Here are some of the lessons we must take into the political fight for the Supreme Court.
Congress in 1866 was concerned about an unpopular, reactionary president using the Supreme Court to restrict the people’s rights. In 2017, we will likely find ourselves in a similar spot.
As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court literally die out.
Today’s strong judicial activism goes against the purpose of the Supreme Court envisioned by the Founders, and defined in the Constitution.
To truly merit a place on the Supreme Court—whether for Merrick Garland or someone else—the next appointee must understand the constitutional power he or she exercises.
It’s time for Congress to return the institution to an even-bodied court. Doing so would create a more legitimate and less politicized institution.
If we understand the history of Supreme Court appointments, we can understand that there is really no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Supreme Court nominee.
Harry Reid said he wishes Republicans would stick to the ‘Biden rule’ for President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination–meaning no confirmation hearings.
- Gambler Phil Ivey Can’t Get His Millions Because Casinos Are Too Big To FailCasinos refused to give professional gambler Phil Ivey continue reading >
- Reaction To Trump’s Team Proves Climate Alarmists Are The Real DeniersAfter the election, there were reports of EPA employeescontinue reading >
- Washington Post Misrepresented YouTube Video Showcasing .22 LR Rifle SuppressorsIn a lengthy article about efforts to ease federal rulecontinue reading >