Dems’ Fears Realized as Trump Picks a Christian Constitutionalist to Fill SCOTUS Vacancy

us-supreme-court.0

As you probably know by now, last night President Donald J. Trump announced that Brett Kavanaugh will be his nominee to fulfill the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Christian American Conservatives praised Kavanaugh’s nomination last night…and with good reason.

Per ChristianityToday.com

As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy, the man he may now replace. In 2003, he was appointed to the DC circuit by George W. Bush, though he wasn’t officially confirmed until 2006 after a long stall by Democrats who expressed skepticism of his record and level of experience.

A staunch defender of religious liberty, Kavanaugh rejected challenges to prayers at the president’s inauguration and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath.

“We cannot resolve this case by discounting the sense of anguish and outrage plaintiffs and some other Americans feel at listening to a government-sponsored religious prayer,” he stated in the 2010 case. “We likewise cannot dismiss the desire of others in America to publicly ask for God’s blessing on certain government activities and to publicly seek God’s guidance for certain government officials.”

In the 2015 case, Priests for Life v. HHS, Kavanaugh opposed a decision against a challenge to the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate, dissenting from the DC circuit’s decision not to review the case.

According to Kavanaugh’s dissent, the HHS regulations “substantially burden the religious organizations’ exercise of religion because the regulations require the organizations to take an action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs (submitting the form) or else pay significant monetary penalties.”

Kavanaugh also dissented on a recent, contentious case in which a pregnant teenager in immigration custody sought an abortion, arguing that as she was a minor, the US government had a responsibility to attempt to transfer her out of government detention and into the care of a sponsor before she made her final decision on whether to seek an abortion. His opinion was overruled by his fellow judges, but some pro-life advocates critiqued Kavanaugh for not going far enough in condemning the girl’s right to an abortion in the first place.

Early in his career, Kavanaugh worked on the recount that led to George W. Bush’s election to the presidency. Before that, he made a case for President Clinton’s impeachment following his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, a fact that may pose a stumbling block for some Republicans in light of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into foreign interference in the nation’s presidential election and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The next appointee will further cement the judiciary’s conservative shift, as early last year, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He was confirmed last April.

Ever since Justice Kennedy announced that he was stepping down, the Far Left Democratic Party has been protesting Trump’s pick for Kennedy’s successor.

Of course, the Dems and the Never-Trumpers, all Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, had no clue as to whom the President was going to pick. All they knew was that they were against him/her.

One of the fears of those who oppose whatever Trump does was that he was going to pick someone who was a Christian and who was unashamed of their faith.

And, of course, Trump did.

Christians still make up 75% of America’s population, so odds were that Trump’s nominee would believe in the Triune God.

And, that’s a good thing.

The legendary Judicial Giant who Trump’s first appointee, Neil Gorsuch, replaced, Antonin Scalia, was.

Here is what he said about the role of Christianity in our government, which remains in sharp contrast to the Rewritten History and wish-casting of the “Democratic Socialists” whose heads are exploding even as we speak.

In his dissenting opinion in the 2005 case McCreary County v. ACLU, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

After going on to quote similar sentiments from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Scalia continued:

Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words.

While the ever-increasing turn toward Marxism and the constant protesting and threatened violence by the New Bolsheviks of the Democratic Party, is very troubling, I find solace in the fact that they are still a minority in this country.

In my opinion, President Trump picked ANOTHER winner.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: