CHALLENGE
THE PREMISE

Newsmakers

ARCHIVE - FEBRUARY 2017

Issues, News & Views


NEIL GORSUCH
JOINS SCOTUS




Gorsuch
Sworn In
April 10, 2017




A Tremendous Day for
sound jurisprudence and
our Constitution!



Watch the swearing-in and
savor the prospect of a
Supreme Court Justice
who will defend our
Constitution:




Below is our rating of
Supreme Court justices
based upon judgement of
their fidelity to the
Constitution:


As the chart illustrates,
there are too many rogue
justices on the Supreme
Court. These appointed,
life-term judges take it
upon themselves to
arbitrarily unilaterally and
autocratically over-rule the
will of the people. They are
the equivalent of tyrants.

It is crucial to our
Democracy to fill all open
seats on all Courts, as
they arise, with true-to-
the-law judges. With
originalist, textualist
judges who apply the law
as passed by the
representatives of the
people.

It is NOT the role of judges
to over-rule laws they just
happen to dislike. As
Gorsuch said at the
ceremony:

"A judge who likes every
outcome he reaches is
very likely a bad judge..."



Gorsuch
Confirmed
April 07, 2017






A Supreme Court seat
opened with the passing of
Antonin Scalia just months
before the 2016 election.

President Obama
nominated Merrick Garland
as a replacement, but
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
blocked the nomination,
claiming that the voters
should decide.

Elections have
consequences. Democrats
were certain they would
hold the White House and
regain the Senate in 2016,
thereby giving them full
control of the nomination
process.

But the GOP held the
Senate, and won the
White House, against
all predictions.
Republicans campaigned
on the Supreme Court
issue, and won.

And that's why Democrats
lost the Supreme Court
nomination: because they
didn't win the election. The
people spoke. As it should
be.



Gorsuch
Nominated
January 31, 2017




President Trump has
nominated Neil Gorsuch to
the United States Supreme
Court. View the
proceedings at the White
House:


As the President so
appropriately remarked at
the nomination ceremony:

"I have always felt that
after the defense of our
nation, the most important
decision a president of the
United States can make is
the appointment of a
Supreme Court justice.
Depending on their age, a
justice can be active for 50
years and his or her
decisions can last a
century or more and can
often be permanent."


We anticipate that Neil
Gorsuch will be an
outstanding Supreme
Court Justice, just like
Antonin Scalia, the great
man he will replace.

Neil Gorsuch: a judge who
understands both what a
judge's role is; and what a
judge's role is not.

WHY NEIL GORSUCH IS SUCH AN EXCELLENT SCOTUS NOMINATION

2017/02/06 - Why does the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court mean so much to so many people? Indeed, in his acceptance remarks he hinted at his judicial approach and the wars to come, hints that probably flew over the heads of many casual viewers, comments that seemed so "Captain Obvious", so axiomatic that they needed not to be said. A waste of space, almost.

I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order, it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives.

Those comments seem so benign you might be tempted to respond facetiously, something like, "No way, really? Since when?" It’s almost like those "everyone knows that" series of GEICO commercials that recently made the rounds.

And in fact everyone does know that. From our early school days we are taught that our system of government, with its checks and balances, was specifically designed to separate the powers of government. The founding fathers were taking every precaution necessary to avoid the despotic tyranny, the arbitrary authoritarianism of King George III. The Constitution was to be the solid, unmovable, unshakeable bedrock upon which to build the foundation of our nation.

So in the Constitution the founders separated governmental power into three distinct branches: the legislative branch (Congress) that makes the laws, the executive branch (President) that operates the laws, and the judicial branch that applies the laws.

Sounds simple, right? Except that a pernicious mutant strain of judicial philosophy has arisen that argues judges are free to change the law to as they see fit in order to effect outcomes they prefer. Disciples of this ideology use nice language that seems to build up the Constitution "…it’s a living, breathing document". Sounds good, right? Except they use that as an argument to effectively kill the Constitution. If you want to kill something, it has to be alive. You can’t kill bedrock.

This "living, breathing" ideology is frequently referred to as judicial activism, where judges actively usurp the power of Congress by effectively rewriting laws. But the activists are completely wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the prima facie ("on its face") argument that the Constitution simply doesn’t allow it. The idea of judicial activism is logically bankrupt and should never see the light of day.

A second reason for rejecting jurists of the activist persuasion is the ex post facto ("after the fact") argument. Ex post facto is a legal doctrine that says persons have a right to know the law and be confident in how it will be applied, before the fact. Changing laws after the fact and applying them to persons retroactively is a symptom of tyranny. Yet that’s what judicial activists do. Even though Article I Section 9 Clause 3 explicitly prohibits after-the-fact law making. But of course, activists by definition are more concerned about the outcomes they personally deem appropriate, and are less concerned about rule of law, about what the Constitution says.

It cannot be overemphasized: the work of a judge is to apply the law, not to apply his or her personal feelings or opinions. Otherwise that judge becomes a de fact tyrant by over-ruling the people who elected the legislative body that passed the law. Activist judges are an assault on Democracy.

In the spirit of the Super Bowl we can liken a judicial activist to a corrupt football referee who decides to change a rule and then apply the change to the play that has just taken place. Imagine a referee who after a play decides "offside" should be a serious 20-yard penalty rather than a minor 5-yard penalty, and applies the change to the play that has already happened. Wouldn’t you be wondering if that referee had taken out a personal stake in the outcome?

Such a gross miscarriage of justice would violate both ideas that have been considered. This activist referee would violate the prima facie concept – referees simply don’t have the authority to change rules – they apply rules, they don’t make or change them. And this activist referee would violate the ex post facto doctrine, applying rule changes retroactively. Imagine watching, or worse, playing a game where the referees made up the rules as they went along? Welcome to judicial activism, and that game you are playing is your life.

But the most obvious argument against judicial activism, is actually two reasons, two reasons in one: that the Constitution spells out the process; and that the process is really, really hard. If the framers had intended that the Constitution be a soft, malleable instrument, easily shifted by a variety of influences, then they would not have precisely detailed the process circumscribing how the Constitution can be changed. And if they had meant for it to be easily changed, then they wouldn’t have made it so difficult.

But what happens in the dreadful situation when Supreme Court Justices overstep their Constitutional authority? What is the recourse to right this wrong? The short answer is "nothing". That is why it is imperative to keep activists as far away from federal benches as possible, that is why we need justices like Gorsuch

The Supreme Court eminent domain case of Kelo v. City of New London is demonstrative of the issues at stake. The Fifth Amendment states that no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Kelo’s had lived in New London, CT for decades. The drug company Pfizer wanted to build a complex on a tract of land that included the Kelo’s property, but they refused to sell. Their home was their castle, and they were certain the Constitution would protect them from this attack.

Coercing someone to sell property is illegal – though the Constitution specifically allows one exception, when the property is taken for public use, and with just compensation.

Taking sides with Pfizer, the city began eminent domain proceedings against Kelo. Obviously, Pfizer is a private corporation, and their development would be for private use. Thus, the city’s action should have failed. However, the activist Chief Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, opined that when we see the words "public use" we should read them as "public benefit". And since Pfizer was creating public benefits in the form of taxes and jobs, the Kelo’s should get the boot.

See what just happened there? Stevens right there and then changed the Constitution. He unilaterally circumvented the amendment process, indeed, made a mockery of it. He literally re-wrote the Constitution, to get the outcome he felt like obtaining. And tossed the outcome the people’s representatives had sought. One man, with four accomplices - Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer, still on the Court, and Souter – overrode Kelo’s 5th Amendment rights and rewrote the Constitution. And Chief Justice Stevens applied it retroactively against the Kelo’s ex post facto, as they say, and as the Constitution specifically prohibits, again violating Kelo’s constitutional rights.

Preventing judicial activists from making their way to the benches - Federal and State Supreme Courts, Appeals Courts, indeed, all courts is - essential. As their terms expire they must be replaced with jurists committed to judicial restraint - conservatives in the mold Antonin Scalia, who dissented on Kelo and who Gorsuch has been nominated to replace. It is crucial to nominate and confirm judges who are committed to applying the laws of the people, not those candidates who are committed to their own personal opinions.

Perhaps firing a shot across the bow of the insidious activists presently on the Supreme Court bench – Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer – Gorsuch concluded his remarks thus:

A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge...

Exactly.




Analysis


February 28, 2017 - Did you see Donald Trump's speech tonight?

If you love America, and you think "Jobs" is the foundation of a strong properous America that spreads freedom, justice, peace and properity throughout the world, this was your speech.

If the tone of the Inaugural Address missed the mark, fear not - the style and substance of tonight's address was pitch-perfect.

Yes, this is a speech for all people, this is the President for all Americans, a leader we can all truly support.

We can only hope that far-left Democrats will not obstruct the vision our President has laid out.




February 06, 2017 - If you are dismayed by the degeneration into political correctness of the NFL under its enabling current Commissioner, you are probably not a fan of Roger Goodell. In fact you probably loathe him.

And if you loathe Goodell, then even if you have qualms with the foibles of the New England Patriots, you probably cheer for the Pats in their ongoing feud with the Commissioner.

So after last night's Super Bowl how enjoyable it was to see the lustily booed Goodell grudgingly shove the Lombardi Trophy into the hands Patriots owner Robert Kraft and then slink away into the darkness.

As great as last night's game was, the post-game was almost better. Almost. Well, okay, not even close... but still.

Did you take more than a little pleasure in watching Kraft's speech, watching him stick a knife into Goodell? And twist it a bit? A couple of times? Subtle, but scathing.

It was a great game, unfortunately someone had to lose. Atlanta is a good team, it's hard not to feel a bit sorry for the folks cheering for them, except one guy. The Schadenfreude was almost as awesome as Election Night!



February 01, 2017 - Last night President Trump nominated Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado to the United States Supreme Court.

Drawing on his media acumen our President announced the nomination in a televised prime time ceremony at the White House.

The event allowed the White House and the nominee to elucidate an extended, thoughtful, powerful and conclusive case to the American people as to why Gorsuch is such a great nominee.

As demonstrated by the impact of the disgraceful Teddy Kennedy attacks on the Robert Bork nomination, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Last night's pre-emptive first strike pushed the Democrats flat on their behinds, and will keep them there playing defence for the duration until Gorsuch is confirmed.

The Gorsuch confirmation should be a lay-up. Big Media had their guns spiked, they will be unable to re-create Gorsuch as some kind of ogre.

The Democrats will demagogue, vilify and demonize Gorsuch, but such efforts will amount to nothing more than self-parody.

No Borking here. Not this time.



Archives

© Copyright 2017 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.