Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor
February 10, 2017
Winning the 2016 presidential election was possibly the single most important conservative victory in my lifetime, for many reasons. But paramount to the win is the pending balance of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Liberals, having been reduced to lamenting, ad nauseam, the election of Donald J. Trump, will no doubt seek to bog down the pace at which our new president is working to re-align our nation with our founding fathers’ original intent.
And look for them to do so using the federal court system.
The progressive movement has been notorious for attempting to fundamentally change interpretation of the U.S. Constitution for political gain. The assertion that “any” individual, regardless of religious affiliation, has a constitutionally protected right to enter our country illegally, without comprehensive vetting, is fundamentally and constitutionally unsound.
Citing the First Amendment as justification for violence, property damage and rioting in the streets is simply unabashed lawlessness and nothing short of domestic terrorism.
Understand, our nation’s top security leaders already have told us we don’t have an adequate system of vetting individuals from terror-ridden countries. Last year, FBI Director James Comey told a congressional committee that we could “query our database until the cows come home” but if Syrian terrorists have never been on the law enforcement radar, it won’t do any good.
As a candidate, Trump pledged to protect Americans through “extreme vetting” of people from countries representing significant terror concerns. His recent executive order temporarily banning travel from these countries was simply fulfilling a promise to the American people.
But despite the fact voters decisively elected a president willing to compromise Washington political correctness rather than the lives of Americans, some on Capitol Hill are willing to stay the course.
Last Friday, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on Trump’s executive order, questioning its “rationale.” The Department of Justice is appealing the ruling, but this may be one of many such cases eventually decided by the Supreme Court.
Currently, the Supreme Court (operating shy one justice since the passing of Antonin Scalia) is fairly balanced. Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are arguably extremely liberal, while Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas are widely considered conservatives. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy could be considered moderates.
But two of the justices (Ginsburg and Kennedy) are over 80 years of age, and Breyer is 78. The remaining justices range in age from 55 to 67. Besides the replacement of Justice Scalia, we could see any number of Supreme Court nominations by the current administration.
President Trump intends to nominate Supreme Court justices who will not attempt to “legislate” progressive views from the bench. And obviously, a GOP-controlled Congress and conservative-leaning Supreme Court would be beneficial to his cause.
Trump could, in fact, determine the court’s balance for decades!
So, while the left may be successful at “slowing down” the Trump train, Americans will ensure he succeeds.
Liberals can get on board, but they may have to “sit in the back seat,” just as President Obama suggested in 2010 that Republicans should do in likening running the economy to driving a car.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Free State Patriot 
Leave a Reply