitution was the leading voice and vote for freedoms of speech and religion under the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and many more. President Ronald Reagan specifically appointed this libertarian/conservative leading judge, whose influence endured for 30 years.
A strict constructionist who opposed judicial activism (legislating from the bench), his voice, his vote, his understanding of the Constitution must be replaced with someone like him. Here are five things you should know:
1. This election is about the Supreme Court.
A liberal/progressive President could lead to a like-minded a judicial tyranny that stomps out our First and Second Amendment Rights, the erosion of free enterprise and so much more. It would harm a generation of Americans, and lead to the further decline of the United States.
2. The Candidates.
The following Presidential candidates have outlined who the next Supreme Court Justice should be:
- Bush, Kasich, and Trump: no principled litmus test. Bush has even stated that he does not care about this next appointment.
- Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have liberal litmus tests, and want President Obama to appoint the next Justice.
- Cruz: The next Justice must be a strict constructionist: pro-life, pro liberty, pro-Second Amendment, etc.
- Rubio and Carson have not provided specifics on whether they would apply litmus tests to future appointees.
3. The next President should appoint Scalia’s replacement, not Barack Obama.
A third appointee from Barack Obama would give the court majority voting bloc a disturbing, liberal edge, and further erode our rights and liberties under the Constitution for 10, 20, maybe 30 years.
4. Judicial Activism Must End.
The fight over the next Supreme Court nominee proves once again that the Judicial Branch of the federal government has taken on too much power.
5. Justice Scalia’s untimely death will dramatically change current Supreme Court decisions. These winnable cases are probably lost for now without Scalia’s powerful tie-breaking vote, since the current court is divided with 4 liberal judicial activists against 4 normal strict constructionists.
Unless the court sets aside the cases, here is what might happen:
- Friedrichs v. CA: The five strict constructionists would have struck down forced union dues fromnon-union employees, thus crippling labor unions and their political power.
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Can race be used as a factor in college admissions? Thiscase could further reduce affirmative action in university enrollment.
- Zubik v. Burwell: Does a religious organization have to provide contraceptive health care to employees in the company’s insurance coverage?
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: This pro-life/abortion case challenges a recent Texas ordinance which would limit the number of abortion clinics, based on protecting women’s health.
Now more than ever, Americans need to get out to the polls. They are not just voting on the next President, but also the composition of the Supreme Court for the next generation.
What do you think? Email me at email@example.com