RedState: It seems now to be confirmed that Antonin Scalia, one of the most influential figures in the history of American jurisprudence, has died after serving 30 years on the Supreme Court. Scalia’s influence went well beyond being one of the nine votes who decided the most important cases in the land. Scalia’s quick-witted and acerbic pen, used most often while writing in dissent, breathed life into a coherent conservative judicial philosophy that can correctly be credited with the fact that judicial restraint is even a topic of discussion in America, much less a growing force within the judicial branch itself.One need not forget about Trump's praise of his sister either, a pro-abortion extremist judge! (Also of note is the below mentioned SCOTUS decision by a margin of one)...
When Scalia came to the bench, he joined a Supreme Court that had been drunk on its own power and self-importance for decades, following the lead of Earl Warren, a staunch liberal who expressed no reservations or qualms about second guessing the text of the constitution, the original intent of the framers, the constitutionally-expressed will of Federal and State legislatures, or the verdicts and wisdom of the average jury. Warren’s days were heady ones, for a Supreme Court justice, as judges could play the robed betters of the entire country without fear of serious contradiction.
Scalia and his writing changed all of that. For the first time, someone who actually sat on the Supreme Court gave voice to frustrations that millions of ordinary Americans felt at watching the Supreme Court brush away the America they once knew with the stroke of an arrogant pen. And while the Supreme Court still strays from its constitutional prerogatives with dismaying regularity, the days of the completely conscience-less Warren court are gone, likely forever.
Most importantly, Scalia’s writing gave rise to an entire generation of lawyers and lower-level judges who followed in his intellectual footsteps. Armed with a clear vision of how the judiciary should work and the constitutional limitations on judicial authority, the Federal judiciary has forever been changed due to Scalia’s influence.
Where do we go from here? Well, it’s difficult to say. McConnell and Cornyn have already signaled publicly and privately that Obama is unlikely to get more judicial nominations through, but a Supreme Court vacancy is a different political beast than a district or circuit vacancy. If Obama were smart, he would nominate a true moderate judge – someone nominated to an appeals Circuit by a Republican but with a moderate record – and defy Republicans to block it for an entire year. Since Obama is instead the nation’s first troll President, I expect he will instead nominate a liberal firebrand and use the upcoming year as a wedge issue, banking on the Senate’s long-established history of caving to get his way. In the meantime, Scalia’s absence will have a profound impact on a huge number of meaningful cases that are coming before the Supreme Court this year.
Either way, there’s at least a decent chance that Scalia’s replacement will be chosen by the next President, rather than by Obama. Regardless of whether that happens or not, Scalia’s death is likely to bring back to the forefront an issue that has receded to the background in the year of Trump – the importance of a conservative judicial philosophy.
It’s also worth noting that right now, the current Republican front runner has cited exactly one legal mind favorably during the course of eight publicly televised debate, and that was noted liberal Harvard professor (and avid Hillary Clinton supporter) Laurence Tribe. The chances that Trump would be able to even correctly identify someone who shared a judicial philosophy with Scalia, much less have the will or courage to fight for such a nominee, are virtually zero.
Do these things even still matter to Republican voters? We are about to find out, and the seat held by one of the most important legal minds in this country’s history hangs in the balance.
Yes, the stakes are this high, folks. And this MUST be a quintessential decider for voters as they enter their respective primaries, not later, but NOW...we cannot chance life or liberty on this...NR: Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”
If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”
Laws against partial-birth abortion had strong bipartisan support. They were attempts to mark an outer limit to the abortion right of Roe. If unborn children could not be protected within the womb, could they at least be protected when partway out? That would be illogical, said Judge Barry. But if the location of fetal death does not matter, then it could hardly matter if the child was all the way outside the womb. Laws against infanticide, too, must be dismissed as irrational line-drawing. The intellectual architect of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Hadley Arkes, mentions Judge Barry’s decision in his book on the origin of that law, explaining that it was in part designed to head off the dangerous implications of such rulings.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that partial-birth abortion could be outlawed—but it did so by a margin of one.
It’s understandable that Trump would praise his sister. But when candidates praise relatives who have served in public office—whether they’re members of the Bush, Paul, Clinton, or Trump families—voters are entitled to keep those relatives’ records in mind.
(Extended interaction is HERE to witness the full Trump meltdown!)
Related links: CRUZ: TODAY OUR NATION MOURNS THE LOSS OF ONE OF THE GREATEST JUSTICES IN HISTORY
Watch As Ted Cruz Makes Donald Trump Run From His Own Support Of Planned Parenthood
Ted Cruz: Judges Matter. Just One Supreme Court Judge Could Strike Down Every Pro-Life Law
Donald Trump: “Planned Parenthood Does Wonderful Things, But Not When It Comes to Abortion”
Donald Trump has supported the most extreme of abortion advocates
ADDENDUM: Ted was emphatic earlier Sunday, saying that he will ABSOLUTELY filibuster any nominee for the Supreme Court by Obama!
TRS: Ted Cruz was interviewed by Hillary hack and Clinton Foundation contributor George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” and he laid out the case against the Senate taking up Obama’s attempt to seize the Supreme Court with a Marxist nominee.Related links: TED CRUZ: We owe it to Scalia not to allow Obama to choose his replacement
There’s no better candidate on this issue than Ted Cruz, who himself defended the Constitution before the Supreme Court many times. IF the American people care about the Constitution any more, and that’s a big “if” unfortunately, Ted Cruz needs to be taken seriously as their choice for President.
The best story about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, from a U.S. Marine…
ADDENDUM II: Levin says if Republicans fail to block Obama's SCOTUS pick, "You can kiss what's left of the Constitution goodbye!"
CR: On his radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin laid out what is at stake in the fight to replace Antonin Scalia. He warned that the Constitution was on the precipice of becoming irrelevant as 'judicial oligarchy' is a real possibility.ADDENDUM III: Cruz brings this discussion back to the point of LIFE...
Brian Darling wrote how exactly the Senate can block an Obama nominee earlier today at Conservative Review. He explains that "it is a myth that the president nominates and the senate must vote on the nomination."
