Trump vs. Hillary: The Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

“Trump vs. Hillary: The Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance”
Ty J. Young Editorial

The media has distracted the public from the much larger issues that this presidential election campaign represents. While a constant drumbeat of glaring personal failings makes the headlines, the criminality and the corruption so evident in the number of WikiLeaks email dumps barely registers on the night time news.

One of the critical issues not being discussed much, if at all, is who will nominate vacancies to the Federal Courts. More specifically, the vacancies to the Supreme Court. These appointments will shape the American way of life for at least a generation, and long after the winner of this year’s election leaves the White House. There are some issues that could radically alter current law, and our way of life, based upon who is elected to nominate the next set of justices.

Below is a comparison of where the candidates stand on Court-related issues, and therefore how their Court nominees will most likely rule if given the chance.

I. Where Hillary’s judges would stand on the top three Supreme Court issues:

1. The 2nd Amendment may not survive a Clinton Court. Will it support increased gun control measures? Yes. Expand background checks? Yes. Expand the right of having a concealed-carry permit? No. Former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton wants to have the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study gun violence as a disease, and she favors an assault-weapons ban. One of her most concerning public statements was how she favors the gun manufacturer to be held liable in shootings. Her surrogates have been caught on tape claiming “she can take the guns from people by executive order.” Clinton said this is “something to be looked at.” A Clinton appointed nominee will agree with or have even more radical views. Say goodbye to D.C. vs. Heller which reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, and applied it to all jurisdictions including federal enclaves … if Clinton is allowed to appoint judges to the Court.

2. Illegal immigration to become open borders. The WikiLeaks email dumps provide a window into the minds of the Clinton campaign, and her surrounding aides, for the last several years. In the transcripts of her speeches before a major Brazilian bank, she said she is in favor of hemispheric open borders. President Obama’s DREAM (Development Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act Executive Order was already struck down by the courts. Since he has simply ignored their ruling, it would be expanded. According to Hillary’s website, she will not deport illegal aliens, wants to legalize Obama’s DREAM Act beneficiaries, and wants to admit hundreds of thousands more Muslims from the Middle East. You can assume the United States v. Texas ruling, otherwise known as DACA (Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals) will be overturned. The ruling, by Judge Hanen, was not even heard by the Supreme Court due to a 4-4 split affirming the appellate level ruling and ended Obama’s DACA program implementation. A Clinton Supreme Court would rubber stamp this unconstitutional expansion of citizenship to foreigners.

3. The First Amendment and free speech would be under attack. Those who follow politics and the Supreme Court know the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case allowed corporations to exercise free speech during political campaigns. The case was regarding a movie made about Hillary Clinton banned during the election season. The media and Democrats paint a haunting picture of corporations funding elections for reprehensible purposes yet they neglect to point out that under the ruling they are receiving more money than Republicans by nearly 2-1. In the end, the case is about free political speech. Clinton appointees will most likely overturn the decision it. Even more dangerous than that is the potential of a reversal in of the Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell. The Christian-owned company did not want to provide health insurance which made abortion available under Obamacare. They won, but Clinton has surprisingly not voiced her opposition to the ruling. What is even more terrifying, the Mayor of Houston, subpoenaed sermons of pastor’s who preached against same-sex marriage because of a city dispute over the enforcement of a human rights ordinance. Regardless of your stand regarding LGBT issues, NO ONE should be subpoenaing the sermons of preachers. That violates two of the most important tenets of the First Amendment – the right of free speech and the right to exercise your religion freely. Needless to say, big First Amendment cases coming before a Clinton Court will most likely, fundamentally alter the nature of the First Amendment and our constitutionally protected freedoms. It is quite ironic that the party which screams for free speech the most, is the one most often against it.

II. Where Trump’s judges would stand on the top three Supreme Court issues:

1. No expansion of gun control … the 2nd Amendment survives. Donald Trump’s position is the Constitutional one – “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed-carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do, too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.” The 2nd Amendment is not just for your driveway or your home. It is to protect you from a government oppressing the people. When government’s take guns from people, only the government and the bad guys have them. Most dictatorships have started with gun seizure. Trump judges would most likely be Constitutionalists, with a belief in original intent, and would be unlikely to restrict access to gun ownership, outside of the normal background check process that already exists.

2. Trump judges would not rubber stamp the rights of illegal aliens. As Trump himself has said many times … if you do not enforce a border, you do not have a country. The illegal executive orders issued by President Obama were thankfully reversed at the appellate court level, but the Supreme Court only needs one more judge to grant certiorari—meaning they will review the decision—and then rule in favor of a vast presidential expansion of illegal immigration and the right of citizenship. Even today, the threat includes a president not enforcing the laws we have, and releasing criminal illegals back into the population. But to have the Supreme Court legalize, with Constitutional support, the right of any president to ignore the law and legalize millions does not come without consequences. These consequences could include negative effects on budgets, tax revenue, and safety. Trump judges would likely rule against such an expansion of the right of citizenship to those who came here illegally.

3. First Amendment should remain intact. Trump’s desire to expand libel and slander law is a not an unreasonable reaction to the unprecedented assault he has been under by the mainstream media. However, it is certainly not the position of a First Amendment absolutist. He has voiced support in the past for a restricted view of the Citizens United case. But, the list of judges Trump has suggested he would nominate for the Supreme Court are all original intent jurists, and have a record of protecting First Amendment rights in their rulings. It is unlikely Christians and other groups of faith will be compelled to take action against, or be prevented from, exercising their religion or speaking as they see fit. When it comes to Constitutional issues … Trump has the advantage.

The country has a tough choice to make in this election, and many are not happy with the options. On one side, there is a crude billionaire from the entertainment culture who has committed to many conservative principles. The other side is an alleged criminal whose political party has corrupted some of our most important institutions. While the options do not seem great, the choice when it comes to the direction of the Court is a clear one. It is also perhaps one of the most important issues you can use to help you decide on how to cast your vote on November 8.

Regardless of your political stance and who you decide to cast your vote for, many people want to ensure their money is completely protected in the event we have another crisis like 2008 when the stock market crashed. The upcoming election has been highly unpredictable throughout the campaign cycle and the stock market is no different. There is risk involved when your money is in the stock market. If you want to have your money in a place where it is protected from market losses and still growing at the same time, give us a call at 877-912-1919. Our advisors are experts in helping people achieve financial peace of mind when they need it most. The election and the future of our country are at potential risk, but your money does not have to be.

(http://www.infowars.com/clinton-delegate-reveals-hillarys-gun-grab-plot)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/political-issues)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
(http://cmsny.org/federal-court-halts-dapa-and-expanded-daca-programs)

Leave a Reply