Does the Supreme Court Gambit trump the NeverTrump Conservatives?

It is not news that many conservatives are reluctant to support Donald Trump for president. There are many neverTrump conservatives that will under no circumstance support a man that is neither conservative nor civil for the office of president. There are many conservatives that are ardently in support of Trump, though they claim to see his flaws. Often their argument follows one of two vectors: choose the lesser of two evils or choose Trump because of the Supreme Court. At this time I will address the second vector: the Supreme Court nomination gambit. 

According to Trump supporters, we must back Trump because he has promised to choose conservative Justices. There is currently one vacancy on the Supreme Court and it is likely that the next president will have to replace at least one, if not two, more justices. If Clinton is elected she will place the most liberal judges on the Court and doom our society to an ever increasing descent into socialism, lawlessness, and chaos. The fact that the Senate has to confirm any nominations is totally left out of the debate, though the Senate has been fairly weak on this point in recent years. Trump's pick of the conservative Justices is the only hope to end abortion, repeal Obamacare, outlaw gay marriage, protect religious liberty, and ensure the American way of life. 

There are several problems with this line of thought. First, do you really trust Trump to follow through? Campaign promises are as legitimate as three dollar bills. Trump's track record does not portray an honest individual and even Trump supporters have to admit that his character is questionable. There is no guarantee that he will honor his promise on the Judges. In fact, if he feels that conservatives have betrayed him he may well counterpunch with a liberal nomination to punish the perceived insult. Second, Trump doesn't understand the conservative perspective and can only guess as to what a conservative Justice looks like. He may have help in picking a conservative judge, but he is not surrounding himself with conservatives. He has clearly stated that it is the Republican party, not the conservative party (and the Republican convention has endorsed this statement). The neverTrump conservatives never trusted him in the first place, so why would they trust him on this pivotal point?

However, there is a more fundamental issue at stake with this argument that betrays a less than conservative approach to government. The Supreme Court has grown into the final arbiter of all legal and moral issues. If the Supreme Court says it, it is a settled issue. If Congress can't agree on an issue, they will let the court decide the matter. Certain Republican Senators did not want to attempt any repeal of the Health Care Act because they feared it would hurt them in an election. Instead, they wanted the Supreme Court to deal with it. The Supreme Court, though, did not rule as they wanted. And since the Court has ruled, many view it as a done deal. This is not how the Founders intended the Court to work. Laws are supposed to be established by the Congress. The only time the Supreme Court should enter the process is if there is the possibility that a law has violated the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has become a second avenue for the losing side in contentious legislation. The minority in Congress may not be able to stop or pass a bill, but they can try to forward their agenda through a Supreme Court case. If the Congress properly executes its responsibilities and obligations, then the Supreme Court should have little or no involvement in the establishment of legislation. 

Unfortunately, many conservatives have forgotten this fundamental principle and desire to use the Supreme Court when they can't advance their agenda through Congress. Placing this much trust in the Court is neither conservative nor wise. The Court doesn't always get things right. When a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress should immediately revisit that law to fix their errors, but they should not accept any attempt to thwart their Constitutional duty through the Court. 

I understand the allure of relying on the Court. With the right case and right Justices, we could overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion without having to pass a contentious law. That simply won't work. I am opposed to abortion, but relying on the courts has never worked in favor of life and never will. Our focus should be changing the moral views of our society to the point that the demand for abortion becomes a rarity. That is hard work and at times appears impossible, but shortcuts have never worked in the moral landscape of America. Additionally, Republican presidents have appointed judges that were supposedly conservative, but those Justices have turned about to be more moderate than anticipated. The appointment of Supreme Court justices is always a wild card and you never really know how they are going to vote until they actually vote. 

To sum it all up: placing all our hope in the Supreme Court is neither conservative nor wise, even if we could trust Trump to choose a Justice. 

The First American Confederacy

On this day in 1781, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was ratified by the original 13 colonies. This document was crafted by the Second Continental Congress and formally established The United States of America. The document was drafted in 1776 and sent to the states for ratification in 1777. Some of the states were slow in ratifying it and, of course, there was the matter of a revolution. This document established the government that fought for independence from Great Britain.

The government established by the Articles of Confederation was a weak central government. Its primary duties were foreign affairs. The federal government took the responsibility to wage war, negotiate with foreign powers, and appoint ambassadors. The states were responsible for levying the taxes to run the government. The predominant power remained with the states though states agreed to share a common law. The Federalists thought this too weak a form of federal government and pressed for a new government document. Their objections led to the creation of United States Constitution, which was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The Articles created the office of President of the United States in Congress Assembled. Essentially, the president was the presiding officer of Congress and chaired the Committee of States, the government body that ran things when Congress was not in session. This arrangement was quite different from the office of the President under the US Constitution. Still, the leader of Congress was called the President, and you probably did not learn his name in elementary school. The first US president under the Articles of Confederation was Samuel Huntington. History is far more complicated than most people realize, and there are many great men who founded the US that are largely forgotten.

Is Huckabee good for Evangelicals?

At this time I am not sure who I will support for president. I had hoped that Fred Thompson would make a decent run - the last actor elected president was very good for America. Unfortunately, Thompson's campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning. Though he is the most consistent conservative of the group running, it is highly unlikely that he will get the Republican nomination. So, I have been looking for a new horse to back. Unfortunately, the field looks pretty anemic.

Why not Mike Huckabee? He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I should identify with him and support one of my own. The media expects evangelicals to lock step with the SBC candidate without question. But I do have questions.

Southern Baptists are not uniform in belief or practice. There are many who use the title the Southern Baptist, but their beliefs are far from mine. Jimmy Carter is a faithful member and Sunday School teacher in an SBC church. (A quick explanation is needed here. Carter has renounced being a Southern Baptist, but that move revealed his ignorance. Only churches are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, the Convention only technically exists during the few days it convenes in June to conduct denominational business. After the convention, denominational entities are responsible to carry out the will of the Convention. Individuals are members of the local church. Though Carter may not claim to be Southern Baptist, he is still a member of a Southern Baptist Church - though that church is also aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). All that is to say, there is still a great deal of diversity among Southern Baptists.

I have never heard a sermon by Mike Huckabee. His previous churches will not post or release his past sermons. However, there are media claims that he was more of a moderate Baptist. Huckabee himself participated in a liberal Christian reconciliation effort sponsored by Mercer University, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the CBF (SBC leadership was not invited). Huckabee later pulled out because it was more political than he had expected.

Still, a moderate Southern Baptist is better than a Mormon or a secular candidate, right? Not necessarily. My largest concern about Huckabee came in an interview he did right before the Iowa Caucus. In the interview he stated that he was an agent of change and that he was comparable to Barack Obama. How are they alike? Both are engaged in populist rhetoric. They are both willing to say what people want to hear. Perhaps Huckabee's reference to being like Obama only meant that he was the underdog candidate that was not handpicked by the party machine. Still, populist often means appealing to the lowest common denominator, not well reasoned principles and standards.

Is Huckabee the best candidate? Is his candidacy good for Southern Baptists and evangelicals? One concern is that if he were elected many evangelicals would sit back thinking that American politics had swung back to the good old days and relax their efforts to effect social change. That alone is not a reason to vote for or against Huckabee, but it does add something to the pot.

I doubt that Huckabee will get the nomination. He scares the daylight out of the normal political establishment, both left and right. That is good. While I still have questions about Huckabee for president, there are many positives to his campaign. He has certainly helped to make the current election cycle interesting.

Why Hillary will be our next President

I will not vote for Hillary nor do I support her in any way. But I want to prepare my fellow conservatives for the reality of the next election. The certainty of another Clinton presidency is not yet secured, but the possibility grows greater everyday. Here are some reasons why Hillary will be the next president:

1. 1. The Clinton's are scandal proof. Crooked donors, bad tax records or misleading testimonies never stick to the Clintons. For example, in recent weeks the Hillary campaign had to give back large sums of money because the donor was a fugitive from justice. Name the fugitive donor. Most people cannot and do not even know about the situation. For any other candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, it would have been an albatross around their neck. The Clintons know how to weather scandals better than anyone else in politics.
2. 2. Face facts, there are still plenty of Democrats who would prefer to vote for a white woman over a black man. Yes, there are many progressive Democrats who are colorblind. But there are still plenty of the old Jim Crow Democrats across the South that will never vote for a black president.
3. 3. For many people the name Clinton is synonymous with peace and prosperity. The high tax rates and multiple terrorist attacks were quickly forgotten. Never mind that America experienced several high profile terrorist attacks that were not avenged. The ground work for 9/11 was laid during the Clinton years. The Clinton administration could only fire a few cruise missiles at some tents and blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan (a clear instance of lying about a military action). The military was stretched thin with air strikes in Bosnia and ill-equipped troops in Somalia with no clear mission objective. Despite the escalation of terrorism world-wide and growing sectarian violence in Europe and Africa, the Clintons made people feel safe.
4. 4. The Republicans do not offer much of an alternative. A Republican Congress was ineffectual and out of touch. They failed to do the things that got them elected. Government spending went up and border security went down. Republicans are failing to adequately explain to the American people why we are in Iraq or what the war on terrorism is all about. Republicans can not claim the moral high ground because of numerous real, ethical scandals. There are too many Republican senators that act like democrats and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

There are more reasons, but this is a good start. I would like to see a Republican candidate who did not lead from focus groups. A man who had strong convictions and did not care if they were politically correct. A man who follows his conscience and who possesses a moral compass orientated toward the Judeo-Christian ethics. Does such a candidate exist? At the moment I am doubtful and I am also doubtful that America would want such a candidate. In the end we always get the President we deserve. I am afraid that President will be Hillary R. Clinton.

Originally posted on towk775.blogspot.com