Rule of Law: Why this election is a MUST WIN

OCTOBER 7, 2016 31 Comments

By Aimee Pontier, Editor

The current presidential election is the most important one in decades, and it has little to do with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

It’s about the rule of law. And if Clinton wins, liberals will forever change the law of the land.

The Supreme Court, which began its 2016 term on Monday, has had a conservative majority since Richard Nixon landed in the Oval Office in 1968. During Nixon’s presidency, he appointed four conservative justices. Since that election, there has been no other president that has had the opportunity to completely alter the American legal landscape for decades.

Until now.

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left the Supreme Court at a standstill with eight justices; four conservatives and four liberals. The Court is waiting to hear multiple cases where constitutional rights are in question.

Whomever is nominated to break the current split will be a huge decision maker for years to come. But it doesn’t end there.

While Justice Scalia’s seat is currently the only one open, that will likely change in the very near future. There are three sitting justices that are 78 or older, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 83; Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80; and Justice Stephen Breyer, 78. This makes the chance of Supreme Court retirements in the next four years highly likely, at which point the sitting president would nominate replacements.

Nearly 50 years of unbroken conservative control of the Supreme Court is what is at stake in November. Should the Supreme Court become a liberal majority, things will never be the same.

Monumental cases are making their way to the high court for decisions that could either defend our constitution, or spit on it. It all depends on who is wearing the robe – conservative, or liberal — when the cases arrive.

Voting Rights

The court will hear an appeal during its 2016 term of a lower court’s ruling that the Texas law requiring photo identification to vote is discriminatory toward minorities and the poor. The court could also hear appeals in similar cases from North Carolina and Wisconsin. A vote that, with liberal majority, will definitely side with the lower court’s ruling, and an ID will not be required to vote, meaning voter fraud will be easier than ever to get away with.

Religious Freedom

The court has yet to schedule its hearing of the noteworthy religious case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, but it is on the docket for the current term. The church is appealing a decision which stated, due to separation of church and state, the government should not provide the church a grant to make playgrounds safer by using recycled tires. The church argues that the grant is for a completely secular purpose that would help the entire community, but the Missouri constitution forbids public money used, “in aid of any church.”

Public Restrooms

The Supreme Court is still deciding if it will hear an appeal to a lower court ruling in Virginia that says the school district must allow transgender use of the bathroom that matches the individual’s gender identity. If the court agrees to hear the appeal, the decision’s only hope of being overturned is a conservative majority court.


In Lynch v. Dimaya, the court will decide whether the federal law that requires deportation of non-citizens convicted of felonies involving “substantial risk” of violence is unconstitutionally vague. It’s a case that could allow convicted felons who aren’t U.S. citizens to remain in our country, and continue to disobey our laws.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a request from President Obama to appeal a 4-4 ruling in United States v. Texas,which rejected a proposal which would have shielded 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. The case could still return to the court in a later term.

Following the original ruling, Obama whined that the ruling would’ve been in his favor had Congress approved Merrick Garland for the court – only further affirming the importance of the upcoming justice pick.

A look at future cases to be heard highlights the importance of each member of the court. With one seat currently vacant and the high possibility of upcoming retirements, our next president could have an incredible amount of power in nominating justices. With either candidate, it’s safe to assume the court will take on a majority that falls in line with that nominee’s party.

The majority of the Supreme Court will last for generations, influencing our nation’s laws more than any president can influence in a single term.

This election is bigger than the two candidates, it’s about the entire landscape of lawmaking in this country for years to come.

— Aimee Pontier is the Editor of The Horn News

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.