“It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions—whether they derive from faith or anywhere else—on the law.”
“Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”
“I totally reject and have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.”
“A judge may never subvert the law or twist it in any way to match the judge’s convictions.”
“Were I confirmed as a judge [or Justice. Eds.], I would decide cases according to the rule of law beginning to end.”
“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it.”
“I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.”
— Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett
Hello Everyone, Happy Tuesday.
All of the above quotes are from our newest-Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett. God, I will never get sick, tired, nor indifferent typing that out or saying it. Rings beautiful on the ears and like a Southern Belle on the eyes.
I have been stating for many years Amy Coney Barrett was going to be nominated and confirmed to our High Court. And sometimes, it is a good feeling to be proven right in the vast sea of naysayers, red herrings, strawman’s, and criticizers I routinely engage with. Though, with Big Brother Tech engaging in a wildly expansive counter-campaign of shadow-banning me on Twitter, Facebook, and now Instagram, that may occur less.
I do take it as a compliment, however, did not realize I was as much of a threat to Big Tech et. al.
The longer it takes for predictions to ring true, the sweeter victory is in the end.
Regardless of what anyone believes should be the proper plan for our government to engage in nominating and confirming picks to the Supreme Court; unless that opinion aligns with what our Constitution states, I do not care much. Neither should you. The law is the law.
Our United States Constitution is our federal government’s contract between it and We the People, and the Federal Government and the Sovereign States. It lays out the do’s and do not’s, and can’s and cannot’s for our government and the people who compose of it.
Partisan politicians on both side of the aisle have stated, in the various election years, that the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy should be “up to the will of the people” in an election year. Sounds eerily anti-American. Good thing, it is not up to them.
Within Our Founding Document, our President is afforded the power to nominate for any SCOTUS and Federal Judiciary vacancy, at any time, and it is upon the Advice & Consent of the Senate to confirm, or not to confirm, said Justice or Judge. U.S. Const. Art. II. § 2. Cl. II. Moreover, on top of the Advice and Consent Clause, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the [United States]. U.S. Const. Art. VI. Cl. II.
Supreme. Law. Of. The. Land. Id.
I felt it proper to bring up such beginning coffee talk and Justice ACB’s quotes as a preliminary discussion for our main topic, due to my newfound hobby of 4d-chess.
Back to our topic of discussion for today: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, SCOTUS, Constitutional Originalism, Our Election, and Our Republic.
The vast majority of cases we have seen filed across our country regarding the election were from aggrieved voters, RNC Affiliates, and election officials.
Today, that changed. President Trump’s legal team headed up by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, both former federal prosecutors, filed and are arguing today in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of PA. This case will, more likely than not, make its way to SCOTUS.
Moreover, something which has been, shockingly, not discussed in the media is that Trey Trainor, our current Chairman and Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission, tweeted yesterday that he has practiced law for over two decades as a member of the State Bar of Texas. Trey stated he has never known fellow Texas lawyer Sidney Powell to be “anything but forthright and honest in every case she’s ever taken on. If she says there is rampant voter fraud in the #Election2020, I believe her.” A strong statement coming from the current Chairman of our Federal Elections Commission.
For those who may have missed it, Sidney Powell is the all-time-badass lawyer who overtook General Michael Flynn’s case when all hope seemed lost—and within months had the Obama-holdovers in the DOJ who were persecuting General Flynn resigning, caught in lies, sanctioned, and the case was thrown out. Even more to her merit, she seems to have rattled the swamp creature that is Judge Sullivan so much, he forgot that he was a Judge, not a federal prosecutor. And true to the left’s theme, he disregarded the Constitution and attempted to reestablish by judicial fiat the prosecution. It is not going well for Judge Sullivan.
That being said, in case you have missed Sidney Powell lately, she has been going around all of the media and on Twitter discussing how they have evidence of massive and widespread voter fraud in this election which is on the level only seen in Third World Dictatorships and Authoritarian Governments. We are talking about the software that our own CIA, intelligence services, and government use to alter foreign elections, being used on our own election. Time will tell the validity of these statements.
However, if I was a betting man (I am), Sidney Powell is someone I would not bet against. And her statements these past weeks only make Trey Trainor’s tweet all the more powerful, and interesting.
The battle is not over; the battle is only just beginning. Grab your popcorn.
If the Trump Camp wins in the USDC for Eastern PA, Democrats will Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Or vice versa. Whoever wins there, loser will appeal to SCOTUS. And, last time this very same legal issue was appealed to the High Court, they accepted it, and Chief Justice Roberts punted. He is President Bush II’s gift that keeps on giving. Now with one more addition to the Court since, I have no doubts the Court will be taking up the issue, again.
For many reasons, this case being pursued by the Trump Campaign is important, with crucial aspects being the degradation and erosion of our Constitution, Separation of Powers, and Federalism form of governance by the PA Supreme Court, Governor, Secretary of State, and others.
Adding to its importance, the legal ramifications will reverberate to other crucial swing states. Such swing states that are, coincidentally, run by Democrats. Because those in government and power in such states engaged in similar unconstitutional acts for their own partisan political gain—our Constitution and Federal Constitutional Republic be damned.
Judges in these jurisdictions ignored the black-letter election law of their respective States’ Legislatures. These judges were able to impose their personal convictions from the bench and enable the Democrat Establishment’s electoral wish lists due to a full-scale legal assault on States’ election laws, for years…from…the Democrat National Committee and its affiliates. Within these legal cases, the Democrat Establishment, flat out, asked these judges to ignore the law of these states and thus, our Constitution. These judges gladly accepted the DNC’s offer.
Democrats for decades have used the judiciary as a super-legislature when they were unable to establish their detrimental ideologies through our Republic’s laid out constitutional methods. For a party that proclaims to the public about integrity, fairness, and equality—they sure do have a plethora of messy history showing the total and complete opposite. Are people called hypocrites when they lie openly to your face while also engaging in acts opposite to their preaching? Or what’s that one?
Ironic. It truly is the empty can that rattles the most.
The Elections and Electors Clauses are straight forward: it is the power of the Sovereign State Legislatures to determine the means, methods, and modes for federal elections. That is, these Clauses designate sole authority and power to State Legislatures for such determination.
For a brief summary of the legal issue, PA’s Governor and Secretary of State, through executive fiat, ignored the Republican Legislature and extended the ballot deadline, laid down by law. The Supreme Court of PA went a step further to grant said ballots the presumption of being on time and valid.
A presumption in the law is essentially a defense; sort of how a prosecutor needs to overcome the presumption of innocence.
How do you overcome a presumption that each ballot missing required materials to show it is valid and on time, is not valid and on time?
My thoughts exactly.
Constitutional Originalism, specifically Original Public Meaning Originalism, is the theory of constitutional interpretation to which Justices Thomas, Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch adhere to. Arcane, novel, and esoteric (…sarcasm…) in its promotion, thinking, and beliefs, the theory holds that lawyers, judges, and justices should interpret our Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, with only the words which are within the four corners of the document. When there is a question of interpretation, we are to look to when said part of the Constitution was ratified by We the People and the Sovereign States to what words are causing confusion, and seek what those words meant to the public at that time and to what Americans would have understood at that time. Thus, the Constitution is to be interpreted with the same meaning as the day the provisions were ratified by the public. Just as our laws and statutes are to be, which is called textualism.
Contrary to popular belief, We Americans today stand on the shoulders of giants. The Founders and proceeding generations were quite intelligent, if not geniuses, more so than most currently in our government. Though they may not have been able to properly, or with precise accuracy, predict the future, the foundations and principles laid out and established are such which transcend such natural human limitations. Such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to fend off against tyrannical rule.
Side bar: one argument I always see from leftists is that the Founder could not have possibly predicted “assault rifles” and AR-15s, and therefore, could not have meant to include those as something protected under the Second Amendment. As shaky as that prediction may be, if I were able to go back in time to the Revolutionary War and introduce an AR-15 to General Washington—he would have ordered them by the tens of thousands…and firmly believed it fell under protection of the Second Amendment.
This being said, the other popular form of Constitutional interpretation is that of the living constitutional interpretation. In short order, this method and its adherents believe that the words within our Constitution “change with the times” as if our Founding Document was a “living and breathing thing.”
Boiled down to its plain meaning, it is a mode of interpretation which gives judges and justices free rein in deciding cases as they think the law should be, and not what the law says. That the law must “catch up” to the times, i.e. what judges believe is proper, not what is actually proper according to the Rule of Law. It is the method prominently taught in law schools. Moreover, it is the constitutional interpretation in which we find SCOTUS deciding cases through “penumbras and emanations” and finding rights and other legal ramifications which do not exist.
This latter form of constitutional interpretation is exactly why we find ourselves in our current election disarray. Because judges and government officials felt it proper to take upon themselves powers not delegated to them by the laws and our Constitution. The former constitutional interpretation mentioned here is akin to reading a book, or a column, and interpreting the author’s words within and deciphering what he meant there.
The latter is akin to doing the very same, and then bringing in arguments and conclusions to which the said author did not convey, allude to, or imply in that column or book.
Which one sounds more logical?
Thankfully, we finally have a Supreme Court with enough justices who interpret our Constitution with the logical method, a mode which rationally applies to all other aspects of life. I anticipate and predict that when these cases and legal issues reach our Supreme Court, our justices will lay down the law as it is written and commonly understood; and not usurp the powers delegated to our legislatures and create laws out of whole clothe.
This is important not only for this election, but for the future of our Republic because the latter of these two constitutional interpretational methods is the Rule of Men—tyranny—and the former is the Rule of Law, where equal protection of the law is equal application, i.e. equality under the law. U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment.
Whether these decisions and the return of our laws to their proper purposes will be enough to overturn the Media’s proclamation of the election—I do not know—but based on what Sidney Powell has been stating, and her so far flawless record with the truth and validity of what she says, my money is on President Trump to be duly, legally, and properly reelected, in a landslide.
I look forward to reading Justice ACB’s first majority opinion. When it lands, tune back in for me to dissect it and discuss its importance to our Republic.