With Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia now deceased, our Marxist president will be able to nominate yet another leftist to the Supreme Court, a leftist who will engage in activism from the bench if given a chance.
Will Congress stand up and fight or will the fundamental transformation continue?
If Barack Obama gets to replace Justice Scalia, there will be a profound change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. It won’t be easy to stop an Obama appointment but if the GOP doesn’t, they will have serious problems with their base.
People should also keep in mind that we have been one vote away from losing the Second and the First Amendments for a long time.
It’s up to Mitch McConnell whether an appointment to the court reaches the Senate floor. He released a statement that Justice Scalia’s position “should not be filled” and the American people should have a say in filling this position.
“Today our country lost an unwavering champion of a timeless document that unites each of us as Americans. Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.”
“This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”The Supreme Court cases coming up include
Cases before the court include Obama’s lawless immigration plan to legalize families of DREAMers; a case that will fundamentally change religious freedom rights which most people know as the case against The Little Sisters of the Poor; a landmark Affirmative Action case; a case to decide the free speech rights of government workers, a case on teachers’ dues, and the one person, one vote case.
These cases will be heard by eight Justices. When a 4-4 deadlock does occur, the case is not deemed to have set any sort of precedent. Tradition holds that the court’s per curiam opinion in such ties is usually very, very terse, often consisting of no more than a single sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”
If Barack Obama appoints someone illicitly, perhaps through a recess appointment, we will see the entire socialist agenda pushed through. Obama has already said he believes in using the courts to legislate.
Evenwel v. Abbott (One Person, One Vote)
Status: Arguments heard on Dec. 8, 2015
In this case, the Court will decide if eligible voting population numbers can be substituted for total population numbers when voting districts are determined.
The question before the Court is if the one-person, one-vote doctrine requires a legislature to use voting population numbers when there is evidence that using total population numbers would cause serious disparities in the strength of the votes cast.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Affirmative Action)
Status: Argued on Dec. 9, 2015
The University of Texas is required to admit all high school seniors who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Candidates for any remaining spots undergo a “holistic” evaluation process in which race is among the considered factors.
Former University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher contends that the school’s discriminatory admission policies led to her rejection, even though her qualifications surpassed those of many admitted minority students. The university maintains a program by which the top 10 percent of students in each public graduating class are granted automatic admission; Fisher argues that this is enough to ensure diversity. (She narrowly missed the cut at Stephen F. Austin High School, finishing 82nd out of 674.)
Fisher argues the 14th Amendment’s the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the school from considering race in any manner as part of the admissions process.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Public Union Dues)
Friedrichs is a challenge to the practices of public unions. The Court will determine whether requiring public school teachers to pay mandatory dues for union activities violates the First Amendment.
California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, supported by the Center for Individual Rights, argues that she should have no obligation to pay any union dues whatsoever, since any payment is still a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech.
A defeat for the Teachers Association could affect public-employee unions in about half the states that have “fair share” requirements.
Whole Women’s Health v. Cole (Abortion)
The Supreme Court will decide if abortion clinics must adhere to certain health requirements.
Zubik vs. Burwell (Obamacare)
The United States Supreme Court in November consolidated seven cases challenging Obamacare’s birth-control mandate into one: Zubik v. Burwell. The current legal challenge, the fourth to be accepted by the Court since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, involves religious-sponsored non-profit corporations.
These institutions object on moral grounds to an Obamacare provision that allows their employees to obtain contraceptive coverage through their health insurance, even if those contraceptive products are provided by insurance companies and the government, instead of the institutions.
The federal government believes that religiously oriented non-profit institutions such as hospitals and universities have numerous employees who don’t share the beliefs of religious groups that sponsor the non-profits, and these workers would be harmed by the exclusions.
The question before the court is whether government employees have First Amendment rights.
“A public employer violates the First Amendment when it takes action against an employee for associating with a disfavored political party, unless party affiliation is a reasonable requirement for the position in question,” says a brief filed by the Obama administration on behalf of Heffernan. “A public employer acts equally unconstitutionally when it acts against the employee based on the mistaken belief that he has engaged in disfavored political activity.”
The case could have far-reaching implications, given that the federal government employs about 2.7 million people.
North Dakota, Minnesota, and 11 other states have made it a crime for drivers to refuse a blood alcohol test, even if the officer does not have a warrant. Drivers in Minnesota and North Dakota are arguing before the Supreme Court that this violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Lawyers in the North Dakota argue that the laws violate “the general principle that public officials may employ sweeping warrantless searches only in extraordinary circumstances.”
“The constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not set aside whenever officers believe that they have probable cause to search and could have but did not obtain a warrant,” they wrote. “The act of obtaining the warrant is one of grave constitutional significance.”
There are three big gun cases heading for the Supreme Court. They are in the Court of Appeals.
1. Peruta v. San Diego
This case before the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenges the constitutionality of requiring concealed applicants to show “good cause” to a municipality or county agency before being issued a concealed carry permit.
2. Defense Distributed v. the United States State Department
This case before the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could have profound implications for the First and Second amendments.
The Second Amendment Foundation on May 6 filed the lawsuit against the State Department claiming the agency violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment right to free speech in 2013 by demanding it remove blueprints for the world’s first three-dimensional printable from the Internet.
3. Watson v. City of Seattle and Bosenko v. City of Los Angeles
These two cases could have significant implications for municipalities around the nation using their 14th Amendment regulatory capacities to adopt their own gun control laws.