Scalia's Original Intent is Vital to Preserving the Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been dead about 36 hours when liberals started to explain that Senate Republicans had a duty to confirm whomever President Obama nominated as Scalia’s replacement.  Liberals are really big on explaining etiquette to conservatives, etiquette they would never follow themselves if anything important was at stake.  In all situations, but especially in this situation, Republicans should play by the rules that the Democrats apply to themselves.  

Antonin Scalia was the voice of reason on the Supreme Court.  He believed the Constitution had to be interpreted according to how it was understood by the people who wrote it.  He also believed that a judge had a duty to rule on what the law was, not on what the judge wanted the law to be. 

In contrast, “living Constitution” liberals believe the Constitution changes based on what people believe is a reasonable interpretation today, without regard to what the people who wrote it understood it to mean.   “Living Constitution” is how the 14^th Amendment, passed in 1868 when homosexual acts were illegal in every state, is interpreted to require gay marriage in every state under the Equal Protection clause.  Whether you like the outcome or not, how “living Constitution” Justices got there is ridiculous.

Scalia was the best jurist on the court for upholding the rule of law and making the law understandable and predictable.  Replacing Scalia with a “living Constitution” liberal will allow the Supreme Court to destroy what little remains of structure of checks and balances during the appointee’s time as a justice.  Republicans can’t allow that and preserve the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

From the chatter on liberal media on the morning of the 15^th, it's obvious that Obama is considering a recess appointment. The Senate is in recess now until February 22.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should call an emergency session of the Senate immediately to remove the any plausible argument that a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice would be valid now. Any and all complaints about short notice should be met with the explanation that 5 Justices can change the Constitution anytime, even if one of the 5 is a recess appointment temporary hire.

All whining about how the Senate needs to confirm Obama's pick for the court should be met with a quote. I agree with President Obama when he said, "Elections have consequences." We won the 2014 elections. Under the Constitution, the Senate's consent is required to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. We do not consent. That's the end of it.

The article starts to surrender already by saying Republicans could allow a recess appointment to escape pressure from the press. It's time to stop escaping. Hit the Pravda Press right in the teeth.  If Trump can do it for his ego, we can do it for our principles.  It’s easy to state why we will not confirm Obama’s nominee, and we should do so until everyone in the country can recite it like an advertising slogan.  We believe, as Justice Scalia believed, that the Constitution should be interpreted based on what the people who wrote it understood it to mean. We also believe, as Justice Scalia did, that a Justice should decide what the law is, not what the Justice would like the law to be. These principles are more important to us than skin color, gender or ethnic background. We should make this perfectly clear to the Pravda Press. We should refuse to engage on any smoke screen questions. We should respond to red herrings by repeating our reasons for refusing to consent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431313/supreme-court-recess-appointment-will-president-obama-do-it

What Did Corker's Deal Do For Republicans?

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, written by Republican Senator Bob Corker, set up a framework that mandates Congressional review of any arms control agreement with Iran, but allows the agreement to go into force unless Congress can override President Obama’s veto of a bill to stop the agreement.  Since the agreement seems very tilted in favor of President Obama, why would Corker write and help pass such legislation?

What Corker bought us is an on the record vote by every Democrat in Congress on the Iran agreement. Without the Corker bill, there would have been no vote at all. Traditionally, Congress does not vote on Executive Agreements. You must measure Corker’s agreement by the way the Smartest President Ever got the agreement ratified in the UN before Congress could even vote.  Without Corker’s agreement, there would have been no vote and no debate in Congress on the Iran deal.

Further, once that vote is taken, it will be a matter of public record that Barry the Brilliant acted without the advice and consent of anybody beyond his circle of cronies. The Israelis and Saudis are not going to wait quietly while Iran gathers the strength to kill them. They will attack first. The situation will quickly deteriorate in the Middle East to the point that even the Pravda Press can't ignore the general, perhaps nuclear, war that the agreement triggered. We will have a Democratic president, Obama, supported by Congressional Democrats who voted on the record, who made an agreement the majority of both Houses of Congress voted against. This Chicago Machine Prodigy will carry it out anyway, showing his true colors as an arrogant aspiring dictator. That will be a great campaign issue against every Democrat in 2016.

You should note that the Obama administration feels free to ignore Executive Agreements concerning nuclear disarmament whenever convenient. In 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with the Ukraine. In return for the Ukraine surrendering all of the former Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, the US, UK and Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. Last year, Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine, then invaded the Ukraine from the east. The Smartest President Ever refused to send any weapons to help the Ukrainians. He only sent "non-lethal" aid. I know that US field rations are much better than Soviet era leftovers, but do you really believe that's keeping the promise of the Budapest Memorandum?

Since the Smartest President Ever has ignored Executive Agreements he didn’t like, and since the Iran Executive Agreement will have been put in force after being rejected by a majority in both houses of Congress, it should be relatively easy for a Republican president to cancel it in 2017.  If a Democrat is elected in 2016, the country will have so many problems that nuclear war in the Middle East may seem relatively minor.