2019 – 2020 is Going to Be an Important Judicial Year in the Supreme Court

A number of important cases are on the docket at the Supreme court this fall.

This year the Supreme Court will have the chance to rule on:

  • The constitutionality of Louisiana’s Abortion Law mandating an abortionist have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
  • Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
  • Whether the temporary DACA program can be allowed to expire.
  • Whether Kansas is allowed to identify illegal aliens by their obvious documentation and act on this.
  • Whether homosexuality is a protected class under employment discrimination laws.
  • Whether transgender status is a protected class under the employment discrimination laws.

Putting aside for a moment the health status of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we will have the chance to see whether John Roberts is an honest man or a stooge.  Something like the DACA program is a clear-cut case of a temporary law that has expired.  To extend it would be an obvious act of judicial trespass onto the prerogatives of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  If Roberts uses his vote to legislate from the bench then we know he is a Deep State creature either voluntarily or due to some kind of blackmail.  Likewise, with the NYC gun transport ban this is a clear violation of the Second Amendment and upholding the ban would make Roberts’ status clear.

As for the homosexual and transgender cases, those will be even more transparent markers of where he stands.  Supposedly only Justice Kennedy was responsible for the outrage that was the gay marriage decision.  If somehow Roberts comes out in favor of either of these protections then it will be obvious that he was a plant all along.

If it turns out that Roberts is indeed a creature of the Left then it becomes even that much more urgent that President Trump appoint one or more conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

So, returning to the question of Ginsberg’s health I stated during her last cancer eruption that I would be shocked if she didn’t retire before April.  To be blunt, she is currently experiencing the results of metastatic cancer from one of her previous tumors.  Whether the cells are originally pancreas, colon or lung cancer they have obviously migrated out of the original site and are now showing up in new organs.  The question of whether these cells have already migrated to the liver is probably what will determine how long she has.  And also, to slow down the spread of the metastases, chemotherapy will be needed and this is a woman in her late eighties.  How is she supposed to support the side effects that include neurological damage and still sit on the Supreme Court and decide the legal fate of the nation?

Hopefully she will elect to spend her last few months with her loved ones as anyone would in that position.  At that point President Trump will appoint a reliable conservative justice and put an end to Roberts’ veto on conservative judicial decisions.  But while these are important legal battles, even more urgent is a Supreme Court decision to end all forms of affirmative action, whether sex or race based.  The glaring anti-constitutional nature of these programs has been long recognized by the court but has always been spared as being a necessary temporary measure to correct past inequities.  Any honest observer would admit that the cure is now worse than the disease and it’s time to save the patient from his treatment.  Whether this will come up for review next year or the year after, sooner than later the Supreme court will need to address this most egregious civil rights atrocity.

Media Acknowledging Justice Bader-Ginsberg May Not Remain on Supreme Court Much Longer

News sites on both sides of the political divide had articles today acknowledging that Justice Bader-Ginsberg may not necessarily still be around in five years as she plans.  What that tells me is that both sides are preparing their members for the eventuality of another extremely heated, partisan battle over the nominee to replace her on the bench.

When news of her cancer surgery made the news, I stated the opinion that she would not stay on the bench past President Trump’s first term.  I guess that I’m not alone in that opinion.  One of the articles made a point of the fact that on multiple occasions Justice Bader-Ginsberg stated that she wouldn’t continue serving past the point where she can’t “do the job full steam.”  The implication being since right now she is at least partially incapacitated her retirement may be imminent.  In my opinion her retirement in the next few weeks is highly unlikely.  I’m sure the Justice will hold on as long as she has any hope of recovering from this episode.  And I fully expect she will recover from it.  She has shown resiliency through her two previous bouts with cancer.  But the fact that she will not be receiving chemotherapy makes me think that the metastatic nature of her cancer is assumed and that unfortunately she will soon be diagnosed with at least one other new tumor.  If she has a life outside of the Law, I would hope at that point that she would resign to enjoy her remaining time with her loved ones.  If she does not then perhaps, she intends to cling to the job to till the bitter end.  But honestly, I don’t imagine she will last two years.  That is a long time.

If I am correct, then President Trump will be able to appoint at least one more Supreme Court Justice.  Even assuming Chief Justice Robert’s lapses into left-leaning decisions it would seem that a solid 6-3 conservative majority will begin to make some significant changes in the way Americans live.  Another shot at the LGBTQ penchant for persecuting Christian business people may be the first significant loss for the Social Justice Warriors in their war against normalcy.  Another useful front would be slapping down some of the overreach that liberal states have been legislating against gun ownership.  One of my friends was complaining how Massachusetts can basically call anything they want an assault rifle and then retroactively make it illegal to own.  Another was saying that one state has made liability insurance mandatory for gun owners and the insurance is very expensive.  That definitely should be checked for constitutionality.

Both because of the strength of a 6-3 ratio and the emotional response of Justice Bader-Ginsberg’s replacement I assume we can expect that the nomination approval process will be even worse than Kavanaugh’s was.  They’ll pull out all the stops and attack with every trick and scream from every media megaphone at their disposal.  Good.  With the enhanced Senate majority, it should be easier this time to get the approval than it was with Kavanaugh.  Well, here we go again.