The SCOTUS Argument

8/5/16

Recently Dr. David Jeremiah made the argument that the Supreme Court is why hillary must be defeated. If she is able to pack a court with a possible 7-2 liberal majority that will judge according to liberal agenda instead of the Constitution the country will never recover.

Apparently in response to Jeremiah, Ian Tuttle has written an article for the formerly conservative National Review explaining why that is a bad argument. His premise is that Trump would be more dangerous in his Supreme Court picks than hillary because he already suggested he could appoint his very liberal sister, likely in jest, who is a judge. He conveniently ignores the short list of potential conservative judges that Trump has also proposed. In response I wrote the following:

So the option is either Trump who might appoint liberal justices, or Hillary who will definitely appoint the most liberal judges. Seems like a no-brainier to me.

Tuttle argues that a Hillary court could be held in check by litigation. Why could a Trump court not be held in check the same way? Tuttle's logic is that the SCOTUS is limited in that it can only take cases that are presented to it. SCOTUS is also limited by the Congress which according to the Constitution can dictate which cases the Court can take. But Congress reneged on that responsibility long ago.

Two problems with Tuttle's argument: a Hillary Department of Justice would take every issue Hillary wants dealt with to the court. If you think the DOJ would be any more honest under Hillary than it is now you are fooling yourself.

Second, in 1980 in the case of Bob Jones University vs. the IRS, the DOJ refused to bring the case to the court because BJU had committed no crime. The court then appointed a prosecutor to try the case anyway and ruled against BJU 8-1, not because of the law, but because of public policy. They've already litigated cases that were not brought before them and they've been making unconstitutional decisions ever since. Anyone who thinks a Hillary court would not do the same in order to overturn every moral restraint in our culture is blind.

This faux conservatism that would rather give the election to hillary and a socialist oligarchy which would be the end of constitutional government and our freedoms than take a chance on Trump who is the only realistic alternative is short-sighted insanity.