Is Brett Kavanaugh the Best of the Best?

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Supreme Court Justices are said to be the best of the best. This should make a President’s selection relatively easy.

Brett Kavanaugh may end up being that guy. And therein lies the rub – the fact that he “may” be the one – or he may not.

So why do I say this should be an easy job for any President? Let me lay it out.

A President compiles a list of candidates, which Trump did. He should then take a look at the Justices job description and make his selection from candidates that best fit the description.

In short, the supreme Court job description is what the oath of office describes. There are two oaths of office a Justice make choose to recite.

The first, and truncated version, is the traditional oath (albeit updated in 1990), which reads: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” read more

Obamacare Is Saved Again – Next up – Crony Corporatism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The ruling is in and the debates have begun. It’s a great day for the left. It’s a great day for both parties. Democrats got what they wanted and Republicans now do not have to legislate. It’s a win-win.

But at least some on the right aren’t happy. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s reaction on Fox News  was stunned amazement. “What [Roberts] did was to suggest that plain, ordinary English words, which are not ambiguous in their meaning, somehow to six of the justices in the majority are ambiguous and therefore they can interpret them however they want,” said Napolitano.

“If they had followed the law, this would’ve been a very simple case. The language in the statute was very clear – and if they had interpreted the language the way it was written, the government would have lost,” said Heritage Foundations  Hans von Spakovsky.

Twila Brase of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom said that “Without the rule of law, it becomes the rule of power – all up to interpretation. Claims of intent and outside interpretations of intent will now rule, not the actual words written in the law. When we start allowing the loose interpretation of law based on after-the-fact claims of intent, the foundation of the rule of law crumbles.”

There are many more losers than winners that will come from this decision. Obviously we conservatives, who have been warning of the pitfalls lost. The American people are huge losers as they will see care decline and prices skyrocket. The rule of law lost and certainly the Constitution. We voters also lost, for its apparent that no other branch of government will stand up and challenge the black robed oligarchs. read more