I don't do GDPR, because your personal data is not kept on this site unless you enter your email address while making a comment. I wouldn't do anything with it except email you back if necessary. I don't use cookies to track you or keep your login data (because no one but me can log into here).

Please Like and Share my FB page. As long as you aren't a spammer, your respectful comments will be posted. Fair warning, you want to go Godwin's Law on me, the Ban Hammer comes down.

Comment rules:

1. All comments are reviewed before publishing.

2. I will happily and passionately discuss the issues of the post. You want to attack me (or another poster) personally, see #1.

2a. Example: "Your idea/position is stupid and irrational" == OK. "You are stupid and irrational" == Banned.

3. I will admit when I'm wrong. Show me with non-distorted and/or non-parsed facts and I might even change my mind.

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

With the news of Justice Kennedy retiring, Liberals are having a shit fit because Kennedy is the infamous "swing vote" that almost sides with the more Liberal judges on social issues. President Trump has been appointing strict Constitutionalists to the lower courts and there is no reason to believe that he will not continue on that path with his pending SCOTUS appointment.

This means that there will be a solid four strict Constitutionalist votes and one part-time Constitutionalist in Mr. Roberts (whom long ago I said I can never use the title "justice" with him). With the two oldest Justices being "living" Constitutionalists (Ginsberg, 85 and Breyer, 79) If Trump is re-elected, it is entirely possible he could and would fill those seats with strict Constitutionalists as well.

This, of course, has Liberals in a full on seizure mode. Why? Simply put precedents like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges will be in great jeopardy of being overturned.

The ancestors of Liberals (crusading "do-gooders" who want to impose their morality on everyone else) pushed through the Eighteenth Amendment, the Constitution's only foray into social issues. It proved to be such a [sarcasm]wonderful success[/sarcasm] that it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment only fourteen years later, the only Amendment to have that "honor." So these "Social Justice Warriors" turned to the courts to impose their will on the People. The reason why Abortion and SSM (same-sex marriage) are hotly fought debates across this country is because We The People didn't settle these issues, nine people wearing black robes in Washington did.

As I said in A Legacy Built on Sand, precedents like this that can be easily overturned (in this instance, "easily" is a bit understated) because someone with a different political perspective holds the office now and can undo improperly done things.

I never have been and most likely never will be in favor of any kind of direct democracy. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of mob rule, which is why they created this government as a Constitutional Republic. That being said, there are in rare instances of large and dividing social issues like these, each State should put these issues to an "up or down" vote and make it unreviewable by the Judiciary (aka California's "Proposition XX was overturned by judges today..."). That way, the citizens of the States can decide the issue for themselves. Some States will probably vote in favor of abortion and SSM, some States "yes" on one and "no" on the other, and still other States will vote "no" on both. And just to be clear, while I am using abortion and SSM together as examples, each example needs to be treated slightly differently.

The issue of abortion pertains to the legality of performing an abortion in that State. If Arkansas does not allow abortions but Missouri does, I would not be against Arkansas pro-choice "family clinics" offering transportation to abortion clinics in Missouri where a woman could get an abortion. Hawaii may support SSM, while Montana might not. There is nothing preventing a same-sex couple from traveling from Montana to Hawaii and getting married. Under Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution, a valid marriage certificate issued by Hawaii must be accepted by Montana. It doesn't matter if the certificate is for Mary and Mike or Richard and Randy.

And just because I'm a flexible guy on this "direct democracy" thing, we could revisit these (and other social subjects) every, say 20 years. That way if social norms change and evolve, the laws specific to these social subjects could evolve as well.

Comments powered by CComment