SAVING THE SUPREME COURT

Share This:

Of the many reasons that brought a Donald Trump presidential victory Tuesday night, high on the list was the preservation of the Supreme Court. It was the High Court that brought many NeverTrumpers to the Trump table. Possibly three positions on the Court will become vacant during the next presidential term, which could leave the appointment of four Justices for the incoming president. The Court seat of Justice Antonin Scalia has yet to be filled and will now fall upon Donald Trump.

Considering the extremely poor performance of the Congressional Republicans during Barack Obama’s two terms in office, the GOP must be given credit for stopping Obama from replacing Scalia. Keeping the seat of the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia open is one of the few things that the Republican leadership managed to accomplish from the standpoint of their GOP constituents. Perhaps Scalia’s powerful conservative legacy was influential in the Republican leadership’s decision to allow the seat to remain open.

The retirements of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Clarence Thomas are foreseeable during the next four years and definitely within the next eight. The election of a conservative or conservative-leaning president was the only possible pathway to save the Supreme Court from complete wreckage. With the loss of the strict constitutionalists, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, a Hillary Clinton presidency would have resulted in a liberally stacked Court beyond recognition and completely contrary to the notion of making their decisions within the dictates of the United States Constitution.

Nothing speaks better to my argument than Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s reaction to the election of President Donald J. Trump. Yesterday, in defiance of Trump’s victory, Justice Ginsburg, also referred to as RBG, wore her dissent collar. The collar is one that she wears when making a decision of dissent. This action from a sitting Supreme Court Justice was unparalleled and speaks volumes as to the judicial activism on the Court.

In July of this year, RBG stated publicly that Donald Trump was a ‘faker.’ She also gave a series of interviews in which she openly mocked Trump. This unprecedented bias from a Supreme Court Justice was not only highly irregular but highly noted. Barry Friedman, professor of law at New York University, said that Justice Ginsburg’s comments were a ‘stark example of a breach of neutrality that justices must adhere to.’ RBG later wrote that she regretted the comment. Sure, Justice Ginsburg, Sure!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. She is a staunch feminist, and she has a very loose interpretation of the United States Constitution. She is also a paragon for mandatory term limits for Supreme Court Justices. At age 83, the fully-robed Ginsburg has been photographed nodding off in public. She lacks physical stamina and mental clarity that is essential for an individual who has the highest task of judicial analysis. RBG is the poster child for rigid restrictions concerning the waning capabilities of those who serve on the highest court in the land.

I would imagine that Justice Ginsburg intended on retiring, only to enjoy having her seat filled by the wife of the president who had appointed her. The defeat of Hillary Clinton was undoubtedly beyond disappointing to the second female justice to have ever been appointed to the Supreme Court. She now has the decision to squander away her remaining life by continuing to serve in hopes that a President Trump will lose to a progressive Democrat in 2020, which is not likely, or to cut her losses and retire in the near future.

Justice Stephen Breyer, a more moderate Justice, often leans left, but his retirement would have ensured a far-left appointee with unfriendly constitutional sentiments, if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency. Conservative Justice Thomas would have been replaced with a progressive. Thomas could have resisted retirement for a few years in hopes that a conservative or Republican president would win in 2020. But Justice Thomas knows, like we all know, that had Clinton won, the nation would have never seen a Republican or conservative president again. He would have only held out for a brief period once it became obvious that the Supreme Court had become officially dead in respect to the United States Constitution.

In terms of maintaining the republic, a Hillary Clinton presidency would have absolutely resulted in a stacked Supreme Court, one without balance and directed to serve a centralized government. ‘We the People’ would have effectively become ‘We the Oppressed.’

We can only pray that Donald Trump holds true to his promise that he will appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices. With a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, there should be no excuse for his appointments to not be confirmed.

Saving the Supreme Court is tantamount to saving the Republic of the United States of America!

God Bless America!

3 Comments

  1. I agree! The Supreme Court is one of my reason for voting for Trump. With Hillary Clinton in the driver seat I felt she would a point liberals to the Supreme Court. I felt we would lose our freedom and I will never know. I hope Trump will appoint good conservatives to the Supreme Court.

  2. I thought RBG said she was going to retire (in protest) if Donald Trump got elected. The SCOTUS was THE most important issue in this election with two candidates with such low approval rates. I don’t think it makes much difference, RBG will be gone within the next year or two anyhow.
    I think Kennedy and Breyer are candidates for retirement or leaving the Court involuntarily in the next 4-8 years. Kennedy might see who Trump appoints an, if he likes the appointment, retire to allow for a younger justice.
    I thought Trump’s acceptance speech showed that he will be much better than any of us had hoped for.

    • Clarence Thomas has considered retirement, but he is young enough and healthy enough to have held out had Clinton been elected. But on the other hand, had Clinton been elected, there would have never been a Republican or conservative president again. The mere fact that RGB said that she would retire in protest of Trump is reflective of her addled thinking. If you are that opposed to the president, why would you give him the power to replace you with someone who is your ideological opposite? I agree. Trump’s list of things he wants to accomplish in the first hundred days are really good. He seems to be leaning further right than anticipated. But that could have something to do with the fact that his candidacy made him the target of radical lefties. It gave him personal experience with left-wing thinking. I would imagine that maltreatment from a corrupt media and the mistreatment he received from other national left-wing individuals would be enough to push him to the right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*