Never say Never

By Samuel Lawrence

Thanks in large part to a couple of local “Christian Talk” radio hosts, I fell into the hypocritical cesspool of #NeverTrump early in the presidential race.  I rabidly supported Ted Cruz till he dropped out of the presidential race. Then I pouted a week.  I somehow forgot how I supported establishment liberal RINO’s like Dole, McCain, and cult member Romney, whose signature RomneyCare was the forerunner of ObamaCare.

These radio hosts convinced me to vote for Romney in 2012 as the “lesser of two evils” over Obama. It is odd in 2016 to hear the constant drone of anti-Trump rhetoric coming from these radio hosts because evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a cult. That religion, which Romney is heavily invested in,  denies the deity of Christ, and is a “salvation based on works” religion.  That religion actually deceives people and steers them from saving faith found in Jesus Christ alone.  These guys staunchly insist that Romney’s (the devout Mormon)  life is somehow morally superior to Donald Trump’s life, in their Pharisaical judgement. Honestly, if you think a devout Mormon (cult follower) is more holy than a not so devout, self described Presbyterian, who noted evangelicals say has had a conversion experience to Christianity, I cannot help but call that nothing but pure hypocrisy. Whether Donald Trump is a Christian, as “pure & holy” as “lying” Ted Cruz, or marginally Christian like most of the past presidents of the past few elections, there is a huuuuuge difference between Trump and Clinton.

The “conventional” wisdom among most of the #NeverTrump crowd that I hear these days is a desire to tank the Trump campaign (which, if they are effective, will give the election to the only other viable candidate, Clinton, along with the Senate and possibly the House, It will not be Gary Johnson or any other 3rd party) and they would like to humiliate Trump and his followers. They somehow think they, the “real republicans” will then ride in on white horse in 2020 with “their” pure candidate and magically restore the correct understanding of “true conservative Republicanism.”

The problem with their logic is Justice Scalia. You see, he died. There are now 4 very liberal justices on the SCOTUS, 2 appointed by Obama. There is one quasi conservative and 3 mostly conservative justices, who, most of the time, do not invent law through judicial activism. Why care? Well, in 1947, the activist Supreme Court perverted the historical meaning of the 1st Amendment from being “freedom of religion,” to being now known as “separation of church and state.” In 1973, in a 7-2 decision, another activist court invented the right to kill a baby in the womb on demand. Neither of these two things exist in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Also, notice that neither of these inventions of the court have been reversed in decades by any Republican. If you want to understand how judicial activism works here are some actual cases. Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law. Using such activism, the next court could conceivably redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Outlawing guns could be accomplished in a way that would be as hard to overturn as abortion and separation of church and state.

The Roe abortion case decision was activist because the Supreme Court relied upon notions of “living constitutionalism,” invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to create a right that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. This doctrine, which was established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is the prime example of judges reading broad constitutional terms divorced from any textual or originalist moorings, thereby making them empty vessels into which they can pour any policy preferences they desire.

The Due Process Clause, which is now being used by progressive judges as a “judicial wildcard,” was simply meant to protect the citizens from government abuse by ensuring that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by a fair process. The fact that the Court has used the word “substantive” to describe a clause that is clearly about process creates an anachronism that defies language and logic. The Court in Roe vs Wade wields the Clause to support abortion rights without any reasoned justification: after citing previous Supreme Court cases that erroneously established a broad constitutional right to privacy, the Court blithely asserted that this right “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (source: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/roe-v-wade)

Donald Trump has put out a list of judicial nominees. Will one of these make it to the Supreme Court or other federal courts and then rule conservative in their cases? No one can say with 100% certainty.  However, it is 1000% certain that whoever Clinton nominates will be far to the left politically.  And Trump’s candidate can not even be considered if he is humiliated and the Democrats take the Oval Office and Senate.

The next 4 years will decide the balance of the Supreme Court, not just for for 4 to 8 years, but will decide the court balance for several decades. Republicans and conservatives have not been successful in fixing the above mentioned damage to “freedom of religion” and have barely put a dent in the Holocaust of children in the womb via the Roe decision, since the day these cases were decided. I’m not willing to gamble at all to see what Clinton might do to the Supreme Court in her 4 years.

supreme-court-1024x601

The court, and the nation itself, is at a tipping point. Morality, economic prosperity, the 2nd Amendment, the possible economic recovery from the disaster of the past decade all hang on this election. Will Trump deliver? Only his election will tell. Without a doubt, Clinton will continue to take America on a journey toward a hard left turn to total destruction. She has demonstrated she will lie, bend and break the law to suit her needs, and she will actively continue the socialist agenda of the current administration.  She happily plans to raise taxes on the shrinking middle class.  She will continue importing “refugees” by the hundreds of thousands, and she will continue driving the national debt to economic collapse.  She will promote the TPP.  Those who love intrusive Government control will love Clinton.

So please take Ted Cruz’s advice from his RNC speech, “vote your conscience. ”  When you do, please remember, the 2020 election or even the 2024 cannot fix decades of coming judicial activism that Clinton’s appointees will give us. And Lindsey Graham  (Republican Senator from SC) will be quick to remind us all “elections have consequences.”  Rather than try and block Obama’s ultra liberal, socialist activist judges, Graham gleefully “rubber stamped” them into office and offered his snarky comments to his constituents. Plus it was not not just the Supreme Court, but the lower courts as well that Obama has stacked.

So, in November, never say “never” unless you say #NeverHillary and “never will I help her campaign by staying home and not voting, and never will I support a 3rd party because I can look at the past 150 years of history and realize, 3rd parties do not win the White House.