Header Graphic for Sarges.com Go to Home Page of Your Historical News Source LeftNavBar_Background_Color_Bar Visit News Columns written by Bill Sargent Check out Sarge's FaceBook page Visit Sarge's Twitter Page Send a message to Sarge via a Webform Visit Sarge's 2018 campaign Website Visit the Department of Justice - FBI Archived pages Visit the archived National Security Web pages Visit the archived Foreign Policy Pages Visit the archived immigration reform pages Visit the archived pages about the Economy Visit the archived 2nd Amendment web pages Visit archived political stories Authorization to copy items from this website You are here > Home > News Columns > Trump's Judicial Picks may return us to the Rule of Law

Pelican Island, a Force to be Reckoned with
Trump Judicial Picks May
Return us to the
Rule of Law
Census Citizenship question neither New nor Wrong
Thumbnail image of Pelican Island deep water port column

May 29, 2019
Port Arthur News

We are looking at an opportunity for our nation to return to the rule-of-law.

With activist unelected judges usurping the intended meaning of laws and issuing subjective opinions, the rule-of-law is has been threatened.  In the past, our nation’s highest court, and many of our nation’s law schools, have moved us closer to destroying the rule-of- law concept.  The “Originalist” views of our written Constitution, a view to protect rights of freedom, have been replaced by judge’s subjective personal opinions. This model is rooted in the belief that our Constitution is a “living” document and can be changed through judicial decisions as opposed to the amendment process.

This view often rejects the meaning of the text of our Constitution.  Instead decisions are based upon what other judges, in other cases, have ruled (“stare decisis”) as opposed to protecting the original meaning and fundamentals of freedom upon which it is based.  But what if a previous judge got it wrong and other judges base their decisions on improper precedents?  It’s like the telephone game we played as kids -- what was originally said ends up being unrecognizable to the originator!

Two examples where some believe justices got it wrong:
- Roe v Wade where more than 60 million unborn children have been sacrificed because abortion was ruled “constitutional.”
- Separation of church and state where placing crosses and menorahs on public land constitutes the “establishment” of a religion.  The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Many ask “How does placing a religious symbol on public land establish a religion?” 

There is a process for changing the Constitution and it doesn’t involve the judicial branch.

Law schools in our nation teach the “living document” principle and setting aside what the Constitution actually states.  When the text of our Constitution is no longer viewed as meaning what it says, we are no longer governed by the rule of law.

But wait, there is room for optimism!  Our President has nominated, and the Senate has confirmed, a record number of judges to the Federal Bench.  So far, the President has selected judges who support the “originalist” judicial philosophy.  The appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Bret Kavanaugh are just two examples.  But it goes much further.  President Trump’s federal appeals court and district court appointees follow the same mold.  One example is the appointment of Michael Truncale who ran for Congress in 2012 when I did where I got to know him.  Michael is an outstanding appointee and friend.  His nomination was confirmed by the full U.S. Senate on May 14 clearing the way for him to join the federal bench.

President Trump is doing an outstanding job in his appointment of federal judges.  Not only are they good appointments, but they are people who may serve for 20-30 years, having a major and positive impact upon our nation and our following the Rule of Law for years to come.

Author and Columnist
Photo of Bill (Sarge) Sargent
May 29, 2019