When will the Republicans recognize that demanding the most conservative (rather than a moderate) SCOTUS Supreme Court Justice is the best way to shoot themselves in the foot, especially after the Garland delay?

When it comes to enforcing the Constitution there’s no right, left or moderate, you either enforce it or you don’t enforce it. We either believe in our Constitutional form of government or not.

What I’m trying to say is we should be American’s before we are Republicans, Moderates or Democrats. Democrats are turning so far left they are leaving the realm of our Constitution.

The United States is not a third world banana republic and while we are only a few hundred years old we have one of the longest lasting Constitutions in the world. There’s a reason for that.

I believe the United States is the only country that has the separations of power we do and it’s not just the Congress, The Judicial and the Executive. Our Congress consists of two bodies, the House and the Senate.

Before a Bill can pass into Law it must pass both Houses and be signed by the president. That is nothing like the Parliamentary systems that basically have one Legislative body and they select their leader. They can dissolve a government and make a new one at the drop of a hat, we can’t.

I hope you can appreciate the uniqueness of what our Forefathers created and while we have had our problems, it’s only when we deviate from our Constitution.

I’m an Originalist and that means I believe the Constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was ratified. To explain I will borrow Justice Scalia’s example of the Death Penalty.

When the Constitution was ratified the death penalty was very common and not considered cruel or unusual. In fact Section 19 of the Coinage Act of 1792 called for the death penalty for any Mint employee who counterfeited any US Coinage.

While today we might consider that a bit much, it’s the People who should make the death penalty unacceptable at the State level and not allow that Judges in their Black Robes can create law. That however is exactly what those who believe in a living constitution think is appropriate. That a Judge or the SCOTUS should create law.

During her second debate with the candidate Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton was asked what she wanted in a Supreme Court Justice. What particular qualification would she want.

“I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm or clerk for a judge and then gotten on the bench,” she said.

“Maybe they tried some more cases and actually understand what people are up against.”

“look broadly and widely for people who represent the diversity of our country”

“We need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

So, to sum it up, she wants justices who

“have real life experience”

“actually understand what people are up against.”

“represent the diversity of our country”

“will stand up on behalf of women’s rights”

Stand on “behalf of the rights of the LGBT community”

“stand up and say no to Citizens United

She did not mention the Constitution once.

She wanted justices who would do what she wanted which means she, like any anti-constitutionalist, doesn’t want a Supreme Court that actually follows Our Constitution.

Her list of qualifications can be summed up to be more like a list of campaign talking points, not one of a potential president who would be required to swear to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution. She believes in a Living Constitution that would allow Judges to implement the requirements she mentioned.

We may as well not have a constitution if judges and justices can make up law as they feel.

During the same debate, Donald Trump stated two requirements for his judicial appointee:

“Respect for Constitution”

“Respect for the Second Amendment”

He didn’t specify his thoughts about any other subject. He didn’t imply his philosophy. He only asked about what all future presidents should concern themselves with, Our Constitution.