The battle to balance the political leanings and integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court was won by conservatives late in the Obama Administration when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to open hearings for liberal extremist judge Merrick Garland. During his 8-year term, Obama had already seated justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who are widely considered more prone to political activism than clear-minded rulings based on the U.S. Constitution.
That line in the sand drawn by McConnell and the GOP opened the door to President Donald Trump to place justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the court. The result has been a return to the rule of law and faithful interpretations of the Constitution.
These are three critical issues that have a direct impact on the lives of everyday Americans you should know about.
1: Religious and Secular Rights are Equal Again
There have been plenty of splashy headlines when the rights of gay and heterosexual Americans clashed. But the U.S. Supreme Court has quietly restored the religious rights of mostly Christians that were considered secondary during the liberal Obama years. In a recent decision, the high court ruled that a 40-foot World War I memorial “Peace Cross” does not violate the separation of church and state doctrine.
While conservative and original intent justices considered the separations clause in the Constitution to be inclusive of people of faith, liberal justices pushed for what some call government neutrality. In simple terms, unless all faiths were represented, including things like atheism and Satanism, icons such as the cross or Star of David were banned.
The recent 7-2 decision in favor of letting the historic cross remain was dissented by liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Obama-appointee Sotomayor. Since the Trump appointments have taken the bench, equal consideration has been required on issues such as school funding and community investment projects regardless of religious affiliation.
2: SCOTUS Prepared to End Deep State Power
A recent sex offender case could impact the way government, particularly Congress, has abdicated its responsibilities for upward of eight decades. In Gundy v. United States, a convicted sex offender was required to register. The child molester was indicted after failing to do so, and his attorney argued a law gave the attorney general unwarranted discretion.
Although the high court appeared to be unwilling to allow the criminal to go free on such a technicality, Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, and he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Kavanaugh abstained in the 5-3 decision.
“Working from an understanding of the Constitution at war with its text and history, the plurality re-imagines the terms of the statute before us and insists there is nothing wrong with Congress handing off so much power to the attorney general,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
The issue is that Congress has a long history of crafting overly general laws and leaving enforcement decisions to other branches of government and agency bureaucrats. This appears to be an overture that the power of the unelected “deep state” must finally come to an end.
3: Gerrymandering and the Trump’s Census Question
It’s not routine for the U.S. Supreme Court to delve into politics. However, we live in unusual times.
Since President Trump and the Democrats engaged in a legal bloodletting never seen before in American politics, the White House has won on every pertinent issue. From travel bans to border walls and everything in between, the left has enlisted liberal judges to merely slow justice.
But two cases on political gerrymandering are expected to be decided soon. In North Carolina, Democrats claim the GOP redrew voting lines to improve their election odds. In Maryland, Republicans are pointing fingers at the Democrats. Many high court experts believe a new doctrine on redistricting is it hand since Justice Anthony M. Kennedy retired. He was regarded as the swing vote prone to limit redistricting.
The hot-button case at hand is whether the Trump Administration can keep a question on the census asking about citizenship. Democrats have been fiercely opposed to the question that could serve as a measure to determine how many illegal immigrants are already in the U.S. Recent appointments Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have already tipped their hand that the question appears proper.
“It’s not like anybody in the room is suggesting the question is improper to ask in some way, shape or form,” Justice Gorsuch reportedly said. “And what we do, as well, with the evidence of practice around the world and virtually every English-speaking country and a great many others besides ask this question in their censuses?”
Legal experts expect Democrats to lose to the Trump Administration — again — based on their argument it would make the census less accurate. People in the U.S. are required by law to fill out the census accurately or face prosecution.
