ADF

David Davenport: Judges Should Respect The Constitution More Than Precedent


Below the surface of Senate hearings on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court is a tug of war that should be brought to light.  It is a battle between a judge’s commitment to follow judicial precedents versus faithfulness to the Constitution itself.

Federal courts tack right and left, as Republican and Democratic presidents appoint their judges.  More liberal judges increase federal power and conservative judges restrain it.  But when liberal courts take the law to the left, they set precedents that conservative judges feel obligated to follow, even when the decisions were not constitutionally sound.

There is value in precedent—without it the legal system would become unpredictable and unstable. But more important is following the Constitution itself. We need judges who will do both. But we don’t want slaves to precedent—whether or not that precedent is faithful to the Constitution.

Read More »

Lanhee Chen: An Alliance Worth Defending


There’s been a lot of talk recently about whether NATO—an alliance started after World War II—is still relevant in today’s world.  The answer is a simple and unequivocal “yes.” It is.

The alliance is on the front lines of our efforts to counteract Russia’s growing ambitions in Europe and beyond.  But NATO does need to evolve, to meet the growing threats of the 21st century. It should be oriented, for example, toward efforts to counter the growing threats of cyber-terrorism and Russian efforts to meddle in democratic elections in member nations.

And: NATO members must contribute their fair share. President Trump is right to press our European allies to invest more in their own defensive capacities.

But NATO has been, and continues to be, an integral part of our national  security strategy.

It’s an alliance worth defending.

Read More »

A Supreme Court Nominee and the Confirmation Battle that Awaits


Townhall Review – July 14, 2018

Hugh Hewitt is joined by Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society, to look at the confirmation process for the newly-nominated U. S. Supreme Court Justice. Mike Gallagher turns to Wendy Long to examine the vicious partisanship expected during the confirmation process. CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins Hugh Hewitt with his analysis of the nominee and the confirmation. Michael Medved speaks with economist Stephen Moore about the latest jobs report. Larry Elder’s guest, Walter Williams, author, columnist, and economics professor at George Mason University, explains why parenting is the number one problem facing education in our African-American urban areas. Mike Gallagher discusses NATO with Michael Desch, Director of the National Security Center at Notre Dame. Dennis Prager asks some questions about the growing “rudeness” phenomenon.

Read More »

Hugh Hewitt: Judge Kavanaugh Is Justice John Roberts 2.0


The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Trump marks what could well be the first ever reliable majority or what conservative legal scholars call “originalist” and “textualist” Justices on the Supreme Court.

If confirmed, it’s a triumph for the conservative legal movement that took 30 years to achieve, but it’s almost here—at long last. In temperament, character and judicial philosophy Judge Kavanaugh is very much Justice John Roberts 2.0

This doesn’t mean a reactionary or right wing activist radical court, but rather one committed to the Constitution and to precedent, to religious liberty and free speech, to property rights and the Second Amendment.

Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation will be dispositive if the question: “Should I have voted for Trump?” arises.

The answer of course is, “Yes.”

Read More »

Michael Medved: Is Same-Sex Attraction Beyond Question or Criticism?


California’s radical state legislature is debating a law that would punish any professionals who work to help patients overcome same-sex attraction.

Assembly Bill 2943 strictly prohibits “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation” or efforts  “to “reduce sexual…feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” In other words, a therapist can try to help a married man stop flirting with pretty women at work, but if he helps that same patient overcome attractions to handsome young men at work, then he’ll be punished.

While organizations and practitioners can challenge the institution of marriage all they want, homosexuality would be protected from question or criticism. This is a bad bill that deserves decisive defeat.

Read More »