Has This Occurred To Anyone?

The fact that the libtards are trying their damnedest to bless the country and jurisprudence for years to come (not!) with a third Obama Supreme Court appointment, and conservatives are trying their best to prevent it should tell us just how far off track we really are.

supreme courtScalia believed that the Constitution was “dead, dead, dead”. He was a strict constitutionalist (hat-tip The Blaze), and argued that the Constitution was not a living document and must be read exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote it. He was an originalist. Justice Scalia also stated that his legal decisions do not always align with his political views.

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.”

In other words judges should remain committed to the meaning of the law and setting aside politics must be done for correct legal interpretation. Democratic presidents always select Supreme Court nominees based on who will uphold their political beliefs and ideology and the right does pretty much the same although the right’s ideology used to be anyway, more centered on the rule of law and what the Constitution had intended at the time it was written.

“Unless you give [the laws] the meaning of those who enacted them, you’re destroying democracy.”

So how do we know the original intent of the words in the Constitution? We look to the original sources of the day.

  1.   The records and writings of the debates at the Constitutional Convention
  2.   The records and writings of the debates in the various state ratifying conventions
  3.   The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton & John Jay under the pen name, Publius). The Federalist Papers explained the Constitution to the people who were to ratify it.
  4.   Dictionaries of the time
  5.   Private correspondence between key leaders during the time the Constitution was written.

A catalogue of many of the original documents for each section of the Constitution can be found at The Founder’s Constitution. It’s very interesting if you’re into that sort of thing.

The claim that President Obama’s judicial nominees are being held up, or that they have been opposed for racial reasons (if I had a nickel for every time they played the race card!), simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. From National Review. The U.S. Senate has confirmed 321 individuals nominated to the federal bench during Obama’s presidency: 264 district court judges, 55 appeals-court judges, and two Supreme Court justices. That represents more than one-third of the entire federal judiciary.

As far as the Senate’s obligation, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution does not obligate the Senate to give the president its “Advice and Consent.” It says the president has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is up to the President and supporters to convince the Senate to consent to his nominees.

By the way, one of the items for likely discussion during an Article V Convention of States would be term limits for Congress and all federal officers of the court. I say no more life-time appointments to anything!

Aloha, Mikie ~just a blogger (fightin’ like a girl)

~Psst, tired of politics? Check out Travel in the Categories drop down menu (right side panel) for my blogs posted from interesting locations during my travel adventures.

Advertisements

One Response to Has This Occurred To Anyone?

  1. Sandy says:

    Hi Mikie,

    I called the Senators on your list to thank them for stopping another Obama appointment. I used your info about him already appointing one third of Federal Judges.

%d bloggers like this: