With all of the discussion over the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one element has been lacking from media coverage on the Supreme Court. There is a distinctly human element in between all of the debates. The battle isn’t really over the qualifications. The left wants a Marxist leaning justice who will outlaw private ownership of firearms. The right wants to enjoy the stability of a purist justice who will uphold the original intent of the Unanimous Declaration and Constitution.
So it’s a fight over the composition of the court. The wild card is, of course, that most globalist senate republicans and executive officeholders, such as Bush one and two, have allowed justices on the bench who vote for the leftist positions of the Court. Even Chief Justice Roberts turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, refusing to finally tell the whole world that keeping and bearing arms is an inalienable right for all free men and women citizens.
Roberts also sided with the leftist appointed justices on the recent Obamacare upholding. The complaint from the patriots on the right is that these presidents who appointed these justices were RINOS (“Republican In Name Only”). The chief criticism from these originalists is that the democrat and turncoat justices vote based more on pop culture than the law.
So this is the political environment we live, with public universities creating young, triggered Marxists and popular culture teaching the discrimination against white people is not only proper, but it is popular and even just. “No lives matter until black lives matter” is the mantra all over the NFL and NBA and chief newspapers like Washington Post.
The right has argued for years that Justices are being used by the left to circumvent a Constitutional Convention. So the argument goes, the Marxist leaning party leaders know they can’t get red states to ban gun rights as an Amendment to the Constitution. For example, they appoint judges who will simply abolish a right using political, judicial FIAT. A Convention between the states is required to eliminate a right from state-protection, such as the Second Amendment.
Judges don’t get to decide that “militia” only meant the military; for example. “Well regulated” militia meant “in good order.” Good order means well trained, such as trained in weapons safety, cleaning, and use of weapons in close and long-range battle. But as noted, activist judges and politicians simply change the definition of words to meet their goals. The right wants the actual meaning to apply, not the one later made up to push a political goal of more state controls.
As recently as the 1950s, President Eisenhower helped create the Civilian Marksmanship Program (“CMP”). The CMP made it possible to get every young male a demilitarized M-1 Garrand. And shooting clubs were the norm, even when I was shooting at 16 years old, in California! So the point is that our founders expected all males over 16 years of age to possess firearms and to know how to use them.
But our founders also envisioned public officials, such as teachers not politically, to indoctrinate citizens against our institutions and rights. So this next Supreme Court battle is a battle over ending the need for a Constitutional Convention by the use of judicial fiat. For example, progressive justices have suggested that only the state is allowed to keep and bear arms. But legal historians are quick to point out that the Constitution actually forbids a standing army for longer than two years.
Moreover, this is why every two years, Congress must “appropriate” funds to continue paying for its standing army. When now deceased RBG averred that only the National Guard or military are allowed to have guns, she ignored the fact that our founders did not WANT a standing army. Why is that? Well, it is because the state could turn that army against its people, as King George had done.
In other words, Justice Ginsburg simply changed the definition of militia from all males 16 years and older and compared them to “regulars,” “well regulated” (as in shackled) by the state. The California courts have done the same thing with the definition of “assault rifle.” Anything that looks like a military rifle is called an “assault rifle” and ILLEGAL to own. And this is despite the Heller case specifically finding that citizens are entitled to own a standard infantry style rifle.
But even stranger is that an AR15 is not an assault rifle under its original definition before it being changed by courts and politicians. So we see a constant move by bureaucrats to change descriptions from what they meant laws were passed simply. But words mean things. And courts traditionally have looked to the intent of words and their original meanings. If you were born a male, for example, it is not within the court’s jurisdiction to find that you are a female.
The left-wing position is that changing legal definitions are an easy way to “avoid” passing a law. The right argues that Judges are supposed to honor the tradition and history of hundreds of years of private ownership of firearms. All adults are considered to be irregular militia, and always have been, for example. And this is among just one of the many battles the liberal-leaning, republican appointed justices have helped table. They simply won’t rule once and for all, that owning a gun and carrying one is a right not to be trifled with.
And it is amid this background of playing hide the ball when it comes to making fair rulings on the assortment of firearms laws that seem only to affect law-abiding but confused gun owners. It has come down to a battle of two ideologies: One side, the left wants a society of surveillance and government controls, and the right side prefers dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. But lost in the shuffle is a superb record of judicial achievements.
Also lost is a life led by one of the most accomplished jurists in the country. And, as President Trump nominated, that person is Amy Coney Barrett. Friday night President Trump selected Barrett as his nominee for the Supreme Court. Barrett has a long resume, but that likely won’t stop the larger debate over whether or not she will make it to the nation’s highest court. Furthermore, with all of the furor over the election, the confirmation hearings and votes will likely be even more contentious than the 2018 ones for Brett Kavanaugh.
So now with the election in the background and the prospect of a 6 to 3 conservative court, what is likely to happen? There are still many factors at play, including the voting inclination of the individual Senators. However, it appears that Barrett has at least a major chance of making it on the highest court. Michael Ehline is the lead Los Angeles injury attorney of the local Ehline Law Firm Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC.
Ehline is a civil rights attorney near you who read the law by the means of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson. It’s these experiences and a natural interest in politics and the local state and federal courts that caused him to write a legal blog as a means to better educate the public, as seen here.
This is the question on the minds of many watching the coming Supreme Court battle. President Trump previously picked Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh for two earlier Supreme Court seats. Those were to replace the late Antonin Scalia and the retiring Anthony Kennedy. Now with a liberal icon like Ruth Bader Ginsburg retiring, there will likely be a court fight unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes. So why Barrett over another candidate? According to news coverage, Trump was going between Barrett and judge Barbara Lagoa. However, Barrett is a key “rock star” for many in the conservative movement. As a younger judge with experience, Barrett could reshape the court for the coming decades:
Mr. Trump’s selection of Barrett, 48, would occur just over a week after Ginsburg’s death at the age of 87 from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer. A pioneer for women’s rights, Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 and served as the anchor of the court’s liberal wing.
At 48, it is possible that Barrett could serve on the court for the next forty years. In that time, she could author and sway some of the most dramatic pieces of Supreme Court decisions in American history.
Barrett is a current federal appellate judge and Notre Dame law professor.
The mother of seven children, Barrett, now 48, was confirmed in 2017 for her current judgeship on the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Born in New Orleans in 1972 and a 1997 Notre Dame law graduate, Barrett worked in private practice and then became a law professor, settling at Notre Dame in 2002.
Barrett was nominated and confirmed by President Trump three years ago. Furthermore, the Senate has moved more in Republican hands since then. As a result, there is a good chance that the Republicans in the Senate, perhaps with one or two Democratic defections, may confirm Barrett. Furthermore, the partisan rancor is only secondary to Barrett’s experience.
Considering her time as a professor at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country– as well as time on the federal bench, it would be hard to not call her qualified. Although, I’m sure that the Democrats will try. Unfortunately, as we will see below, there is a strong chance that the Democrats will stop at nothing to stop her from getting on the bench. This could include smearing her religion. Even though she is a Catholic. We might be looking at the Kavanaugh hearing on steroids.
With Republicans controlling 53 of the 100 seats, there would have to be 4 Republican defectors to sink Barrett. However, at first blush, it does not appear that this will be the case. Maine Senator Susan Collins, herself caught in a difficult fight for re-election, indicated that she did not support a nomination so close to the election. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski said similarly. However, Senator Mitt Romney from Utah stated that he supports recent precedent.
“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election-year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”
This is almost identical to that of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Despite fighting his own re-election campaign in Kentucky, McConnell is keeping with his statements after the death of Antonin Scalia. It now looks like Republicans have the votes to at least bring Barrett’s nomination to a vote.
After Harry Reid and the Democrats blew up the judicial filibuster in 2013, they got rid of the brakes on nominations. And now it is the GOP in charge. And with Trump nominating his third Supreme Court pick in four years, expect for there to be fireworks. Check the news and Twitter, because it’s about to explode. I will keep you posted as I find out more.