I wanted to provide a little commentary about how Democrats are handling the Neil Gorsuch confirmation for U.S. Supreme Court justice, and ask my fair-minded liberal friends to consider just how bad this is and why they should not support this type of behavior from elected leaders when it comes to Supreme Court justice confirmations. The job of a judge is not to be a legislator or an executive. The job of a judge is not to follow their personal feelings or political persuasions. If a judge wants to rule based on their feelings or ideology, or wishes to be a legislator or executive, then that judge needs to find another profession or seek public office. This is something both the liberal and the conservative should want equally.

California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein was wary of Gorsuch because based on her belief that the Constitution is a “living document,” she also believes that Gorsuch, as an “originalist” judge, will interpret the Constitution as it was written originally, when women didn’t have the right to vote and America had slaves. But there is a serious problem with her logic. It’s no news that the Constitution is a living document. It lives through the amendment process, and thus an originalist judge of today would interpret the Constitution as it exists today, not as it existed in its original form in 1789. How a woman who is a United States senator doesn’t know something so basic to her job would be astounding, so its clear to me the issue is she simply doesn’t like the Constitution, and wants Supreme Court judges on the bench to rule based on their political ideology and not based on the law.

Personally, I want a judge to follow the law, and not their political ideology, since political ideology can cut both ways. If the judge is a conservative, I want that judge to follow the law. If that judge is a liberal, I want that judge to follow the law. That is only fair to both the conservative and the liberal. Equal treatment. Matters such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and Obamacare should never have come before the Supreme Court and should never have been decided by the Supreme Court because none of these matters are federal matters. Liberals clearly like the judgment of the Supreme Court on all three of these issues, but they shouldn’t, because these decisions are clear violations of the Constitution since they are, again, not federal matters. Liberals did well at the Supreme Court under Obama, but do they think they will do so well under Trump? That’s to be determined.

My hope is once Gorsuch is confirmed that the court, moving forward, will rule based on the law, and not political ideology or feelings of social justice. Both liberals and conservatives should want the same. I’m certain there is going to come a case decided that liberals are going to intensely dislike. But I believe it will be because they want an ideological ruling instead of a constitutional ruling. And thus I ask my liberal friends to stop wanting ideological rulings by any judge because ideological rulings are bad rulings no matter who produces them. Soon enough there will be an ideological ruling that upsets liberals as well, and they shouldn’t complain because all along they will have advocated for judges that would make ideological rulings favorable to them. Well what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, so they should be careful of what they wish for because the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough. My admonition is to just be fair and wish for justices that will simply follow the law and the Constitution they are sworn to protect.

Share

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

So Donald Trump has proposed his budget, which has liberals apoplectic about the cuts to federal government agency and programs he is proposing. To this I would ask liberals, why are you so keen on a huge, expansive, federal government getting involved in virtually all aspects of American life? There are a number of things Trump wants to cut, such as the Department of Health and Human Services global health initiative, the National Endowment of the Arts, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He’s also proposing to make cuts to the Agriculture, Labor, and State departments along with cabinet level folks in the EPA. What liberals seem to be most upset about, however, are cuts to K-12, family aid, and some funds for community development and affordable housing programs. Well, they shouldn’t be upset. Those programs that are administered at the local and state level should be paid for at the local and state level because these programs really are not the business of the federal government to begin with, and never should have been. If liberals want these programs, then they can very well fund these programs themselves at the local and state level.

We all know the federal government does not have a license to print money. All of its money comes from the taxpayer, and the federal government has our country in debt to the tune of $20 trillion and counting. So why would a liberal want to lift money out of taxpayers wallets and send it to Washington, D.C., only to have that money come back cents on the dollars with federal strings attached as to how they must spend it? Moreover, the federal government does indeed threaten to withhold funds to the states if they don’t do the federal government’s bidding. So why would anyone want to send money to the federal government that could stay in the state where it can be spent most efficiently and effectively, and closest to the point of need? To me it is madness that the states have become so dependent on the federal government, knowing that when that money leaves it is no longer theirs and they no longer control a vital resource that was once theirs.

Anyone who has read my blogs all of these years knows that I work from principles, and I believe those principles work for everyone, not just conservatives. A small federal government with limited powers as enshrined so clearly in the U.S. Constitution is best for the conservative and the liberal. Recall that when Barack Obama was president (and thankfully is no longer president), liberals couldn’t get enough of big government. The more federal government the better, as long as the federal government was giving them what they wanted. But now that Donald Trump is president, suddenly they don’t want much government except for the bloated agencies and programs they want to continue to grow. Well hopefully, they will not grow under Trump. And they shouldn’t have grown under Obama either because most federal government programs are not valid functions, and not things they can do effectively and competently anyway. These functions liberals want the federal government to continue to do should be done at the state and local level, and they should be advocating for the policies they care about regarding human welfare at the state and local level, not the federal government.

In my view, having a federal government that simply does its constitutional functions and stays out of local and state issues, except where they violate federal law, is the proper functioning of the federal government. If liberals would just think for one moment, they would see this would work very well for them since no matter who is in the presidency, it wouldn’t affect them on a day-to-day basis because the federal government was never designed to be a day-to-day concern unless we were in a moment of crisis. They could keep their money in their pockets where they could deploy it themselves for their own causes, or pay that money out in local or state taxes so their representatives may act for them. This way each state can chart its own destiny, and each state becomes a laboratory of democracy as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously suggested in the early 1900s. It’s what we call federalism, which leaves day-to-day governance at the local and state levels. Liberal would be wise to gain wisdom and focus on their own states. Somehow, I think the great flaw of liberals is that they believe if they want something, it should be forced on the whole populous. Conservatives believe the exact opposite, that people should vote at the state or local level on what is best for them, and that the federal government should pretty much stay out of local and state matters so people can migrate to the communities or states that best meet their wants and needs. Is that so complicated?

Share

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

HBO “VICE” on Climate Change: They’re Right and You’re a Bad Person

March 4, 2017

Tonight I watched an episode of the HBO news program “VICE” on Syria and climate change. For those who don’t have HBO, Bill Maher is the executive producer. So that should tell you immediately their reporting is going to have a far-left liberal progressive slant. Now this post is not to argue the merits of […]

Read the full article →

The Fake News “Muslim Ban” That Isn’t

January 29, 2017

On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order that, among other things regarding our refugee program, bars people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. temporarily for at least the next 90 days until the U.S. can develop better vetting procedures for people from these countries. Yet this is being […]

Read the full article →

Congressman John Lewis: A Warrior Whose Time Has Come and Gone

January 15, 2017

We have all seen those situations, particularly in professional sports, where a great warrior continues to play well beyond his prime and becomes more of a liability than an asset to the team. But that player is allowed to continue due to past glory and fan appreciation. It’s a hard thing to see someone in […]

Read the full article →

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to You!

December 25, 2016

A couple of days ago, I was listening to a discussion on either Fox News or Fox Business about holiday greetings while driving back to Southern California from Carmel. Particularly, the discussion was about whether to say “Merry Christmas” or not. Well someone did eventually say Merry Christmas on the show. Jessica Tarloff, a Democratic […]

Read the full article →

Transgender Bathroom Laws: A Return to Jim Crow?

December 18, 2016

On a bike ride the other day, I got into a discussion with a fellow rider about some of the transgender bathroom laws and policies that have been in the news as of late. My friend felt that allowing people to use a bathroom based on their gender identity as opposed to their biological gender […]

Read the full article →

Leveling the “Hater” or “Bigot” Charge: The Ultimate Conversation Stopper

December 10, 2016

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory as the next President of the United States, liberals are up in arms about losing the social “gains” they made under eight years of liberal progressive Obama rule. They will no longer have the imprimatur of the Obama administration to force all manner of social engineering on the […]

Read the full article →

Liberals, Law, and the Notion of “Progress”

December 3, 2016

It is interesting me how liberal progressive almost to a person say that Christians, a) have no right to impose their views on others, and b) have no right to express their views in the public square. If they do believe Christians have the right to be heard in the public square, they feel any […]

Read the full article →

Black Americans Should Just Say “No” To Sanctuary Cities

November 26, 2016

On Wednesday, the following week after Donald Trump was elected as President, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel delivered a speech where he reassured illegal immigrants that Chicago will continue to be a sanctuary city even in the wake of a Trump presidency. He said undocumented immigrants would continue to have access to public services, including education […]

Read the full article →