GOP’s Future Riding on Defeating Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination

I have been a registered Republican since I turned 18, a long, long time ago.

That will change if Senate Republicans do not defeat President Obama’s nomination to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died over the weekend.

If the Republicans do not defeat his nominee, I will be a registered “Independent” before the sun goes down.

President Obama is not willing or capable of nominating anyone remotely close to being a centrist or a strict constructionist. He is a hardcore leftist and will make every effort to strong-arm his kind of radical justice to tip the balance of the Court.

Furthermore, you can place a bet on this: before this year is over (perhaps soon), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will retire. And then President Obama will nominate a much younger person, who could be a fixture on the court for 30 or 40 years, to replace her. He will not leave it to chance for a potential Republican successor to the White House to nominate someone who isn’t cut out of the same ACLU mold as Justice Ginsburg.

And if you do the right thing, GOP Senators, and defeat Obama’s nomination, then do it again and defeat his subsequent nominee(s).

GOP, you are fighting for your life here. Do the right thing. I doubt that I am the only longtime Republican who will throw in the towel on you if you do not take a strong stand and defeat the wrong kind of nominees to the Supreme Court.

Advertisements

Freedom in America in the Balance

America has lost one of its greatest defenders of freedom. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has tragically died at age 79 — leaving leftists salivating for a complete capture of the Supreme Court.

And if the Supreme Court swings to the Left, your freedom will go with it.

A district judge in Texas said he thinks there will be no action on a nominee to replace Scalia, but that is naïve thinking.

Of course President Obama and his fellow travelers will do everything they can to seize this opportunity to put judicial activists in complete control of America’s judicial system, from the very top on down.

Our only hope is to convince U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham and other Senate Republicans to vote down any nominee Obama presents. These people have let us down before and confirmed two nominees. They should not make it a third.

There is absolutely no doubt that Obama will try to strong-arm a radical nominee through the confirmation process. He will try to intimidate squishy Republicans into doing his bidding. Obama will not nominate anyone close to moderate. He detests the U.S. Constitution, and he sees a clear path to re-writing it now.

We citizens must arise and make our voices heard to every Republican in the U.S. Senate to assure the first nominee is defeated. And then the second, and any others, as well.

Gov. Ducey Wants Arizona Out of the Ninth Circuit

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

Today, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued a call for the U.S. Congress to establish another federal circuit court of appeals that removes Arizona from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his call, Gov. Ducey stated, “…due to its voluminous caseload and disproportionate size, the Ninth Circuit has an abysmal turnaround time of over 15 months for an average ruling… Arizonans deserve better than this from the people in power, and that includes a judicial process that is judicious in nature. It’s time that Congress takes overdue action to resolve this crisis in our courts.” Ducey further pointed out that the Ninth Circuit is consistently overturned with a 77 percent reversal rate.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich joined in stating: “The Ninth Circuit is overloaded and it’s bringing on new cases faster than it can resolve old ones. Reform in this area is long overdue.”

Read the full press release here as well as Governor Ducey’s letter to Congress here.

Action Needed:

  • Urge your U.S. Senator and Congressman to make this much needed change!
  • Forward this email to a friend! It is crucial that Arizona’s Congressional Delegation hear from the citizens in their state.
  • Thank Governor Ducey! Send an email to the Governor to thank him for seeking this much needed change in our judicial process.
  • Pray! Pray that Arizona’s U.S. Senators and Representatives will stand boldly and seek a judicious legal process for the citizens they represent.

The Arizona Conservative says: Bravo to the governor’s efforts! And to CAP for supporting this measure. They took the high road and didn’t say this … but we will say it: in 99.9 percent of the social issues cases going up to the Ninth Circuit, this controversial court will rule against conservatives. The deck is stacked in San Francisco, in favor of judicial activism. And it isn’t fair.

Remembering the Black Day of Jan. 22, 1973; Championing a Culture of Life

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy:

Today we observe one of the most tragic days in our nation’s history – the day the United States Supreme Court ruled that taking the life of a preborn child at any stage of pregnancy for any reason was legal. Yet it is a day filled with hope for the days ahead.

Today, I urge you to redouble your efforts to protect the lives of preborn children and their mothers and fathers.

Forty-three years ago few would have anticipated a pro-life movement that is stronger than ever with the country daily witnessing an increasingly pro-life majority. That the abortion rate would be dropping, not increasing.

Some key thoughts to encourage you that we are making a difference…

  • The pro-life movement is just as concerned about the woman walking into an abortion clinic as we are about her preborn child. Abortion not only stops a beating heart, it hurts women. Abortion breaks a woman’s heart. We all know a woman wounded by abortion who has suffered greatly – either physically or emotionally – from her abortion. Men are coming forward in increasing numbers who regret having supported or coerced a woman into having an abortion. These truths help persuade women to choose life, not abortion.
  • Ultrasound technology continues to show the humanity of the preborn child. The vivid pictures of babies as early as nine or ten weeks in the womb with a beating heart and clearly distinguishable human features leave no doubt – that’s a life worthy of protection.
  • The atrocities – the dangerous and deadly practices – being performed daily by Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics continue to be exposed. No longer can the American public act as though these so-called women’s health services are for the common good. No, quite the opposite.
  • In the last three years, more states have passed more laws protecting preborn children and their mothers than at any other time in the last 43 years. Almost all of the Republican candidates for president are pro-life. More and more candidates for office proudly proclaim their pro-life views, including the most recent and current Arizona governors.

To keep making a difference, I offer you these action steps…

  • Pray for an end to abortion. Pray for committed pro-life individuals to be elected to office, especially as President of the United States. Pray for the U.S. Supreme Court as they rule on the Texas abortion law later this year.
  • Financially support and volunteer at a pregnancy resource center. These pro-life heroes are on the front lines daily reaching abortion-minded women with life-saving alternatives.
  • Financially support and volunteer for a candidate of your choosing who will protect and defend life from its very beginning to its natural end.
  • Always, always be ready to be winsome and persuasive as you present the truth with those who do not hold a pro-life view. Know the facts about how abortion hurts women and fetal development from the moment of conception.

Today we mourn the havoc wreaked on preborn children, men, and women. Yet today we also keep our hope fixed on a new day in America when all life is protected from its very beginning to its natural end.

ICYMI – Latest News and Articles of Interest 

 

Leftists Know so Much that isn’t True Part I.

You’ll frequently hear leftists say that conservatives and Christians are taking America backwards. The facts don’t support them. Here’s a list of how leftists are corrupting the culture and taking America down.

 

LEFTIST CAUSES                                               RESULTS

Abortion Nearly 59 million children dead/women killed in abortion clinics/women injured in abortion clinics/abortion increases likelihood of breast cancer and cervical cancer/women suffer psychological harms
Cohabitation More women and children injured and killed by live-in boyfriends/city governments subsidizing through domestic partner benefits/undermines marriage culture/training for divorce/more women and children end up in poverty/problems associated with fatherlessness
Homosexuality AIDs and HIV/shortened life spans/increased domestic violence/anonymous sex spreads disease through communities/unresolved psychological pain/pedophilia/problems associated with fatherlessness/people with same-sex attraction not encouraged to go to counseling to discover the root of the problem/instead they’re encouraged by activists to seek special rights that don’t bring happiness and well-being
Big Government More government control/less individual freedom/more government corruption/people encouraged not to work, but to depend on confiscation of the wealth created by others
Nondiscrimination laws First Amendment to the Constitution usurped
Hate crime laws Special classes created at the expense of others/all crime is committed with contempt for the victims, regardless of victims’ identity
Expanded welfare Cycles of dependency on government/loss of dignity and human flourishing
Secular humanist government Hostility toward Christians/inadequate worldview to cope with social problems and governance/loss of free speech and religious freedom/judicial activism and judges making up new laws, undermining the legislative process and Constitutional freedom
Secular humanist schools Hostility toward Christians/children taught that life doesn’t matter/leftist political indoctrination/liberal cocoon/plummeting quality of education/America near bottom of developed nations in scholastic achievement/children not taught the basics/children not taught American history or civics/declining quality of American work force/Planned Parenthood’s school sex education resulted in more teen pregnancy, more early sex and more STDs/teaching of evolution is teaching that life doesn’t matter, creating culture of death/humanity dehumanized as mere animals resulting by chance/dumbing America down/unemployed and underemployed graduates paying huge debts for substandard college education/increased number of foreign doctors and engineers in America doing what many Americans unable to do
Crime Soft punishment/more concern for perpetrators than victims/short terms for rapists
War on Poverty Poverty increased/dependency on government
Moral relativism Decadence/increased crime/crisis of ethics and honest/people encouraged to make their own morality
Entertainment culture Decadence, debauchery, violence, harmful messages/garbage in, garbage out/amorality and dishonesty encouraged/drug use glorified
Democratic Party Corrupted by unions and radical special interests/stolen elections/
Immigration Laws ignored/border dissolved/drug smuggling/human smuggling/Americans injured, raped and killed by illegal aliens/children with TB brought into the nation with Americans exposed to them/Democrats looking to increase voter rolls/Mexico dumping its welfare dependents and criminals on American taxpayers/radicalized Muslims abusing the system to gain entry into the nation
Religious freedom Americans punished by government for their beliefs/Constitutional protection of churches from government twisted to government hostility toward churches/churches corrupted by homosexual activists/religious schools and colleges threatened with loss of accreditation over biblical beliefs/criminalization of scripture
National defense Compromised/America viewed as weak by Islamic terrorists and many nations/citizens at risk/border invasion/president’s tepid responses to terrorism, world events
Personal well-being Everyone suffers from left-wing policies and practices: leftists, conservatives, independents/lefties have the government, the schools, the media, corporations and their cups are still empty and they are still angry/be careful of what you lefties wish for
Gun control Criminals breaking numerous gun control laws which failed to protect innocent lives from being destroyed/Americans left defenseless against deranged shooters/guns are demonized instead of criminals/problem of mental illness overlooked/deranged criminals committing atrocities in places where they know there will be no armed resistance/Oregon community college security guard unarmed/political correctness is getting people killed

DEMOCRATS VS. AMERICA

Democrats

  • Want to control as much of your life as they possibly can
  • Want to take away your freedom
  • Want to regulate your speech
  • Accept blood money from Planned Parenthood to get elected
  • Take your money and give it to Planned Parenthood
  • Say your child belong to the state
  • Want to keep your children in failing schools
  • Want to indoctrinate your children in secular humanism and encourage them to abandon your faith
  • Punish you for your beliefs and thoughts
  • Allow religious liberty for everyone but Christians
  • Raise your taxes
  • View all money as theirs to keep or to allow you to have some
  • Punish successful businesses
  • Tax your church
  • Remove accreditation from Christian colleges
  • Take away your right to defend yourself — leaving you defenseless against criminals
  • Release more prisoners from jail
  • Want Planned Parenthood to avoid punishment for allowing child rapists to go unreported
  • Want to re-write the Constitution so they can make up new “rights”
  • Want to weaken our national defense
  • Want to open the borders for drug smugglers and new Democratic voters
  • Ignore the rule of law
  • Are creating chaos so you will give up your liberty to have order
  • Are destroying America’s culture
  • Are practicing situational ethics to justify unethical behavior
  • Confiscate your money and give it to the poor, then taking credit for “helping the poor”
  • Are making you pay for the abortion slaughter of 1.2 million Americans each year
  • Are making you pay for other people’s health insurance
  • Made you pay for free golf carts for others
  • Want you to pay for other people’s college education
  • Are giving your tax dollars to America’s enemies
  • Control the media
  • Steal elections and disenfranchise you
  • Encourage activist judges to over-rule your vote
  • Are dictating your vocabulary
  • Are demonizing and marginalizing anyone who does not agree with them
  • Despise the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution
  • Are fiscally reckless and irresponsible, weakening the economy
  • Jeopardizing your social security
  • Are controlling the law schools and training godless generations of lawyers to carry out their policies
  • Are championing moral depravity
  • Are poisoning people against law enforcement
  • Are socialists

ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT OR A CHRISTIAN?

DEMOCRAT CHRISTIAN
2012 DNC Convention voice vote preference to leave “God” out of platform Matthew 10:32-33 — Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
You have a legal right to kill your unborn child. You have an obligation to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars. You have an obligation to fund abortion with your tax dollars, and will be punished if you refuse. Jeremiah 1:4-5 — The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Genesis 1:26-27 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9: 5-6 — And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

Proverbs 6: 16-19 — There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Deuteronomy 5:17 — You shall not murder.

Deuteronomy 30:19 — This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

You have a legal right to marry a person of the same gender. Government should pay for sex changes. Children should experiment sexually. Genesis 5:2 — He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

Matthew 19:5 — For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Your rights come from government. Galatians 5:1 — It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Animals and the earth are of greater value than human beings. Genesis 1:26 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Man, animals, birds and plants evolved from a lower order, by accident. Genesis 1:21 — So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Genesis 1:25 — God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Human beings make their own morality. Romans 1:22 — Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Jeremiah 10:14 — Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. The images he makes are a fraud; they have no breath in them.

You are not encouraged to work. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 — For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve … But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15

Overruling the Courts: How We End the Reign of Liberal Judges in 2016

By Andrew Thomas, former Maricopa County Attorney 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage confirms, once again, that conservative efforts to end liberal judicial activism on major issues have failed. On matters that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts, and has for the last fifty years. To end this tyranny, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. This will allow the states and the people to decide these matters, restoring self-government on the issues that matter most.

For the past half century, conservative political leaders have vowed to combat liberal judicial activism. These efforts, quite simply, have failed. Unelected liberal judges now effectively run America, making every ultimate policy decision-often in defiance of the will of the people.

Unchecked liberal court rulings have subverted the Constitution, wreaking havoc on our national sovereignty and such bedrock institutions as the family and religious freedom. On the issues that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts and is seeking to mop up and fully implement their social agenda. Except for occasional “crumbs from the master’s table,” conservatives no longer can win in court on the issues that matter most.

To reverse this destructive trend and restore self-government, two things must happen. First, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. Second, conservative leaders and organizations must work together and insist that candidates for president and Congress in 2016 take a clear position on whether they support stripping the federal courts of this jurisdiction. Otherwise, candidates will continue to mislead conservative voters with often self-serving promises and tactics that, for a half century, have failed to turn the tide.

These jurisdiction-stripping measures would ensure, at a minimum, certain states can become “Faith and Family Networks.” There, people of faith may live in relative freedom from harassment until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

An American Tyranny: Why Our Government Is Election-Proof

Starting in the 1960s, liberal activists took over the federal courts and used them to assault and fundamentally change American society. Under the leadership of former California politician Earl Warren, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed on the nation sweeping liberal policies that lacked popular support. To accomplish this, the high court claimed it had discovered new constitutional “rights.” These “rights” were conferred on individuals hostile to the rule of law and traditional American values. They included criminals and prison inmates, illegal immigrants, flag-burners, and a motley group of liberal provocateurs at war with the social conventions that had protected civilization for millennia.

Converting the Supreme Court into what Justice Hugo Black called a “day-to-day constitutional convention,” activist justices remade the nation. They threw out state laws designed to stop illegal immigration, administer capital punishment, significantly limit or ban abortion, defend marriage, honor religious faith through governmental action, and protect the innocence of children from unrestrained “freedom of expression” in the mass media. These activist rulings, to paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, rewrote the “Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

For example, thanks to federal court rulings, convicted murderers are allowed decades to appeal their sentences through state and, afterwards, federal courts. These delays effectively nullify capital punishment, which the American people support. The Supreme Court has invalidated state laws allowing juries to impose capital punishment on heinous criminals who, for example, rape children. Today, the death penalty is carried out only at the whim of judges, and is no longer an effective deterrent to murder or other grave crimes.

Likewise, the federal courts have knocked down state laws addressing the ongoing influx of illegal immigrants. Activist judges have overturned legislation which made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to enter a state. Other state laws targeting illegal immigration have met the same demise. This has happened even though the Framers of the Constitution expressly reserved for the states broad police powers allowing them to pass and enforce such laws-laws which defend the rule of law and basic American sovereignty.

Unelected federal judges, not elected officials, now have the final say on every national policy issue. This has made our government election-proof. Voting for president or members of Congress means little if federal judges, not elected officials, make the ultimate decisions on all public policies. As power has shifted to the federal courts, elections have become increasingly meaningless. Voter distrust of government has soared.

Moreover, the judiciary has become a firm bastion of liberalism. The courts have given America, for the past fifty years, a steady series of now-entrenched liberal court rulings. These have shattered the nation’s traditions, quality of life and culture. The courts steadfastly refuse to overturn these rulings. Except for occasional and very marginal victories, it is no longer possible for conservatives to win in court on the issues that matter most.

A Half Century of Failure

How did activist liberal judges accomplish this? Those who should have fought back against them did not. Failing to mount a successful counterattack were a succession of presidents and members of Congress-in particular, as a practical matter, the leaders of America’s conservative party, the Republican Party. Many of these leaders tried and meant well. Most, however, shunned the fight out of political self-interest. To avoid controversy and attacks from the liberal media and other allies of liberal judges, these leaders sacrificed the Constitution and self- government.

Misleading Campaign Promises and Ineffective Tactics

Every election cycle, Americans witness a disingenuous ritual. Republican candidates promise to fight the most recent batch of liberal court rulings with tactics proven, over the last fifty years, to be completely ineffective. The first stock promise: seeking to amend the Constitution. This is a political cop-out. The Framers deliberately made amending the Constitution an extremely difficult and unlikely process. This makes pledging to amend the Constitution a dodge, a high- sounding way to avoid seriously addressing activist court rulings.

Equally slippery is the second standard promise: passing more laws to challenge the offending rulings. New conservative laws, conservatives are told, will set up more cases and, eventually, victories in court. These laws are then litigated for many years, often a decade or longer. Any eventual gains from these cases are tardy and trifling. By then a whole new generation of Congressmen are in office, ready to try the same tactic before an often-forgetful conservative electorate. This political promise, in short, is the hackneyed political equivalent of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown again and again.

Despite decades of litigation, the core liberal court rulings remain untouched. For fifty years, federal judges have not reversed a single, major liberal precedent on a cultural issue. Conservative gains in court have been rare and extremely modest, while the left and its social agenda romp virtually unchallenged through the nation’s courthouses. Trumpeting these tiny and infrequent conservative “victories” are lawyers who earn income from these cases and allied politicians; their public declarations of victory often mislead conservatives into thinking they are winning the nation’s cultural battles when, in fact, they are being routed.

Finally, GOP presidential candidates offer the quadrennial chestnut of promising to appoint “strict-constructionist judges.” This tactic also has failed. The left makes confirmation of such candidates for judgeships a horrific and doubtful enterprise. Prospective judges who are honest and open enough to articulate right-of-center views prior to nomination are crucified by liberal media elites and pressure groups during the confirmation process. The savaging of the late Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas were clarion events in this regard. Indeed, the left knows how and when to fight: Had Bork been confirmed instead of his replacement, Anthony Kennedy, America would be a very different country today.

Regardless, it is hard even to find potential conservative judges, no matter how diligently a president searches for them. Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. For this reason, the number of conservatives in this pool of potential judges is very small. Even when they can be found, attorneys with seemingly conservative credentials frequently “flip” after donning a black robe. To do otherwise requires them to withstand tremendous professional and personal pressures and enticement from liberal legal insiders, the media and fellow judges. Few are strong enough to do so.

“The Liberal Courts”

What Judge Robert Bork foresaw as the “political seduction of the law,” in a landmark book published when Barack Obama was a law student, has materialized. The left has thoroughly politicized the law and the courts. Conservatives cannot win there on the issues that matter most. Conservative leaders and voters must acknowledge this reality and act accordingly.

How did the left capture the courts? This takeover was inevitable once liberal activists took over academia. To be a lawyer, one must complete seven years of higher education, receiving both a bachelor’s degree and a juris doctor. This means undergoing seven years of indoctrination by committed liberal professors. Thirty years ago, the late Allan Bloom warned about the damaging effects of liberal bias in higher education. But this was a thorny problem to solve, and so it was ignored. Now, it has changed the country.

Liberal indoctrination in American higher education is well documented. Some 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent call themselves conservative. Not surprisingly, a 2010 analysis by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute concluded that the more college degrees a person earns, the more liberal that person becomes. When Americans are asked, for instance, whether they believe public-school teachers should be allowed to lead a prayer in school, 57 percent of high-school graduates say yes. That number drops to 40 percent for college graduates, 30 percent for master’s degree holders, and only 17 percent for Ph.D.’s.

This dynamic is particularly stark in law school. Those who dissent from liberal positions during class discussions literally are hissed at and ridiculed. Professors tolerate and sometimes encourage this environment. The message is delivered. Few who graduate from law school are conservative.

The American Bar Association and other bar associations reflect and enforce these biases. Indeed, an attorney who publicly calls the judiciary politicized or liberal risks disbarment; ethical rules charge bar associations with targeting attorneys who, in their judgment, unfairly challenge the “integrity of the judiciary.” Lawyers who speak out also face professional ostracism and retaliation in more obvious ways, as the courts control the outcome of their cases and their livelihoods.

In short, conservatives must view the courts as they do the media. Both institutions have become firmly liberal. Occasional “crumbs” from either institution do not alter this reality. Conservatives should use the phrase “liberal courts” as frequently and reliably as they say “liberal media,” for the terms are equally true.

Indeed, there is an incestuous relationship between the liberal courts and the liberal media. Through generous rulings, the courts have all but shielded the media from libel suits. The media reciprocate by giving the courts “air cover,” reflexively defending them from conservative critiques by pounding those who dare articulate them. Hollywood benefits financially from liberal court rulings, and so leaders of the motion-picture industry do their part, as well. Movie producers uniformly offer films that depict judges as wise, fair and benevolent.

Reclaiming Self-Government

Congress has the power to end this tragic and ruinous state of affairs. That power resides in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution specifies that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only over disputes between states and cases in which foreign diplomats are a party. On any other issue, Congress can limit or eliminate entirely the jurisdiction of the high court and the other federal courts. In other words, the people’s elected representatives in Congress can roll back judicial abuses through a simple majority vote of both houses.

Article III, section 2 provides the Supreme Court “shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” This language expressly allows Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts to uphold the will of the people.

Congress has done this in the past, though not on the controversial cultural issues where action is urgently needed today. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld past congressional restrictions of its jurisdiction. Indeed, the language of Article III is so clear and unambiguous that the high court has been obliged to concede such limitations despite its obvious conflict of interest in allowing its own powers to be curbed.

In a string of rulings going back to right after the Civil War, the high court has acknowledged Congress holds this power under Article III. One justice recognizing this constitutional reality was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose opinions first asserted the Supreme Court’s right to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional. Marshall observed that all federal judicial powers “are limited and regulated” by Congress.

In the Federalist Papers, written to persuade the earliest Americans to adopt the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton echoed this understanding. He stated the courts were designed to be the “least dangerous” and “weakest” branch of government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be “confined to two classes, and those of a nature rarely to occur.” Likewise, federal appellate jurisdiction would exist only “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (Hamilton’s emphasis). There would never be a “superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power,” meaning the courts could not overrule Congress and the people. Indeed, Hamilton noted Congress could impeach activist judges who engaged in “deliberate usurpation on the authority of the legislature.” Leading legal scholars and other observers have quoted Hamilton and other Framers in upholding Congress’s power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Congress should restrict jurisdiction in those areas of public policy where federal judges have engaged in repeated, substantial abuses of power to thwart the will of the people. Specifically, Congress should pass an act restricting federal-court jurisdiction so that henceforth, each state may:

  • Make it a crime, prosecutable under state law, for an illegal immigrant to enter the state;
  • Ban same-sex marriages and protect related religious freedom;
  • Allow juries to impose the death penalty on criminals as determined by state law, and impose a two-year time limit for federal courts to rule on federal appeals of state capital cases; and
  • Fully regulate or end abortion as the people of the state or their elected representatives deem fit.

This “Empower the States Act” will restore to the states and the people their rightful authority to govern themselves on key areas of public policy.

Returning these matters to the states is not a perfect solution. Because of the deep intellectual rot in the judiciary, many state courts are liberal. Yet state judges are closer to the people and more accountable because many are elected. Also, many state constitutions have a right of referendum, allowing the people to vote directly on these matters.

Conclusion: Empowering the States

In 2016, conservative voters cannot settle for the same evasions and self-serving rhetoric offered by presidential and congressional candidates for the past half century. They must insist that candidates agree explicitly that if elected, they will act to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over these matters and end the reign of liberal judges. Fifty years of failure have proven nothing else will work.

To force candidates to address these issues forthrightly, conservative leaders, activists and voters must be dogged and focused. Republican politicians in particular routinely court conservative voters and rely upon them at election time, but try to avoid tackling these issues. They want to be spared the “air war” that erupts in the liberal media when conservative elected officials address a major social issue. As a result, Republican leaders typically settle for what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich memorably called “managing the decline” of the nation. This is a generous and artful way of accusing such leaders of political cowardice and dereliction of duty, terms that are just as true and fair.

Conservatives must demand more. The hour is very late.

The “Empower the States Act” will create “Faith and Family Networks,” states and clusters of like-minded states where people of faith can live without harassment. This is a realistic stopgap measure to protect these basic liberties until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

To achieve this, conservatives cannot allow candidates to change the subject, talking instead of such easy and shopworn fare as cutting taxes or curbing the bureaucracy. Many news items compete for the voters’ attention. Yet the left shrewdly remains focused on controlling the courts because they know this is their source of ultimate power. In contrast, by losing such focus, conservatives have seen their civilization wrecked by liberal activist judges.

Only by pinning down candidates and holding them to their word on these issues can Americans realistically hope to end the left’s stranglehold on the courts. In the process, the electorate will have taken the surest path to a brighter national future.

Notes

Justice Black:  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)(Black, J., dissenting).

Justice Scalia:  United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996)(Scalia, J., dissenting).

Liberal court rulings:  E.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)(disallowing state law barring illegal immigrants from entering state); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) (expanding the rights of criminals and inmates); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)(right to abortion); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963)(forbidding public schools from conducting prayer or Bible readings);Obergefell v. Hodges, Citation Pending (2015)(right to same-sex marriage).

Bork:  Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Free Press, 1990).

Bloom:  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

Liberal indoctrination in higher education:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute, “The Shaping of the American Mind,” February 2010.

Law school climate:  Andrew Peyton Thomas, The People v. Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech (San Francisco: Encounter, 2005), pp. 24-26.

Supreme Court and appellate rulings acknowledging Congress’ power to restrict  jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2:  Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869)(1867 Act); Lauf v. E.G. Skinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938)(Norris-LaGuardia Act); Felker v. Turpin, 517 U.S. 651 (1996)(Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2003)(Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act); Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002)(Prison Litigation Reform Act).  In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), the Supreme Court, in a narrowly written decision, invalidated a federal restriction on its jurisdiction over enemy combatants held in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Chief Justice Marshall:  Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Crach.) 307 (1810).

Hamilton:  Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Nos. 78 and 81 (available online athttp://constitution.org).

Intellectual support for jurisdiction-stripping measures:  E.g., Raoul Berger, Death Penalties: The Supreme Court’s Obstacle Course (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982); R. Randall Bridwell and William J. Quirk,Judicial Dictatorship (Rutgers: Transaction, 1995); Patrick J. Buchanan, “Our Judicial Dictatorship,” Buchanan.org, October 10, 2014; Phyllis Schlafly, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It(Dallas: Spence, 2004).

Appendix – Proposed Legislation

114th Congress

1st Session

H.R. ____________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving illegal immigration, marriage, capital punishment and abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Empower the States Act of 2015.”

SEC. 2.   LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION

(a)  In General – Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“Section 1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction

No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, state laws that:  prohibit illegal aliens, as defined by Federal immigration laws, from entering a state; pertain to any type of marriage; determine what criminal conduct makes a criminal offender eligible for capital punishment; set a time limit, for a period of two years or more, for Federal appeal and review of state death-penalty cases; or regulate or prohibit abortion”.

(b) Conforming Amendment – The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction”.

 

 

 

 

An Open Letter to the Judge Who Disenfranchised 1.2 Million Voters

An Open Letter to U.S. District Judge John Sedwick:

I am one of the more than 1.2 million Arizonans who was disenfranchised last fall when you exceeded your authority and redefined marriage in our state. The nature of highly important issues like marriage is best left to the voice of their people or their elected representatives in the legislative branch. Arbitrary decisions like yours were never intended to be left to the judicial branch. You acted without the authority to do so.

Here’s how your regrettable decision will impact our communities:

More children will grow up without their father. Fatherlessness has wrought a devastating effect on our society.

More children will grow up without the nurturing care of their mother

More children will struggle in school.

More children will grow up in confusion about themselves and their sexuality.

More children will be subject to pornography. More of them will act out what they’ve seen, on other children.

More children will be placed at higher risks of sexual assault and rape. They’ll carry this trauma with them the rest of their lives.

More adults will be subject to domestic violence. This will create a greater drain on public resources left to pick the pieces.

There will be more divorce.

Your actions will reward alcohol and drug abuse.

There will be more STDs and AIDs in our Arizona communities traceable directly to your decision.

And you can’t have more drug and alcohol abuse and more disease without having more absenteeism in our work places.

All of these claims are backed up by decades of social science research in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you doubt that, please scan The Arizona Conservative website or contact us for the data.

Furthermore, you have seriously damaged the democratic process in Arizona. How many Arizonans will now be skeptical about engaging in the proposition process? How many more people are now left with an attitude that asks, “why should I bother to vote when a single judge can just throw my vote in the trash?”

You may never realize the damage you have wrought. But as we wrote to you before: when you come to a gate in the road, stop and ponder why it was placed there in the first place before you remove it.

Arizona, and America, need a strong marriage culture. It can’t be strengthened by redefining it, as you did. Nor can you lightly brush off the disenfranchising of 1.2 million Arizonans who enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment with good intentions and for good reason.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

The Arizona Conservative