Connect with us

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

on

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Republican lies, damned lies, and Brett Kavanaugh

Published

on

Republican lies damned lies and Brett Kavanaugh

In my never-ending effort to expose Trump and the GOP as conniving con-artists dedicated to crushing conservatives while simultaneously pretending to protect and defend our values, I’m always on the lookout for their latest lies.

As the 2020 election draws near, Republicans are already repeating the lies and broken promises from past elections to hide their failures and beg for your money and your vote. In addition, we’ve been fed us a steady diet of the evils of socialism as Mitch McConnell promises to be the “Grim Reaper” for socialism, and he’s given his word that Republicans will be a “fire wall” protecting the Constitution, but only if we let them keep their Senate majority.

Lately, Mickey has been touting his non-existent success at transforming the judiciary by filling the courts with “strict constructionists,” and he’s been repeating this lie in his appeals for donations for his campaign. In an email I received yesterday, he said in part:

“President Trump has not wasted a single moment nominating pro-Constitution judges to serve our country.

“He has nominated two superb Supreme Court nominees, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, and over 100 pro-Constitution judges to serve in lower courts across America. And your Republican Senate Majority has confirmed them at the fastest clip in history.”

Ah yes. Justice Kavanaugh. Perhaps the greatest example so far of McConnell’s lie.

Beginning with one of his first decisions where he rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas, states that were seeking to defund Planned Parenthood, Kavanaugh has become a solid ally of the leftist wing of the court — a trend that even had Trumpist Rush Limbaugh scratching his head. Don’t worry Trump cult, El Rushbo still defended him.

Kavanaugh’s nomination to replace Justice Kennedy was a bad deal for conservatives and the Constitution from the very beginning, and I opposed his confirmation for several reasons:

Amazingly, but not surprisingly, even with these concerns, Fellowship of the Pharisees member Robert Jeffress called Kavanaugh’s nomination “a clash between good and evil — between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness,” and he praised Trumps pick because Trump is God’s man.

The nomination also garnered the adulation of evangelicals across the country along with so-called conservative groups.

McConnell also stated in his email:

“I’m up for re-election, and you can bet that Chuck Schumer and his Washington Democrat allies will do everything in their power to beat me. They want to pack the courts with progressive activist judges who will legislate from the bench instead of following our Constitution. The only thing standing in their way is me. As long as I am the Senate Majority Leader, that won’t happen.”

I think when Mickey said he’s the only thing standing stand in the way of Democrats, he really meant he’s the one plowing the way for them.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

What Kamala Harris (and most of America) missed in William Barr’s responses to her

Published

on

What Kamala Harris and most of America missed in William Barrs responses to her

For a former prosecutor, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) seems to have a hard time questioning people. Her attempts to embarrass and harass Attorney General William Barr at last week’s Senate hearing yielded no fruit and made he look foolish as she continued to ask the same question, receiving variations of the same answer every time.

First, she started asking the Attorney General why he didn’t recuse himself from the Mueller report. When Barr mentioned consulting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Harris turned her questioning towards him, wondering whether Barr had consulted with the ethics wing of the Department of Justice regarding Rosenstein’s involvement. After all, he was leading an investigation in which he was also a potential witness.

After verifying with his team, Barr confirmed they had been consulted. Harris clearly wasn’t expecting this to be the case, so she continued asking the same question again and again, yielding the same results. But in the middle of this, Barr pointed out the Senate itself had overwhelmingly confirmed Rosenstein for the task ahead of the Mueller report and gave their support. He fell short of asking the Senator if she had consulted with them, considering the Senate had confirmed him, but the implication was apparent.

This video from The Epoch Times’ show Declassified with Gina Shakespeare also delved into the circumstances Barr is facing today with the House Judiciary Committee threatening to hold Barr in contempt unless he breaks the law for them.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

House goes Barr-less as Nadler promises vote for contempt of Congress

Published

on

House goes Barr-less as Nadler promises vote for contempt of Congress

There is clearly contempt in Congress right now, but it’s not coming from Attorney General William Barr. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler want to have a vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress if he does not provide an unredacted Mueller report soon.

Barr was a no-show, as expected, at the committee hearing today.

“Ordinarily at this point, I would introduce the witness, but instead we will conclude this proceeding,” Nadler said. “We cannot permit him or anyone in the administration to dictate the terms of this hearing. We will not hear from the attorney genera today but his committee intends to obtain the information it needs to conduct legislative oversight.”

Opinion

As our EIC noted yesterday, Nadler doesn’t want the accountability of his Democratic members of the committee attacking Barr. He wants people with no accountability come election day to do the questioning for them, allowing them to remain distant from the proceedings. It’s a sham.

The last thing this country needs is more of a gap between the actions of our elected officials and the ballot box. If they want to attack Barr, do it. Don’t hide behind lawyers.

The reality is this: the Mueller report is available and there’s nothing in it to support the Democrats’ narrative, so they’re doing everything they can to change the conversation in their favor by painting Barr as a bad guy. It’s not Barr’s fault the report didn’t jibe with the agenda they’ve been building for two years around the Mueller investigation. He wasn’t even in office at the time for the vast majority of the investigation itself.

They didn’t get the fruit they sought, so they’re trying to manufacture false fruit out of thin air. This is despicable, which is why most Americans hate Congress in general.

Quote

“I think what we’re seeing from Chairman Nadler is incapable of holding power.” – Press Secretary Sarah Sanders

Final Thoughts

If Nadler wants Barr to testify, all he has to do is hold the hearings the proper way with members asking questions instead of unaccountable lawyers. Nadler’s unwillingness to do it the right way betrays his fear of being on the record.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending