JOHN McCAIN AND THE SUPREME COURT
I hate John McCain. I’m also voting for him. If you’re man enough to suck it up and face reality, you’ll vote for him too after careful consideration of my reasoning. If, on the other hand, you’re so enamoured with mindless slogans and “hope-filled” rhetoric that you can no longer make rational decisions, then you don’t even have high enough T-levels to be reading this website, much less to understand what I’m about to lay down.
The most important issue of this election is not Iraq or even Iran. The rhetoric employed by both candidates to stir up their respective bases aside, the two candidates have virtually the same positions on most major foreign policy questions as well as on the conflict in Georgia (Yes, I know there are third parties on the ballot, but I’ll address that later). Additionally, there is no real issue surrounding Social Security or any other social programs because the Democrats are sure to gain a majority in Congress, which will guarantee that these programs stay in place no matter who is President. A Democrat controlled Congress also means that abortion laws will not change and a Federal ban on gay marriage is essentially precluded, so forget about the culture war.
I could go on and on, explaining why all the media's issues don't matter but I won't. That is because there is one issue that takes precedence over all others in this election: establishing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Not only will this be inevitable if John McCain wins the Presidency, but it is crucial to the continued existence of our constitutional republic.
In recent history, the Supreme Court has been closely split between liberals and conservatives and has rendered many close 5-4 decisions and controversial rulings, such as the Heller v. D.C. handgun case. There are four conservative justices, four liberals, and Justice Kennedy, a center-right moderate who is often the deciding vote. The current situation is that Justice Stevens, the leading liberal on the court, is getting into Strom Thurmond longevity territory and will either die or become a senile diaper-wearer any day now. The 2008 election will determine who appoints his replacement.
The court should easily have a conservative majority today, but Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush both appointed Manchurian Candidate ass-clowns who had a conservative veneer prior to their appointments, yet turned out to be liberal to the core once confirmed. F#@$!!! Think about how much better our country would be if not for this terrible tragedy! This failure has not been forgotten in conservative circles and think-tanks and the resulting vigilance helps explain the strong objections that arose when George W. Bush tried to appoint Harriet Miers to the bench. Bush’s subsequent nominations, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, were more thoroughly vetted and have proven to be excellent choices.
Not all cases that reach the Supreme Court have a clear-cut liberal vs. conservative aspect to them, such as bankruptcy issues or copyright disputes, but the composition of the court is critical when it comes to matters of states’ rights, property rights, the Second Amendment, immigration, environmental law, and other contentious issues. It is also important to understand that conservative interpretation of the Constitution and political conservatism are two rather different – albeit related – concepts. I’m not talking about the “judicial restraint” vs. “judicial activism” debate because this is a false construction primarily put forth by people who are talking heads and not true legal scholars. A conservative method of interpreting the Constitution generally means adopting the theory of “textualism”, sometimes referred to as “strict constructionism”.
Skipping a lengthy lesson in judicial interpretation, all you need to know is that textualists believe the Constitution means what it says in the text itself (as opposed to sifting through the tea leaves to come up with liberal nonsense) and that the government does not have any powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution (as opposed to liberals reading the Constitution as a “living document” that can change even though the words remain the same). There are many methods of constitutional interpretation but textualism is currently the dominant conservative method. John McCain has promised to appoint judges who subscribe to this school of thought, whereas Obama will appoint spineless liberals at best, and anti-free market, anti-American radicals at worst (you have only to look at the people he associates with to legitimately fear this possibility).
As an example of how Barrack Obama has no regard for the United States’ Constitution, I will outline his views on the Second Amendment since this is an area I am knowledgeable in. Here are some examples of what he thinks “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means:
- Obama openly opposes all Right to Carry/Concealed Carry laws.
- Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting, including .30-06 and .308. (U.S. Senate, S. 397)
- Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration
- Obama voted to limit gun purchases to one per month (Illinois Senate, H.B. 2579)
- Obama openly admits he wants to re-impose the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban
- Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns (Independent Voters of Illinois questionnaire)
- Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their own homes. (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165)
This nation cannot afford judges who think like Obama or we will lose our firearm freedoms just like the people of England, Canada, and Australia have. Without firearms, the rest of our rights are unenforceable because once the government has a monopoly on firepower, they can do anything they want. This is a topic for another article, but the point is that Obama will not appoint judges who believe that the Constitution means what it says.
With that in mind, remember that president’s term is over in four years but a Supreme Court Justice only steps down from the bench when they are convicted of a serious crime, resign, or die of old age. Think about that for a second. The next president is very likely going to have an impact on how our Constitution is interpreted long after they are out of office. Therefore, even if you don’t believe that Barack Obama will have the political capital to re-instate the failed “assault weapons ban” or institute a “carbon tax” to “save the earth”, he will be able to appoint judges who will rule such legislation to be constitutional if and when the Democrats are finally able to get it passed.
The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils may be objectionable to many Americans and I sincerely believe that the time is coming soon when it will be politically necessary to vote for third parties en masse if we want to maintain our Republic. I was a precinct leader for Ron Paul’s GOP primary campaign and I genuinely agree with Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) on the majority of issues, but you must ask yourself a simple question: “Will voting third party hurt or help the Constitution of the United States of America if doing so gives Barack Obama the Presidency?” The race is tight and McCain needs every vote if he is to prevail.
I propose that the greatest gift the Constitution could receive now is an additional conservative Justice on the Supreme Court – a Justice who reads the Constitution as it is written, not as they want it to be. Another conservative Justice will make for a 5-4 or a 6-3 majority, depending on how you classify Justice Kennedy. This will guarantee that property rights, States’ rights, Second Amendment rights, and the sovereignty of the United States will be well defended on the judicial front for years to come.
Our country will recover from lackluster and inept executive performance; it will not recover from the destruction of our constitution by liberal judges. I might throw up a little bit in the back of my mouth when I pull the lever for McCain, but I will do it all the same, because I am a man and the future of my country is at stake. If you have anything left in your post-modern, media brainwashed, emasculated ball-sack, you’ll do the same.
|
