Scalia was, however, very definitely in the minority throughout his time on the court. Even when he agreed with his colleagues’ decision, he often wrote concurring opinions to explain his own reasoning, which differed markedly from his colleagues’. Outnumbered, he described his successes as “d–n few” and lamented that “day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”
Scalia was one of only a handful of jurists who held to his view of originalism. They are outnumbered by far by those who believe that the laws in general, and the Constitution in particular, do not necessarily mean what they were intended to mean, and that the Supreme Court is the only body with the ultimate authority to determine what they really did mean. Scalia’s death leaves only one originalist on the Supreme Court. If the trend he observed in Supreme Court decisions is to be reversed, his successor must be one of this minority dedicated to a rational interpretation of the Constitution.
President Obama will not appoint a successor who is even remotely sympathetic to Scalia’s principles. Indeed, if Obama’s previous nominations are any indication, should he be successful in appointing Scalia’s successor, it would be one of the biggest ideological shifts in the history of the court, from a staunch originalist to an advocate of a living constitution, a constitution that changes to mean whatever the justice wants it to at the moment. It is imperative, then, that the Senate refuse to confirm any nominee who does not adhere to an originalist view of the Constitution. Anything else would create a shift away from the rule of law, in which the text of laws is meaningful, to a government by the whim of five justices.
Such a refusal would likely mean that the seat remains vacant at least until Obama leaves office nearly a year from now. This would be far from unprecedented—the last time a vacancy opened during an election year, the nominee was filibustered and withdrawn, and the longest-lasting Supreme Court vacancy lasted more than a year when Congress refused to confirm the lame-duck President Tyler’s nominations—and it is absolutely necessary. The two originalists on the court usually allied with Justices Alito and Roberts, who, although not strictly originalists, had some regard for the meaning of the text, to oppose four advocates of a living constitution, with the philosophically confused Justice Kennedy providing the deciding ninth vote. Shifting one of the most strident and brilliant textualist voices to that of a full-throated liberal would nearly guarantee defeat for advocates of the original intent or original meaning in every case brought before the Supreme Court. Republican Senators who haven’t stood on their hind legs and fought in their entire careers need to now, or risk potentially irreparable damage in the period before the next president will hopefully appoint a more rational justice (which relies, of course, on the assumption that the Republicans don’t nominate Trump, who has said that his pro-abortion sister would be “one of the best” Supreme Court justices, and that the Republican nominee wins).
If ever there was a time for Republicans in the Senate to stand their ground, this is it. Republicans have already vowed to block Obama’s nominees, but conservatives need to be willing to support those holding the line and hold those who flinch from the confrontation accountable. For twelve months—the second-longest Supreme Court vacancy in history—the Senate will be a battlefield, but if our country is to remain one that Justice Scalia would recognize, we must win.
President: Ted Cruz
Railroad Commissioner: Wayne Christian
Texas Supreme Court Place 3: Michael Massengale
Texas Supreme Court Place 5: Rick Green
Texas Supreme Court Place 9: Eva Guzman
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 2: Ray Wheless
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 5: Brent Webster
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6: Michael E. Keasler
US Representative, District 12: abstain
State Representative, District 97: abstain
District Judge, 96th Judicial District: Traci Hutton
District Judge, 348th Judicial District: Brooke Allen
District Judge, 360th Judicial District: Patricia Baca Bennett
Tarrant County Constable, Precinct 6: Glen Bucy
Tarrant County Sheriff: Bill Waybourn
Tarrant County GOP Chair: Tim O'Hare
President
The American conservative movement hasn’t had a presidential candidate as good as Ted Cruz. Not just since Reagan: ever. He is unquestionably brilliant; as Texas’s youngest-ever Solicitor General, he was undefeated before the Supreme Court, successfully arguing cases that ranged from defending Texas sovereignty to the individual right to keep and bear arms. As a senator, he was the most successful Republican in bringing bills out of committee and the most successful freshman in passing bills, although his greatest accomplishment remains the crucial role he played in stopping Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. Simply being gifted wouldn’t be enough, though: Cruz is also unflinchingly honest and solidly conservative across the board, receiving high marks from every conservative interest group, including Conservative Review, American Conservative Union, Freedom Works, and the Heritage Foundation. Even when the odds were overwhelmingly against him, he’s been willing to stand and fight. He told us he’d fight for conservatism when he went to Washington, and once he got there, he did precisely what he said, and did it well, and that’s more than any other candidate can say. He went to Washington and stood up for us; now it’s time to stand up for him.
Railroad Commissioner
The Railroad Commission, composed of three members, has primary regulatory jurisdiction over oil and natural gas extraction and transport, natural gas utilities, and coal and uranium surface mining operations.
The race for Railroad Commissioner is a bit harder to pick. On the one hand, Lance Christian is the only geologist in the running, and if elected would be the only geologist on the Railroad Commission. It hardly seems excessive to ask that those tasked with regulating oil and gas have some idea of the science behind it. Besides, he had his name attached to a journal article with the title “A streetcar named desired future conditions,” which is precisely the right blend of hilarious and nerdy.
However, although Lance Christian appears to be well-suited to serve as Railroad Commissioner, statewide elected positions in Texas are all stepping stones to higher office. Lance Christian’s positions on larger issues are unknown, but there is someone in the race whose positions are well-known: Wayne Christian. Wayne Christian served in the Texas House of Representatives, and was consistently one of the most conservative members. He was the chairman of the House committee for regulated industries, so he is not entirely without experience, and, because of his past consistency, has been endorsed by Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT), Texas Right to Life (TRL), and many conservative groups.
Several other candidates are also running, but these have neither Lance Christian’s extensive knowledge of the issues nor Wayne Christian’s solid track record, and can safely be ruled out.
Texas Supreme Court Place 3
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
Michael Massengale is the only conservative choice for Texas Supreme Court Place 3. He is experienced, having served on the First Court of Appeals since 2009, before that working in private practice, and has the endorsement of Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (TFR), TRL, YCT, and the Texas Home School Coalition (THSC), among others.
His opponent, Debra Lehrman (incumbent) has consistently been the lone dissenting voice on the conservative Texas Supreme Court, and has been endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life (TAL), a group that has become a tool to provide cover for liberal Republicans in Texas and has worked tirelessly to keep Joe Straus in power.
Texas Supreme Court Place 5
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
Rick Green, a former state representative and after that the founder of Patriot Academy, was reliably conservative as a legislator, and has been endorsed by TRL, THSC, YCT, and a sampling of most conservative leaders in Texas. Rick Green lacks experience as a jurist, but seems likely to have a good grasp of the law given his experience as a legislator and teacher.
His opponent, Paul Green, is far more experienced, having served on the Texas Supreme Court for eleven years, but has kept a low profile. He has been endorsed by Rick Perry, TLR, and TAL. Although he’s done nothing particularly objectionable as a judge (or praiseworthy, for that matter), he lacks Rick Green’s more radical conservatism, and the endorsement from TAL implies that he is at least malleable enough to be used by the more liberal elements of the Texas Republican establishment.
Texas Supreme Court Place 9
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
Eva Guzman has assembled endorsements from a shocking variety of Texas Republican leaders, ranging from the decidedly liberal (for a Texas Republican) John Cornyn to the establishmentarian Greg Abbot and conservatives Dan Patrick and David Barton. She is one of the more adept legal scholars on the court; in Gunn v. Minton, the US Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Texas Supreme Court decision using the reasoning from her dissent.
Her opponent, Joe Pool, on the other hand, has been unable to win anyone’s trust, and has been dogged by allegations that he is a tool of trial lawyers seeking to gain influence on the court.
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Place 2
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
This race is an excellent example of why judicial races are important: there is no incumbent, as the previous holder of the position left, switched parties, and ran for Texas Supreme Court as a Democrat. Ray Wheless, an Air Force veteran and fifteen-year trial court judge, is a conservative who has been endorsed by THSC, TRL, and TFR. He is by far the most predictably conservative candidate in the face.
Mary Lou Keel is also an experienced trial court and appellate court judge. She is more experienced but less reliable than Wheless. Chris Oldner is the only clearly bad choice in the race. The subject of a number of ethics complaints, he is also behind the indictment of Attorney General Ken Paxton, and has, in violation of basic standards of judicial ethics, used his position to attack Paxton's defense team in the media.
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 5
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
In this race Brent Webster is the clear choice. Despite being young, he has experience as a prosecutor, which will be useful on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He has been endorsed by TFR, TRL, THSC, and a number of other conservatives. Perhaps the highest recommendation, though, came from the Dallas News when it endorsed one of his opponents: they claimed that he views everything through the lens of his Christian faith. It hardly seems a negative for a judge to view the world through the lens of the only true source of justice.
Several other candidates are running. Sid Harle is experienced as a judge, but lacks Webster's appeal as a candidate, and has been endorsed by the anti-conservative TAL. Steve Smith and Scott Walker are also running, but appear to have little to recommend them besides sharing names with famous people.
Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6
Texas divides its courts of last resort into the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil and juvenile cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is Texas' highest court for criminal cases.
The incumbent, Michael E. Keasler, is an extremely experienced judge, and has served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for seventeen years with distinction.
His opponent is barely running a campaign at all, hasn't even bothered to keep his campaign website's domain, and appears resigned to losing.
Justice, 2nd Court of Appeals, Place 3
The 2nd Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal appeals in non-capital cases, civil appeals for which the award exceeds $250, and has original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, injunction, prohibition, and habeas corpus, and serves Archer, Clay, Cooke, Denton, Hood, Jack, Montague, Parker, Tarrant, Wichita, Wise, and Young counties.
No less than five candidates are running for this open seat, but Dabney Bassel appears to be the best qualified to serve. He has more civil appellate experience than any other candidate, and has been endorsed by conservative stalwart Matt Krause. He was also voted highest qualified by the Tarrant County Bar Association.
William Anthony "Andy" Porter currently serves as a prosecutor for the Tarrant County District Attorney's office, and is the least experienced of the candidates running; however, he does have the endorsement of the NE Tarrant Tea Party, which is usually reliable. Elizabeth Kerr is a lawyer in private practice who has been practicing for more than three decades. Mary Colchin Johndroe practices in civil law, and is the second least experienced candidate. Bill Ray practices civil and civil appellate law. It's difficult to find anything either notably good or notably bad in their records; there is no obvious best or worst choice in this race.
District Judge, 96th Judicial District
The incumbent, R.H. Wallace, gained some notoriety for a 2014 case involving a pregnant mother who suffered brain death, but was kept on life support to protect the 23-week-old unborn baby, according to Texas law. The mother's family argued that the baby was brain-damaged and would die soon anyway, and asked that Wallace strike down the Texas law as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment. Wallace chose not to, instead ruling that since both the hospital and the family agreed that she was brain-dead, the mother was already legally dead, thus the law did not apply. He ordered the hospital to pronounce her dead and remove life support, killing the unborn child. He was correct that the mother was brain-dead, but his decision ended the life of the unborn baby. Every human life, brain-damaged or not, is precious, made in the sacred image of God, and because Judge Wallace does not recognize that fact, he can never be a good judge.
Fortunately, he is not running unopposed. Traci Hutton is an accomplished attorney licensed to argue cases before the Supreme Court. She has been endorsed by THSC and TRL, and is the clear choice of any conservative voter.
District Judge, 348th Judicial District
Brooke Allen is an attorney and Republican activist, and has been endorsed by TFR and THSC, among others.
Mike Wallach and Lisa Lumley are both attorneys with extensive experience in private practice, but lack Allen's record of political involvement and endorsements by key organizations.
District Judge, 360th Judicial District
Patricia Baca Bennett is a Board Certified attorney with a specialization in family law. A conservative, she has been endorsed by THSC and Julie White McCarty, president of the NE Tarrant County Tea Party.
The incumbent, a Rick Perry-appointee, is considerably less impressive. There is anecdotal evidence (the testimony of a trusted friend) that he stated in court while deciding a custody case that all military personnel lack control. That is hardly a conclusive accusation without further evidence backing it up, but there's no reason to take a chance when there's a good candidate running.
Tarrant County Constable, Precinct 6
Glen Bucy is an impressive candidate. A military veteran and current police officer, he has been absolutely courageous in his campaigns. He chose not to pursue an endorsement from Representative Kay Granger, despite her power in the area, because he could not reconcile asking for the support of a pro-abortion politician with his pro-life beliefs. He gives every reason to believe that when he says he'll stand up for the rights of his constituents, including their 2nd Amendment rights, he will.
His opponent, the incumbent Jon Siegel, had no such qualms about pursuing the endorsement of a pro-abortion politician, and has her endorsement, as well as those of a number of establishment politicians. The choice is clear, and Jon Siegel isn't it.
Tarrant County Sheriff
The incumbent, Dee Anderson, hasn't done a bad job, but there's no compelling reason to choose him for a fifth and final term over Waybourn.
Originally posted at The Five Pilgrims.
In C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Father Christmas gives gifts to the Pevensie children, he gives both Susan and Lucy weapons. He cautions them, however, only to use them for self-defense in great need; he did not intend for them to use them in battle. This was no comment on their bravery, however: as Father Christmas explained, “battles are ugly when women fight.”
Battles are ugly when anyone fights, and Lewis, a survivor of the First World War, knew that. He was, through Father Christmas, getting at something deeper: that battles were particularly ugly when women were drawn in. It’s a position drawn from the Christian idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that when God created male and female He didn’t simply toss together a collection of disparate traits. Men and women were created with distinct roles. Men were to provide first, women to nurture first. The difference in roles was reflected in the traits given to each gender: men, generally speaking, are physically larger and stronger, while women are able to give birth, and even slight differences in brain form and function suited men and women for their different roles. For millenia this difference in roles was also understood to mean that men had a duty to be the first to face danger in defense of their family, to sacrifice themselves if necessary, to allow women to be the caregivers they were designed to be.
This is what Lewis is referring to, and he’s right that it is particularly abominable when, in addition to the inherent ugliness of war, those designed to to give life and nurture it must take life or lose their own.
It was surprising, then, to hear three Republican presidential candidates at the New Hampshire debate speak in favor of expanding registration for the draft to women. Both already favored allowing women in combat roles, but this was something else entirely: opening combat roles to women applied only to women who chose to join the military, whereas the position advocated by Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio would, if the draft were ever reinstated, fundamentally change the distinction between men and women in American society. There would be no place for women who chose to live their lives in accordance with the longstanding normative gender role, while men who rejected their duty as guardians could cower at home while their sisters or daughters were forced to fight. It is the natural conclusion of a view of humankind that denies any functional difference between men and women, but it is no less wrong.
A country that forces women into danger when there is a man left alive is not a country worth fighting for. Unlikely as it is that the draft would ever be reinstated, Bush and Rubio’s position should be rejected. It is not pro-woman for those men to ask that women, designed to nurture, be forced into battle ahead of them, it is cowardly, and any man who would ask that is no man at all.
Originally posted on The Five Pilgrims
One
day before the Iowa caucuses, Emerson College released the final Iowa
poll. Its results were a little narrower than most of its immediate
predecessors, but it showed the same thing they did: Donald Trump, the
blustery real estate magnate who was firmly ensconced as the Republican
frontrunner despite his many departures from small-government
conservatism, with a lead over Ted Cruz. Real Clear Politics, likely the
best-known aggregator of polling data, had Trump with a 4.7-point lead
over Cruz, and the renowned political statistics blog FiveThirtyEight’s
most likely predicted outcome was a narrow Trump victory. A weighted
average of the polls showed the same thing, and better still, pulled
Trump outside the reported margin of error for the weighted estimate.
There was, perhaps, a little cause
for alarm within Trump’s camp. Both of the most recent polls from Iowa
showed Cruz narrowing the margin to within the poll’s error, but even
so, neither predicted that Cruz would take the lead. Trump’s
unconventional campaign focused on rallies and top-down momentum, rather
than grassroots and legwork, appeared to have upset conventional wisdom
and would notch up a victory before anyone else had a chance to go on
the board.
The polls were wrong. Cruz not only won, he won with a record number of votes and by more than 3%
– a commanding margin in a race with ten other candidates. The margin
between Cruz and Trump was actually wider than the margin between Trump
and the third-place finisher, Marco Rubio. Every poll showed Trump with a
lead, many with a lead greater than the margin of error, and every poll
was wrong.
The total breakdown of polling
isn’t necessarily a new thing – caucuses are hard to predict – but it is
worse this year than in the past. In 2008 a weighted average would have
predicted the actual winner, Mike Huckabee, and even in 2012, when Rick
Santorum pulled off one of the more shocking come-from-behind victories
in recent memory, polls showed the surge, and a plot of the pre-caucus
trajectory would have predicted the eventual outcome. This year neither
the actual numbers nor the trajectory would have predicted the winner.
The polls were simply wrong.
There will undoubtedly be many
post-mortems trying to explain why the pollsters failed today, but
there’s a simple enough explanation: Trump’s support is the political
equivalent of a rice cake – crunchy, usually very noisy, air. He
presented a platform as schizophrenic as his campaign, a muddled, angry
caricature of what a New York-liberal might imagine to be conservatism.
Pushing an isolationist view on the borders and a nationalist, even bloodthirsty, foreign policy, at the same time that he advocated positively socialist positions on issues like healthcare and a fascist stance
on religious expression, Trump simultaneously attempted to appeal to
the Republican conservative base and emphatically rejected crucial
elements of a conservative worldview. His campaign preparation showed
the same inattention to detail, eschewing hard work in favor of exciting
rallies and passing over a well-developed organization in favor of
slip-shod tweet-storms. He targeted a particular subset of voters, those
who had not thought out their positions clearly enough to recognize the
caricature.
It turns out, people too lazy to
think through a consistent, coherent philosophy of government aren’t
likely to be diligent enough to spend three hours casting a vote.
Trump’s no idiot, although he clearly thinks his supporters are,
and he’ll adapt. Future states will be primaries, which appeal to
Trump’s brand of voters more than more time-consuming caucuses, and
Trump will undoubtedly work to solidify his organization in the future.
Tonight, though, it doesn’t matter. Trump’s “yuge” lead in the polls was
finally put to the test, and it collapsed under pressure. There’s a
long road ahead – Iowa only controls a little more than 1% of the total
delegates – but first blood and the confidence to forge ahead regardless
of the polls goes to the underestimated senator from Texas.