Justice Scalia’s Death is ‘A Threat to American Democracy’

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds to ever serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, represents for us a constitutional crisis.

The path that liberal justices of the Supreme Court have taken, which Scalia so ardently opposed, has set it up for us. The nonsense they call the “living, breathing” constitution allows them to manipulate the Constitution to transform it to say whatever they want.

Its implementation is a threat to our very existence.

AP image
AP image

In one of the last writings before his death at just 79, Scalia sounded the alarm as loud as he could. He did not even author the principal dissent in the case (he joined Justice John Roberts’s in full), but felt compelled to write separately in order “to call attention to [the Supreme] Court’s threat to American democracy.”

The case was the infamous same-sex “marriage” decision (Obergefell v. Hodges) where the Supreme Court unilaterally invalidated the votes of millions of Americans based solely on their own feelings about what the law and our country should be.

In his dissent in the case, Justice Scalia, almost prophetically, laid out the threat before us.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he wrote.

That is absolutely correct. He explained further, “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

And so it is. It is why this vacancy is so important and why the Republican majority in the United States Senate has no choice but to fight this vacancy with their very lives.

Yes. Our Founding Fathers thought this type of tyranny worthy of a revolution. Scalia again:

This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

The Supreme Court’s violation of these foundational constitutional principles of our form of government is the main driving force behind the crisis we have today.

Seven unelected justices invented the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade out of thin air, just like they did the right to own a person in Dred Scott. The trend continues to this day.

We simply cannot let President Barack Obama through judicial fiat enact the radical ideologies that the country rejects.

The United State Constitution sets out the framework by which Justices of the Supreme Court are to be selected: (1) by the president (2) with the Senate’s “advice and consent.” No Supreme Court vacancy can be filled without either of these two elements. The “advice and consent” role of the Senate is not a throwaway phrase, but an intentional effort by the Framers of our Constitution to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government.

President Obama’s monumental abuse of executive power has left the country divided, resentful and distrustful of his leadership. The Senate shows a proper understanding of its role when it stands up the Chief Executive’s abuses.

The very future of our Republic, or our form of government, depends on this. When we think of the many issues the Supreme Court is bound to take up in upcoming years, we simply have no other choice in this manner but to fight if we wish to protect our Republic.

From the war on terror to the Second Amendment to the sanctity of human Life to religious liberty to free speech and freedom of the press, all these issues are in great peril if the most prolific advocate for adhering to the text of the Constitution is replaced by a radical left-wing nominee in the image of President Barack Obama.

It must not happen.

So let us call on senate republicans to stand strong and protect our liberties by rejecting President Obama’s nominee and waiting until the next president is selected before moving to fill the vacancy.

The Constitution clearly gives the Senate the prerogative to decline to confirm a nominee. And in this case they are in fact living up to that honorable oath to support and defend the United States Constitution.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

4 Comments