No Justice, No Peace
No Peace, No Justice
in the context of replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this depicts two sides of the same coin.... e pluribus unum ...squaring off. yay.
The coin this girl is looking at right now is a quarter --- honoring North Carolina -- and it shows the Blue Ridge Parkway curving 'round into what is clearly a tunnel, and whose got time to stop and smell the flowers at a time like this? [And that would be the Flowering Dogwood fyi.] While good 'ole George is on the front...right alongside the words "In God We Trust" and "LIBERTY."
The court is in the cross hairs, here at the crossroads.
And there is a wonderful piece, at The Washington Examiner, by Philip Klein, that might explain this thing called partisan...which is, surprisingly, defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as "a militant supporter of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea." Seriously. It said "militant" -- which is simply speaking of "a combative character... a militant person, especially, a political activist."
Klein lays it out like so -- the confirmation fights got bitter because government got bigger.
In modern Washington, appointed bureaucrats can issue sweeping regulations imposing billions of dollars in costs on industry, small businesses, and consumers; they can determine what type of health coverage every citizen must buy; and can make individuals pay more for electricity.It wasn't supposed to be this way. Originally, the federal government was to be one of limited powers. Whatever power wasn't explicitly granted to Washington, or ruled out, was to reside with the states and their people. When that's the case, it allows citizens to debate divisive issues amongst themselves, giving them a voice in the process, and allowing for regional differences to exist on particularly contentious issues.
the arrival of the number one reason to reform the federal government and return to the Senate it's intended purpose as stipulated by our founders; the Senate was intended to represent the best interests of the STATE. And to that end, unlike the House of Representatives, the two Senators/state were to be placed in office by the elected STATE legislatures accordingly. In this manner, the smaller, less populated, and possibly less prosperous, states would share an equal portion and voice with the larger, more powerful, metropolitan centers of the country. And likewise, the balance between conservative and liberal ideology, by number, by state, is met somewhere in the middle.
Rhode Island would have two votes in the Senate just like California... or Iowa; South Carolina and North Carolina...North Dakota and South Dakota....to each state comes the same two votes, supporting the whole of the state. boom.
And since we have been discussing the aspect of the Separation of Powers (as in, yesterday's gthing), it would behoove us to recognize that the Judicial Branch was intended to be of fairly little importance in the great scheme of things. It was not intended to sway, write, re-write, violate, desecrate, the Constitution, or the Rule of Law, itself. Activism of any kind would not only usurp the process, but nullify legitimacy of any, if not all, decisions forthcoming. [The reason Roe v Wade decision has never ended the debate on abortion...]
No Justice, No Peace
No Peace, No Justice
The partisanship rearing it's ugly head has the capacity to destroy the Republic; and the beginning of the end will be the day the Supreme Court shifts to a reckless, progressive stance in re-writing, re-litigating, the law. Ultimately, setting America up for a kind of fundamental transformation unimaginable; such a transformation violates our Checks and Balances, our Separation of Powers, our very nature of a government of the people and for the people. Without such balances in place, the government gets bigger, the people in power grow more oppressive, confirmations grow more bitter, -- and -- true liberty for all dies.
Take a quarter out of your pocket and look at it...Under a limited government, there is neither front or back -- there is simply the whole. Feel the rough edges in between, where the slow process of critical thinking and colorful debate shape and define and limit the powers from on high. Minting the law, respective of the intention back behind its origins, the original thought, is of the highest order. And, indeed, often times it comes in fine lines and discriminating, treacherous, decision making -- there is only so much space for change -- otherwise the law becomes meaningless, changing on whimsy.
Klein continues to illuminate, noting something quite profound:
As for the judiciary, it was conceived as the "weakest" branch of government, as described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. Hamilton explained that the judiciary "has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…"And now look at us -- being on the receiving end of our Chief Justice John Roberts conforming to a certain lawlessness in Obamacare... and consequently, having fully re-defined the law, as in designating it to be a tax in order to confirm the president's authority to tax every citizen, and subsequently, siding with the liberal majority in both branches to MANDATE every citizen to be insured! So much for limited powers.
You know, Scalia joined the High Court in 1986. At the time of his confirmation hearings, it finally led to a vote of 98 to 0. Nobody contested his confirmation. Nobody contested Kennedy in 1988 either. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, circa 1993, was nearly unanimous, too. [See also a fun map of the bench, just swipe over a judge for a quick bio on confirmation, here.]
President Obama has decidedly opted out in attending Antonin Scalia's funeral, tomorrow. Shameful, considering this is a moment to leave the partisanship home and safely tucked under the cover of darkness. A presidential salute of gratitude and respect is just part of the job description, if nothing else. Not to mention, this would be a first -- a presidential, partisan, supreme size dis.
ON another front, how ironic that President Obama finds himself buried in regret [albeit disingenuously... sidebar alert, sidebar alert] in responding to his own actions during the Alito confirmation hearings... when the democrats did everything in their power to stop it. He says now, as in Tuesday, this:
“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” Obama said Tuesday. “This has become just one more extension of politics.” [and for more, go to The Hill, here]
While his tone of voice, his face, really said it all -- it went something more like this... f%$$ the Constitution
The tell. The truth. The travesty illuminated and confirmed in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen: we elected a free radical into the Oval Office, blinded by hope and change.
Thank God elections do have consequences -- whether it be the Executive Branch, or the House, or the Senate. This is a time for the partisanship in the Senate to hold tight to the "two bits" in the hand and all for which she stands -- e pluribus unum -- and purposely fight for what is right for the American people, for it is reasonable and sound governing.
If we, the people, are ever to accept the reality that the Supreme Court has evolved into a mere extension of politics, and it sticks in our hearts and minds like a bad penny -- then it might as well be our funeral tomorrow, too.
Make it a Good Day, G