Over Turning Supreme Court Rulings

Over Turning Supreme Court Rulings 

 

If you live here in the U.S. and you pay any attention to the national news you probably know of a man named Brett Cavanaugh who is President Trumps hand-picked Judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Quite honestly the more I dig into the life and character of Judge Cavanaugh the less I want to see him confirmed by the Senate for this post. In this article I am not going to get into all of the reasons that I believe he is a very bad choice to be on the Bench but I am going to discuss the politics being injected into the choosing of Supreme Court Justices these days. As most of you probably know there are nine Justices that sit on the Bench and they are appointed to lifetime positions.

 

Of the eight current Justices it is considered that 4 are ‘liberal’ and 4 are ‘conservative,’ so this makes this 9th members spot very important to the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans want to get Mr. Cavanaugh confirmed before the mid-term elections that are being held in 7 weeks because they know if the Democrats are able to take control of the Senate that a ‘conservative’ like Mr. Cavanaugh will not happen because the Democrats would have the votes to block it. One of the big reason that the Republicans want Mr. Cavanaugh on the Bench is because they want to get some existing laws changed and they could do it with a 5 to 4 margin in the Supreme Court.

 

Laws that the Republicans want over turned are things like ‘Roe V Wade’ which legalized abortion back in 1973, Gay marriage and ‘The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care.’ To me I have always felt that the purpose of the Supreme Court is for them to decide what is legal or not legal via the U.S. Constitution. The Court was set up by our Nations Founding Fathers about 240 years ago in an attempt to eliminate politics from the decision-making process of what is Constitutionally legal, or not. The term being thrown around in the Senate hearings is “precedent”, meaning, Judge Cavanaugh, do you believe in it? Judge, do you believe that once a law is in place that has been voted on by prior Supreme Court Justices should not be ‘revisited’? The purpose of these 9 Justices is for them to make their decisions on what our Nations Constitution says, not on what their personal likes or dis-likes are nor what their political view points are.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe that there have been Supreme Court decisions in the past that I think were bad decisions, ones that I wish the Court had ruled differently on like Roe V Wade. There is another Court decision from about 1963 where a Court ruling made it to where District Attorneys can not be criminally or materially sued for their Court decisions. The 1963 Ruling was because the Justices at the time believed that D.A.’s would always be honest and would never do things like obstruct justice in court decisions. I have often wondered if those Justices were actually that naive, or really just that stupid. But, I believe that once a Supreme Court Decision has been made that said decision should not be able to be ‘revisited’, that ‘precedent’ should always hold. Yet the validly of this line of though depends on all Supreme Court Justices, on every case, on every vote to be made by their interpretation of the Nations Constitution, if this is not what they are doing then in my opinion it is they who are breaking the laws of the every Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

State of emergency declared in Maldives

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

(PRESIDENT REVOKES RULE OF LAW SO HE CAN KEEP HIMSELF IN POWER)(trs)

State of emergency declared in Maldives

Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, center, addressed his supporters Saturday.

(CNN)Political unrest in the Republic of Maldives prompted the Asian nation’s president on Monday to declare a state of emergency for 15 days.

The move, which gives President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom power to arrest and detain people, reflects a power struggle between the island nation’s Supreme Court and its government.
“During this time, though certain rights will be restricted, general movements, services and businesses will not be affected,” said a statement from the office of the President.
The court last week ordered the release of political prisoners and the reinstatement of elected members of Parliament that would give the opposition majority power. But President Yameen has rejected adhering to the court order.
The Maldives attorney general on Sunday advised law enforcement to uphold the constitution and warned that the Supreme Court may “issue a ruling to impeach the President,” according to a press release from the Foreign Ministry.
Opposition supporters have staged street protests lobbying the government to obey the court order and have urged the international community to do what it can to persuade the government to obey the ruling.

Maldivian opposition supporters take to the streets Sunday to urge the government to obey the Supreme Court.

During the emergency period, the Maldives President said, “the safety of all Maldivians and foreigners living in and visiting the Maldives will be ensured.”
The US State Department said in a press release that it supports the Supreme Court’s decision and “it is imperative that the Maldivian President, government, and security services uphold the constitution and rule of law and implement the court’s ruling in full.”
China, the United Kingdom and India have issued travel warnings to Maldives.
“Security forces have been deployed in the capital Malé in response to political developments. If you’re in Malé, you should exercise caution and avoid any protests or rallies,” said the UK in their advisory.
A July 2017 population estimate in the CIA World Factbook said more than 392,000 live on the Indian Ocean archipelago, a popular tourist destination.