It's on to South Carolina. Yes, the presidential primary, which has been dragging on since the day after Obama was elected to his second term, is finally in full swing. All the candidates are jockeying for position – all the nonsense we've had to endure is finally coming into view.
And now, with the recent exit of two more on the Republican side, Christie and Fiorina, we are down to a much more reasonable six candidates. It's actually only five – Carson is out, he just hasn't announced it yet. Oh, I almost forgot Jim Gilmore. He may be a force going forward. After all, he did garner 125 votes in the New Hampshire primary, although that was about half the 240 votes that Vermin Supreme received on the democrat side. But what democrat wouldn't vote for a guy who looks like a Viking and wears a boot on his head. Sounds like a mainstream democrat or a college professor.
On the democrat side the race has and will continue to be focused on who can give away more of our money to those who have not earned it or are otherwise undeserving. On the right, the issues are a bit more diverse—or, at least, more defined.
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
Our candidates quibble over their varying views on Obamacare, immigration, taxes, and spending. Yet, something has gone virtually unmentioned throughout this campaign. We haven't heard it out on the stump (much), and the debates appear bereft of questions from the moderators. I am speaking of the black-robed 800 lb. Gorillas in the room – the Supreme Court.
Experts tell us that three, possibly four, Supreme Court justices will retire or, more likely, keel over during the first term of our next president. Both Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 80. Stephen Breyer is 78, and Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg is 372. It's practically a guarantee that at least a few will pack it in within the next 5 years.
Now, if we were a true Constitutional Republic, this wouldn't be much of a problem. But that went away many moons ago, kemosabe. The founders never envisioned (but did warn us) that the court would become the third legislative branch. Yes – third. The First and only Constitutional legislative branch – Congress. The second – the President – is clearly unconstitutional, and the courts recklessly misinterpret and rewrite law seemingly every time they are in session.
But that's where we are today, so Constitutional Conservatives must deal with this reality and look to a candidate who may best reorder the proper balance of power.
It's not to say that immigration, Obamacare, and the size and scope of the federal government isn't important – to be sure, they are; but today's Supreme Court trumps them all.
Just witness the decisions rendered by the black robes over just the past few years – ruling in favor of and rewriting Obamacare (King v Burwell) to somehow make it legal; the same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) ruling and the Texas housing (Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities) ruling; the infamous Kelo "Takings Clause" decision, which The Donald surely favors; and many more.
Most of the decisions have come down to a 5-4 vote, where a single justice holds the key to liberty or authoritarianism. One man has the power to save or ruin a nation. There is something seriously wrong with that reality. But this is the way it's been.
Sure, the Supremes get it right occasionally, but almost invariably by razor-thin margins, as in the latest 5-4 decision to block Obama's "Clean Power Act," which would all but shutter the energy sector – but, more often than not, they come down on the wrong side.
Federalist 78: "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." -Alexander Hamilton.
I was never a big fan of Hamilton, but he had it right here. Who in America thinks this any longer accurate?
Knowing that one wrongly (or purposely) chosen judge will send us over the edge, the question of appointing Supreme Court justices should be question number one in every debate and at every town hall. I know where my candidate stands – do you?Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.