Dred Scott was Settled Law Too.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, is certain to be questioned at length (and ultimately opposed no matter her answers) over the issue of abortion. Just as slavery was America’s defining issue of the 1800’s, abortion will be our defining issue of the 20th and 21st centuries. Just as slavery was America’s original national sin that cost us a bloody civil war to extirpate, legalized abortion on demand is the terrible sin that may cost us even more dearly. If it is a terrible crime to put a man in chains, what can we say of the slaughter of more than sixty million unborn, innocent children?

“Roe v. Wade is settled law,” the Democrats like to say, and they will demand that any nominee for the Supreme Court assure them that it will remain settled law.

Precedent and the law. It is interesting how important the principle of stare decisis becomes once the Democrats have achieved their desired outcome. Prayer banned in public schools, gay marriage, abortion: the courts are the least democratic of our branches of government, but it is there that the Democrats have accomplished their most dramatic and corrosive transformations of American society. Transformations that they could not pass through the legislative process. Transformations that they do not intend to be reversed.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. It was literally made up, an exercise in creative thinking from the mind of liberal justices with no basis in the Constitution. But now it is settled law, the Democrats say, and may not be touched. So if the Supreme Court rules on something, that mean it is absolute, immutable, forever set in stone and no legislative or judicial process can ever change it.

Really? The people have no recourse whatsoever if SCOTUS speaks? That is absurd on its face. We are no more bound in slavery to a tyranny of nine unelected judges than we are to any branch of our government. What recourse do the people have through the democratic process?

First, legislative. Everyone seems to have forgotten, but we have three co-equal branches of government, and any two of them may overrule the third. Congress and the president have the power to remove an issue from the purview of the Supreme Court, and if that effort reaches an impasse (a runaway court tries to declare such an action by the other two branches”unconstitutional”) Congress may impeach if necessary. But a resort to such drastic measures would be one of those “constitutional crises” we’re always hearing about. The usual (supposedly) non-confrontational method of overturning a decision of the Supreme Court is as follows:

  • The people elect a president that will appoint justices who see things differently.
  • The people elect a senate that will confirm the justices that their president nominates.
  • The people wait for vacancies on the court to provide their president the chance to act.

This process can take decades, and when the lives of sixty million or so unborn children are the price of the patience it demands, it is especially unfortunate that the people, the president and the congress were unable to muster the courage or conviction necessary to restrain and overturn the corrupt decision immediately. But the fact that it took decades for the will of the people to move does not somehow render the original flawed decision immutable. If the people cannot in any way reverse a bad decision of the court through the legal processes of government, then we truly do live under a tyranny, and the only remedy is the one prescribed by the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Is this what the Democrats are suggesting? That the only way the American people can overcome stare decisis is to overthrow their government and start over?

No, Roe v. Wade is “settled law” just like the Dred Scott decision was settled law. It is settled until it is reversed.

Does America still have the guts to stand up to terrorism?

We just remembered the 19th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. The terrorists dealt us a terrible blow, but we stood up, stood together and struck back. As I watched the ceremonies on television, I wondered if America still has the guts that we demonstrated back then, because we are under a direct terrorist assault right now that is unprecedented in our history. The next few months will demonstrate if we are still the United States of America, or sheep.

Terrorism is the use of fear and intimidation to accomplish a political goal. Terrorism is exactly what the Democrats/Socialists (at some point we’re no longer going to need to make any distinction there) are using right now to try to keep conservative America quiet and cowed. “Do you think the violence is going to stop if Donald Trump gets reelected?” Biden asks. “The protests are going to continue, and they should,” says Kamala Harris. NY Governor Cuomo warns that “Trump is going to need an army to protect him if he comes back to New York.” You know that it is true: there are many places in the country today–lots of them–where you dare not go wearing a MAGA or TRUMP 2020 hat unless you are prepared to be harassed and perhaps killed or else protect yourself and then face prosecution for doing it. Now, with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the temperature of the rhetoric has risen noticeably. “Over our dead bodies! Literally!” Tweeted former CNN host Reza Aslan, and later “if they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f–ing thing down.” Some other recent quotes:

  • “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”
  • “If the democrats don’t fight, the people are going to have to march on Washington and just shut it down ourselves.”
  • “F— no. Burn it all down.”

Particularly regarding the nomination of a replacement for RBG, Democratic lawmakers are making unusually direct threats. Nancy Pelosi is hinting that the Democratic-controlled House may impeach Trump again in order to prevent the Senate from holding hearings for a nominee, and Chuck Schumer is warning that next year “everything will be on the table” if Republicans proceed. Since the House has already impeached President Trump over absolutely nothing and Democrats in the Senate have already stated that they intend to eliminate the filibuster, pack the court and expand their seats in the Senate by seeking statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., one wonders what more they could have in mind.

The Democrats are trying to create an atmosphere in our nation just like they have already succeeded in fostering on college campuses, where contrary voices will be silenced and political goals achieved by intimidation if possible, violence if necessary. You’d better do as we say, they are warning, or things are going to get much, much worse.

America has gotten the message. Everyone knows it now, even if they will not admit it. If Joe Biden wins, Trump supporters will be furious (especially since they will be pretty sure that the election was stolen using millions of fraudulent mail-in ballots) but they aren’t going to fill the streets and start hurling things at cops, burning down small businesses and looting Target Stores.

But if Joe Biden loses, hell is going to break out in America’s streets. What we’re seeing now is just a warning: let us win or else.

Does America still have the guts to stand up to terrorism? We will find out in a few weeks.

Five Reasons Republicans should fill that seat

In an election year that is shaping up to be the most pivotal, consequential and contentious in modern history, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has raised the stakes exponentially. Democrats, of course, are demanding that the president and/or Republicans refrain from attempting to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court, while Donald Trump has promised to announce a nomination within the next few days. While it is true that the Republican-held senate did refuse to vote on election-year Obama-appointee Merrick Garland, there are some important differences in the situation and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that Mr. Trump’s nominee will get a vote this year. I can certainly see why the Democrats don’t want the seat filled now, when there is a chance that Joe Biden (or whoever is controlling him) could fill the seat in a few months, and I’ll admit that in their shoes I’d feel the same way, but there are some very good reasons that Republicans should go ahead, hold hearings and confirm Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court as soon as possible:

  • As Mitch McConnell has explained, in cases where both branches of government were held by the same party, historically, the nomination has been considered and voted upon.
  • Even more compelling is this: if the shoe were on the other foot and the situation were reversed, is there anyone anywhere in America who would care to assert that the Democrats would not push their nomination through? I didn’t think so. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” should not be applied in a political situation where the “others” are determined to seize power at any cost and have already clearly indicated what they intend to “do unto you.” (See next point.)
  • The Democrats have already promised that if they gain control of the White House and the Senate they intend to (among other things) “pack the court” by nominating and confirming a few more Supreme Court justices to ensure a more or less permanent liberal majority. If they’re going to “pack to court” why are they worried about one more Trump appointee? Just throw in a few more activist judges when you start packing!
  • “Over our dead bodies. Literally.” (That is a quote.) Quite a few Democrat activists are warning that if Trump and the Republicans “even TRY” to fill the seat before the election that they “will burn the entire f—ing thing down.” Another tweeted: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.” The Democrats are threatening violence in the streets if the president and Senate dare to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. Threats of violence to force a political outcome is nothing less than terrorism and we must not acquiesce to it. Of course, this is a familiar tactic in the Democratic playbook. They are already threatening to “burn the entire f—ing thing down” if Joe Biden is not elected.
  • But most important of all, the Democrats have clearly warned that their plan for victory in this election relies heavily on a mountain of mail-in ballots (only God will know how many will be fraudulent) and a tsunami of lawsuits. More than 600 Democratic lawyers are waiting in the wings to attempt to litigate Joe Biden to victory. Many, if not all of those lawsuits will end up at the Supreme Court. We are close enough to a civil war now; having a 4-to-4 split on the highest court in the land as it tries to settle this contentious election is simply begging for bloodshed.

Justice Ginsburg reportedly told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish” is that she would not be replaced until “a new president is installed.”* With all due respect, it isn’t the late Justice Ginsburg’s seat to bequeath, nor is the decision up to Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. The Constitution lays that responsibility upon the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Donald Trump is still the president and he will be, God willing, until January 20, 2021.

And if God is merciful to us, Donald Trump will still be president on the 21st.

It has been very encouraging that many Republicans finally seem to be waking up to the situation. The Democrats are playing to win–at any cost–and if they win the consequences for this nation will be grave. They have been playing hardball for decades. It’s long past time that Republicans woke up and got in the game.


*Note: she was not hoping that it would happen after the election is over, but only after Donald Trump is out of the White House.. I suppose if he should be reelected, she hoped that SCOTUS would operate for four more years with only eight justices.