Supreme Court

Supreme Court
The next president will nominate at least one Justice to the Supreme Court, probably more like three. Regardless, the next eight years will determine the fate of America’s next seven or eight decades.
Over the last fifty years the 3-tiered structure of our government has steadily disintegrated. [link just an example]
Here’s another:

 

The executive, legislative and judicial branches must be kept separate in order to maintain objectivity and integrity. Think: judge, jury and executioner. If the creator of the law gets to interpret it and enforce it? Think: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Quickly:
The Legislative branch writes laws. The Judicial branch interprets laws. The Executive branch enforces laws.
The inherent checks and balances between those three branches could be considered the gravity of government. Without it, unregulated bodies drift recklessly through the political cosmos …, which is exactly what is happening right now.
Well-written laws can restrict interpretation and temper enforcement. Merciful execution can correct issues of both the legislature and judiciary. Merciful adjudication can compensate for poorly written laws and anticipate an unjust execution.
However, that is not to say they should do each other’s jobs.

I mention all that for this:
Justices should not legislate from the bench. Or, create law. We get to vote for the people that do that. Justices should only interpret it. Of course, they can create precedent when none exists. And they are able to change precedent, but only with ‘Stare Decisis’ as their guiding principle, “to stand by that which is decided.” This is why attorneys spend so much time distinguishing clients from precedent when beneficial. Then, the judge is free to create law (based on existing legal principles).
The Supreme Court interprets our Constitution, which is known as the “supreme law of the land”. Essentially, this means it comes first, and all must follow it. Hillary Clinton does not respect checks and balances. We can’t allow her to appoint one Justice, let alone 2-5 as the next president could.

This is not a political or ideological issue. It is a structural issue. 


 

Both Hillary and Trump’s shortlists are available. Which do you think will be more likely to interpret the law as it comes? Rather, than seek to change it? Because that is what matters. It’s not about speech, religion, petition, guns, abortion, race, gender or any single thing-no matter how important. It is about structure. Why?
Because structure is the only thing that keeps the power in our hands.
This is not an issue-based decision. I can’t stress it enough.
Hillary has consistently flaunted checks and balances.
Trump will be dominated by them.

NEXT