Congress is the key to stopping Hillary

A major argument for Donald Trump has been that “He’s not a great candidate or a conservative, but we need him to prevent Hillary from picking Supreme Court justices who will gut the Second Amendment.” Given the numerous questionable characters that Trump has chosen to work on his campaign, the idea that he knows how to “hire the best people” is dubious at best. Now, as the “Trump train” goes off the rails three weeks before the election, it is becoming apparent that conservatives need to find an alternative strategy to save the Court and block Hillary. The key to stopping the liberal agenda for the next four years is Congress, specifically the Senate. 

Let’s face it. Depending on Trump to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court was always a long shot. The possibility that Trump might appoint good judges outweighs the certainty that Hillary won’t, Trump supporters argue. If one ignores all the other arguments against Trump, it might even be convincing. Yet as Trump goes rogue on the campaign trail, even that slim possibility seems to be vanishing as a Clinton victory grows more and more likely.

The only certain way to stop Hillary’s agenda before it starts is to make sure that the Republican majority in the Senate is preserved. Many Trump supporters will say that the Republicans in Congress didn’t do much to stop Obama for the past six years. They are wrong. The truth is that Republicans in Congress were very successful at stopping Obama’s legislative agenda.

After the Tea Party wave election of 2010, the Democrats did not pass any major legislation for the next six years. Obama’s landmark laws, the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, were passed with Democrat majorities in both houses. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare or the stimulus.

The Republicans in Congress were remarkably successful at stopping President Obama’s legislative agenda. Obama tried to push through gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacre. Republicans stopped him. They actually cut spending in terms of real dollars in consecutive years for the first time since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. After the death of Antonin Scalia, Republicans in the Senate tabled President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. How much credit did Republicans get for these victories? Approximately zero.

Much of the confusion over the Republican Congress “surrendering” to Obama, as many claim, is the difference between stopping Obama and passing legislation to roll back what Obama has already done. Congress is set up so that it is easier to prevent a bill from becoming a law than to enact a new law. This is particularly true in the Senate.

In the Senate, the first hurdle that a bill must pass to become a law is a cloture vote. Cloture is a gentleman’s filibuster. Rather than speaking for hours on end as they did in the old days, today’s Congressmen can block a bill from coming to a vote by rallying 41 opponents to vote against cloture, or ending the filibuster. Therefore, the 46 Democrats in the Senate could effectively block any Republican bill from ever coming to a vote and that is precisely what they did.

The cloture rule is not part of the Constitution. Senators could decide to eliminate it in favor of a straight majority vote. The problem is that there is an even greater hurdle. If a bill passes both houses of Congress, it still faces a presidential veto. To override a veto requires 67 votes in the Senate. Logically, if a bill can’t pass a cloture vote, the veto can’t be overridden.

When the Republicans blocked Obama legislatively, he began issuing expansive Executive Orders and having regulatory agencies issue rulings with the force of law. Because these tactics bypassed Congress, Republicans could not block them. Stopping these abuses would require passing new laws, but the 54 Republicans could not pass new laws without Democratic support. That reality doesn’t change even with a government shutdown. The situation has effectively been a stalemate with neither side willing to compromise on most issues.

Because of the number of Republican Senate seats up for reelection in swing states this year, it was generally assumed that the Republican majority would be smaller for the next Congress. As recently as a few weeks ago, it looked like Republicans would retain control of the Senate, even if they lost some seats. Then came Trump’s implosion.

Not only have the Trump scandals hurt down ballot Republicans, but Trump and his supporters have attacked his fellow GOP candidates. At this point, it seems increasingly likely that the Democrats will win control of the Senate. Even the large Republican majority in the House may be threatened.

While retaining the House would allow Republicans to block legislation such as gun control measures from becoming law, losing the Senate would mean that Democrats could easily appoint extremist liberal judges to the courts with a simple majority vote. There is no filibuster for most judicial appointees thanks to Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) use of the “nuclear option” in 2013. With a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president, the filibuster might be eliminated entirely.

On the other hand, retaining control of the Senate would allow Republicans to stop Hillary’s agenda right out of the gate. Appointments to the Supreme Court could theoretically be blocked until after the 2020 elections, if necessary. The Senate has already shown its willingness to stop bad treaties and liberal legislation in its tracks.

There should be no illusions, however, that Republicans can roll back eight years of Obama under Hillary. Even if they retain a majority, they will almost certainly be weaker, at least until the midterm elections. Historically, the opposition party gains seats in the midterms, but even then there is almost no chance of a 67 vote Republican majority.

While it would be preferable to have a Republican president to help pass conservative reforms, Donald Trump is no conservative and has shown little inclination to work with his party. If Trump becomes president and Republicans lose Congress, he could not be trusted to nominate constructionist judges or veto gun control bills. He cannot be trusted to support religious liberty. There is a high probability that he would act with liberal Democrats like Bernie Sanders to scuttle free trade agreements and military alliances.

With Trump falling to the 30 percent range in many polls and trailing in most swing states, there is little chance of a recovery. Republican funds would be better spent on tossup congressional races to preserve the Republican majority than in attempting to shore up a candidate who is biting the hand that feeds him.

If the choice is between an unreliable President Trump and a Republican Senate that has shown its mettle, I’ll throw in my lot with the congressional Republicans.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Life sentences may be next social justice target

For years the left has opposed the death penalty on a variety of grounds, including a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Now two cases on the current Supreme Court docket may signal the next big liberal social justice cause: the abolition of life sentences without possibility of parole.

The two cases heard by the court yesterday are Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs. In both cases, the defendants were 14-years-old at the time that they committed murder. They were subsequently convicted of the murders and sentenced to life without parole. Their attorneys are now postulating that to sentence a minor to life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

According to a summary by Cornell University law school, Evan Miller and a friend, Colby Smith, robbed the trailer of neighbor, Cole Cannon, on the night of July 15, 2003. The pair returned to Cannon’s home later that night to find Cannon passed out from smoking and drinking. Miller took Cannon’s driver’s license and $300 from his wallet. He then tried to replace the wallet, but Cannon woke up in the process and began attacking Miller. Both boys then beat Cannon with a baseball bat until he was unconscious.

The boys then left Cannon in his trailer, but later returned to try to cover up the crime. Ultimately, they decided to set fire to the trailer in an attempt to destroy the evidence. At the time, Cannon was still alive. An autopsy ruled the death a combination of smoke inhalation, blunt force trauma, and ethanol intoxication. Miller signed a statement admitting to fighting with Cannon and robbing him, but denying setting the fire. He was found guilty of capital murder in the course of committing arson and received the mandatory sentence of life without parole. According to the Decatur Daily News, Colby Smith pled guilty and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. He testified at Miller’s trial.

In the case of Kuntrell Jackson, the defendant was part of a trio that robbed a video store in Blytheville, Ark. According to case filings, Jackson and two other juveniles went into Movie Magic on November 18, 1999 and demanded that the clerk, 28-year-old Laurie Troup, give them her money. When she refused, she was shot in the face with a sawed-off shotgun. The three boys then fled without taking any money.

When the boys were arrested in March 2001, they all made incriminating statements. At the time of his arrest, Jackson had a long record that included shoplifting, auto theft, criminal trespass and fleeing. He was considered a serious offender even before being charged in the murder case. Jackson claimed that he was the lookout and another boy admitted to the murder according to the Arkansas Times. The killer received a sentence of life with possibility of parole. Jackson was also convicted of felony murder under an Arkansas law that imposes the same penalty on an accomplice as the actual killer.

The opposition to life without parole for minors is centered on two points. The first is that because the sentences are pronounced on minors with most of their lives before them, it violates the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In the original intent of the framers, this is unlikely. At the time the Constitution was written, there were no separate laws and penalties for minors. Juveniles were subject to the same laws as adults. It was not until 1899 that Chicago opened the world’s first juvenile court system.

The second point that opponents make is that minors are not fully capable of understanding the effects of their actions. The American Psychological Association argues in an amicus brief for both cases that juveniles have “diminished culpability” in three areas. First, their immaturity and undeveloped sense of responsibility can lead to “ill-considered actions and decisions.” Second, they are more susceptible to negative influences. Finally, the character of juveniles is not set as is the character of adults. The APA argues that this gives juveniles a greater chance for rehabilitation.

Attorneys for the states of Alabama and Arkansas argue that the issue is one of state’s rights which are protected by the Constitution’s 10^th amendment. This amendment states that if the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government specific powers, those powers are reserved to state governments. This means that since the Constitution does not delegate the power to regulate sentencing for murder to the federal government, then the federal government has no right to interfere with duly passed state laws.

Proponents also argue that the heinous nature of murder requires the most serious punishment. An NPR report on the hearing quotes Arkansas Attorney-General Kent Holt as telling the justices, “Teenagers must know that if you commit the worst crime, you will get the worst punishment.”

Life without parole is currently the worst punishment for juveniles. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court outlawed the death penalty for juveniles citing the Eighth Amendment and “the overwhelming weight of international opinion.” In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court banned juvenile life without parole in cases other than murder, again citing the Eighth Amendment and international opinion.

The next step for criminal’s rights activists may well be to attack the life sentence for adults as well. In many countries around the world, life sentences have already been abolished. For example, in Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people last July, the maximum sentence he will face is 21 years in prison. As more countries abolish life sentences, American liberals may press U.S. courts to follow suit based on international norms and opinion.

According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Georgia allows life without parole for minors, but the sentence is not mandatory. There are currently eight known inmates in Georgia prisons who were sentenced to life without parole as minors.

There are 2,300 inmates in the United States who were sentenced to life without parole for murders committed when they were under 18 according to PBS. Of these, 79 were convicted for murders committed under the age of 14. The decisions in the Miller and Jackson cases may affect these prisoners.

This article originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/supreme-court-hears-cases-on-life-sentence-without-parole

Meet the candidates: Georgia judicial elections 2010

Have you ever gotten to the end of your ballot while voting and had no idea who any of the judicial candidates were? If so, you are not alone. For most people, voting for a judge is a shot in the dark since the judicial elections are nonpartisan, there are no debates, and little campaigning.

You can get an idea by looking at a sample ballot before going to the polls. You can get a sample ballot for your precinct by visiting the website of the Secretary of State: http://sos.georgia.gov/mvp/. The sample ballot contains the names and websites, if any, of the candidates.

One of the most striking ways to differ between judicial candidates is through their judicial philosophy. Generally, judges either fall into one of two camps. Judicial activists, who bring their own opinions and experiences to the bench, or strict constructionists, who rule based on the law as it is written and focus on the intent of legislature.

In spite of the low key nature of the judicial campaigns, voting for a judge is important. As we have seen in recent months and years, judges can overturn popular laws and policies on dubious grounds and shape our nation and state with little accountability. Georgia’s voter ID law, gay marriage and the upcoming legal battle over Obamacare are just a few recent examples.

Supreme Court of Georgia:

David Nahmias is the incumbent. You can view his website at: www.justicenahmias.com. You can also view his biography on the Supreme Court website: http://www.gasupreme.us/biographies/nahmias.php. Nahmias is a former US Attorney nominated by George W. Bush who received numerous commendations for his service. He states that his judicial philosophy is that “if judges do not like a law, they can vote to change it at the ballot box, like their fellow citizens, but they should not try to change it with judicial decrees”.

Matt Wilson is a practicing attorney from Atlanta. His website is: http://wilsonforsupremecourt.com/. He states that his judicial philosophy is “to uphold and defend the Constitutions of this State and of our United States, to listen courteously to all parties and all arguments, to fairly and impartially decide cases presented on the basis of the evidence and our laws, while always protecting our civil and Constitutional rights”. He criticizes Justice Nahmias for decisions that “elevate Corporate and Government Interests over Individual Rights”.

Tammy Lynn Adkins is an attorney with no address or website given.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

The election is nonpartisan. There are twelve judges on the court. Three of these positions are up for election this year. Two incumbents, Harris Adams and Anne Elizabeth Barnes, are running unopposed. There are six candidates running to fill the seat of Edward Johnson, who is retiring.

James Babaloa (http://www.jamesbabalola.com/) is an attorney and Air Force veteran. Babaloa also serves as CEO and legal counsel for Quality Renters LLC, a management company for rental houses and apartments. He states, “I will not make policy decisions as a judge on issues that should be properly left by the text of the United States Constitution and the text of the Constitution of the State of Georgia to the executive and legislative branches of government.”

Antoinette “Toni” Davis (www.votetoni.com) is also an attorney. Davis has served in many legal capacities. She served as the UGA law school’s Director of Legal Research and Writing, an attorney for the Georgia Supreme Court, and as a private practice attorney. She says, “My decision to serve arises from my desire to join with those who believe that our judges should apply the laws passed by their representatives in a manner consistent with the values of the people of this state.”

Stan Gunter (http://www.votestangunter.com/) is currently in his third term as District Attorney for the judicial circuit that contains Union, Towns, White, and Lumpkin counties. Gunter says that his judicial philosophy is summed up by Deuteronomy 1:17: “Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.” He adds “the role of a judge is to apply the law and not legislate from the bench.” Stan is the only candidate for the Court of Appeals that does not live in the Atlanta area.

Adrienne Hunter-Strothers (http://www.adriennehunterstrothers2010.com/) is also an attorney from Atlanta. She is a graduate of Harvard Law and began her career as an attorney in New York City before returning to Georgia to work for one of the state’s largest law firms. She writes that she “not only will apply the law as written to the individual facts of a particular case, she will strive also to prepare written decisions that create predictability and fairness in the law for everyone.”

Chris McFadden (www.mcfaddenforappealscourt.com) is an appellate attorney who wrote a leading reference book on Georgia appeals. He was voted most qualified for the Court of Appeals by the Georgia State Bar Association. McFadden writes in his blog that “the duty of a judge faced with a question of statutory interpretation is to make an honest effort to figure out what the legislature was trying to accomplish.”

David Schaeffer (http://schaefferforcourtofappeals.com/) is also an attorney. He has worked with the same private law firm in Atlanta where he has been a partner since 1987. He says, “I believe a judge should rigorously uphold a fair and independent approach to the law, applying the law to the facts to reach a well-reasoned result and not to begin with a preordained result and then try to justify it.”

For more information, please visit the candidate websites or contact them directly.

Sources:

http://sos.georgia.gov/mvp/
http://www.work.com/georgia-courts-and-judges-12708/
http://www.gabar.org/news/state_bars_judicial_poll_results_announced/