Glenn Beck: Did You Ever Really Lose Your Voice?

Although Glenn Beck has asked a very important question that I have never thought about. If today was the last day you had a voice, what would you say? I began to think about the question and I realized a few important things.

Glenn Beck relies on a narrow definition of the word "voice." He uses it as using your vocal chords to express your thoughts, feelings and ideas. And based on that, it can be a scary thing if you are not able to talk. It also might prompt people to begin to reconsider their words and the effect it has on other people and how they might choose their words more carefully.

Like Glenn Beck, I make a living communicating. I am an attorney. I use my words to defend clients in court or to help them resolve their legal problems. I write memorandums, briefs, letters and other documents for my clients. I understand how important words are and how powerful our voices can be.

I am also an individual with a profound hearing loss. Not only can I communicate by talking but I use my hands to speak. I learned American Sign Language (ASL) when I was in high school. I use ASL to speak with my Deaf clients or to talk with my friends.

Because of my hearing loss and my profession, You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. EVER. You might lose the ability to speak as a result of some medical condition. You might have your voice restricted, suppressed or silenced by a repressive government.  Someone could physically prevent you from speaking by putting duct tape over your mouth or throwing you in prison. 

How you feel, think and see the world can never be suppressed. The Soviet Government is a good example of this. No matter how much they tried to control people's speech, the good people found a way to make their voices heard. An underground movement known as Samizdat was formed in which people wrote letters, poems, articles and essays expressing their views. With all the might that the former USSR had, it  couldn't suppress speech. 

As a result, our 1st Amendment right can never be taken away. It will always be there. You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. The 1st Amendment takes a broad view of speech. It protects all forms of communication. But our voices doesn't have to be made by sound or put down on paper.  That's the cool thing about American Sign Language.  Your voice is also found in your hands, eyes, and body. That is what makes ASL beautiful and awesome.What is in your heart or in your mind can be expressed through your body. Even ASL is protected under the 1st Amendment. 

So Glenn, you might lose your ability to talk, but you will never lose your voice. I recommend that you learn American Sign Language. You are a passionate man with lots of things to say. However, I suggest you expand the way you use your voice to include American Sign Language. You will never see the world the same again and how you express yourself and your ideas will never be the same. 

I know you might not be able to talk, but you will always have your voice.

If Mitt Romney Is Our Next President, Who Would He Nominate For The Supreme Court?

CNN has recently published an article of possible Supreme Court nominees that Mitt Romney would pick if he became President. CNN claims that they were able to obtain an unofficial list of potential nominees based on a variety of sources. Mitt Romney has not publicly stated who he would name if he became President and this list complied by CNN could be nothing more than pure speculation by their sources.

Below is the list of potential Supreme Court  nominees: 

Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Judge Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Milwaukee

Sen. Mike Lee, Republican from Utah

Judge Steven Colloton, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, works in Des Moines, Iowa

Judge Neil Gorsuch, 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Denver

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, works in Columbus, Ohio

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Judge Allyson Duncan, 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, works in Raleigh, North Carolina

All the issues that conservatives and Republican care about can be traced back our concern for the rule of law. If we fail to make the Constitution, our judicial system, criminal system, or our legislative system legal issues our top priority and concern as conservatives and Republicans, then we will not be able to be successful in fighting for life, economic liberty, national security, right to bear arms, health care, education or any other issue. As a result, this election is extremely important for conservatives of all stripes because who wins this election will have the chance to influence the make up of our Supreme Court for many years to come. 

By electing Mitt Romney, we will have the opportunity to put more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Wee need a conservative majority not only to keep the liberals in the minority,  but we also need them in the event one or two justices decide side with the liberal justices, we still have a conservative majority.

The real question isn't between having Obama or Mitt Romney as our next president. The choice is easy. However, the important question is how much effort are you willing to put into this election make that choice a reality so that the issues you care about receive the proper attention it receives in our judicial system? 

Why More Conservative Supreme Court Justices Are Needed

Normally, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh but there wasn't anything else good on the radio and so I decided to tune in to Rush. And he helped me to see the light on ObamaCare: 

The brilliance of the United States Constitution is its timelessness.  It applies to the human condition until eternity, because it is a document devoted to maintaining, proclaiming, and maintaining the freedom and liberty of the individual.  It's the greatest document of liberty and freedom ever written by human beings, and it is a target.  And it has just been dealt a very severe blow.  And to sit here and argue over whether what remains because of the Supreme Court ruling is a tax or a penalty is to lose the argument in November.  What are we left with, after all of that?  Tax penalty, Roberts brilliantly left a secret plan for us in there. It will manifest in years down the road.  What are we left with?  We're left with Obamacare.  We have Obamacare.  It's intact every bit as much as it was.

 Like many people, I got caught up in looking at the silver lining and analyzing how clever Justice Roberts was in the wake and I failed to see that whatever silver lining that exists is completely overshadowed by the fact that ObamaCare exists. The debate between Obama and Romney about the penalties or tax in their health plans is stupid. This silly debate will no doubt show up in the Presidential debates in the fall.

Given how ObamaCare was upheld, I am nervous about how the Supreme Court Justices will rule on the upcoming legal challenges that are on the way to the Supreme Court:

The next wave of lawsuits likely wouldn’t put the whole law at stake, as the challenge to the individual mandate could have. But they’re going after pieces of the law that happen to be red meat for many conservative voters — like the law’s contraception mandate and a new Medicare panel that Republicans call a “rationing board.”

And one possible legal challenge, which would try to block the feds from offering subsidies in a federal health insurance exchange, is meant to exploit a loophole in the law. But it could also be a good “messaging hit” — allowing them to attack the subsidies they see as a budget-busting new entitlement.

The fact that the Supreme Court will ruling on individual parts of the ACA worries me since the Court could uphold these parts of the law or they can chip away at the law by holding the various parts of the law unconstitutional. What's even more disturbing is that we find that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and parts of the minority opinion and that we will never know why he ended up upholding ObamaCare.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the additional challenges to ObamaCare, we are still stuck with all the taxes in the law and the additional taxes that are forthcoming in the near future. We are also stuck with other provisions of the law that will do great damage to our nation's economy. 

We have to repeal this law. The only option that is left to us, thanks to the Supreme Court, is to elect Mitt Romney as our next President. But there's another reason why we need to elect Mitt Romney. What Chief Justice John Roberts did was make it very clear that we need more conservatives on the Supreme Court bench. We can never afford to have a Supreme Court Justice switch on the American people at the last minute. By electing Mitt Romney, we will have the opportunity to put more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Thus, we need a conservative majority not only to keep the liberals in the minority but now we see we need them in the event one or two justices decide to go with the liberal minority, we still have a conservative majority.

Liberals Understand The Impact of The Supreme Court Ruling On ObamaCare Better Conservatives Do

Those conservatives who are angry with Chief Justice John Roberts for upholding ObamaCare fail to see that he was able swing the Supreme Court to the right and to make it easier for future Supreme Court justices to apply the proper and constitutional analysis to legal issues that will come before the court. 

However, Liberals clearly understand just how significant this ruling is for the conservative movement: 

In the term that ended last week, the Supreme Court reached a liberal outcome in cases involving President Obama’s health care law, Arizona’s draconian immigration statute and mandatory life sentences for juveniles. But the conservative majority also laid down a cache of weapons that future courts can use to attack many of the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society — including labor, environmental, civil rights and consumer protection laws — and to prevent new progressive legislation. Far from being a source of jubilation, the term may come back to haunt liberals. 

...

The Roberts court has intensified the effort to reduce federal power. That the individual mandate was upheld should not overshadow the court’s ruling on Medicaid expansion — the part of the ruling that is most likely to affect other legislation in the near future.

For the first time since the New Deal, the court struck down an exercise of Congress’s spending power. It held that Congress lacked the power to deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage. Chief Justice Roberts — joined by the liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — held that while the government can deny additional Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage, it cannot penalize them by rescinding current Medicaid payments.

Legal conservatives have come to the same conclusion once they overcame the initial shock of the decision and actually read the Supreme Court's decision. Virginia Attorney General  Ken Cuccinelli has echoed the liberal's fear concerning the implication of Chief Justice Robert's opinion. Famous conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer also acknowledges Robert's contribution to moving the conservative agenda at the Supreme Court. 

The only thing that liberals can be happy about is that ObamaCare has been upheld.  They don't care how it was upheld so long that it was found to be constitutional.  With all the liberals and progressives that I have talked to about this decision, they are not worried that it was upheld as a government tax. The taxes do not bother them because all they wanted to was to keep ObamaCare alive at any cost. The reason why they are not concerned about the fact that ObamaCare has morphed into ObamaCareTax is because they know that once an entitlement program is in place, it is virtually impossible to kill and as a result, the program achieves legislative immortality. Liberals want ObamaCare to be around foreover and they don't care about the source that keeps it alive. They also don't care about the consequences entitlements have on countries that implement them. 

In contrast, conservatives wanted this law to be killed immediately. However, Chief Justice John Roberts made the correct, legal and constitutional decision of leaving the responsibility of killing the law in the hands of the American people and its elected representatives.Furthermore, he made it easier for people to repeal Obamacare because by classifying this program as a tax, it becomes budgetary issue that requires 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60. He also provided the American people with the motivation to get rid of this law because there are two things that Americans hate the the most and that is taxes and ObamaCare. By merging the two things Americans hate into one, its a lethal and explosive combination for Obama and the Democrats, especially as Americans go to the ballot box in November. Mike Flynn, writing for Breitbart, points out that the "ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout operation ever."

Finally, given that Democrats love enacting new taxes and raising taxes on the American people, Chief Justice John Roberts made it difficult for Congress to raise taxes in the future since all future government programs will be labeled as a tax. Conservatives are justified in their concerns that the courts will defer to Congress in calling government programs a tax and uphold it on those grounds. What these conservatives forget is that given that Americans loathe taxes, Roberts increased the  political risks for Congress in passing new government programs. Thus, Congress will be more reluctant to create new government programs for fear of facing their constituent's ire for creating new taxes. That's the theory, at least.

Liberals and progressives fully understand the impact of Chief Justice Robert's decisions while Conservatives are still trying to come to terms with the Supreme Court decision rather looking beyond the holding and looking at the long term implications of the holding. Chief Justice Roberts has moved the conservative agenda on the Supreme Court far down the field and the Left knows it. It will take a while for Conservatives to see that he made the right decision and once they do, they will realize how powerful Chief Justice Robert's decision is for conservatives.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Supreme Court Health Care Decision Limits The Power Of The Government

As I said yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by upholding ObamaCare in such a way as to lay the ground work for the eventual demise of ObamaCare and at the same time drastically limited the Federal Government. 

Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gives a brief interview with the Daily Caller and explains that over time, conservatives will see this landmark decision that reverses the growth of government which is something the Supreme Court hasn't done since the New Deal. Watch the clip below:

Many conservatives are angry and upset with Chief Justice John Roberts. There are unpleasant pictures of John Roberts floating around on facebook, blogs and conservative websites. I understand their reaction but they are only looking at the short term goal of repealing ObamaCare and were disapointed that didn't happen. 

However, legal conservatives such as myself, Ken Cuccinelli and others are quiet happy with this decision because the long term goal of limiting the power of the federal government was accomplished and that this reduction in the size, scope and power is a permanent and lasting change on our government. As a result, John Roberts made a wise decision by going after the long term goals of conservatism rather than focusing on the short term of goal of striking down ObamaCare. 

Why Mitt Romney Is The Right Choice For All Conservatives

As attorney and as a voter,  one of the most important issues to me is any issue related to the law. Our government, society and our communities is built on the foundation of laws. As as result, I believe that we must take great care in how we create our laws, enforce our laws and how our society responds to those laws. Our nation's success depends on how much care and attention we pay to legal issues because it affects us at every level of American life. 

All the issues that conservatives and Republican care about can be traced back our concern for the rule of law. If we fail to make the Constitution, our judicial system, criminal system, or our legislative system legal issues our top priority and concern as conservatives and Republicans, then we will not be able to be successful in fighting for life, economic liberty, national security, right to bear arms, health care, education or any other issue. As a result, this election is extremely important for conservatives of all stripes because who wins this election will have the chance to influence the make up of our Supreme Court for many years to come.

The real question isn't between having Obama or Mitt Romney as our next president. The choice is easy. However, the important question is how much effort are you willing to put into this election make that choice a reality so that the issues you care about receive the proper attention it receives in our judicial system?

Newt Gingirch Will Destroy The Rule Of Law

Rodney K. Smith, who is a teacher at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a good friend of mine, wrote an article for the Deseret Newspaper to explain how Newt Gingrich's whitepaper will undermine the rule of law in America:

In that whitepaper, Gingrich declares, "A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in federal judge(s)."

And, if necessary, Gingrich would direct the United States Marshal's Office to bring judges with whom he disagrees before Congress to explain their decisions.

If such expressions of displeasure with judges were unsuccessful, then the Gingrich administration would turn to more draconian methods to impose its constitutional will on recalcitrant judges. The Gingrich administration would "abolish judgeships," "eliminate funding of the courts to carry out specific decisions or a class of decisions," "limit the general application of a judicial decision" or, if all that failed, simply "ignor(e) a judicial decision."

Legal conservatives, such as myself, cannot support Newt Gingrich because he will erase the checks and balances that keeps our nation free. Once the delicate checks and balances are removed by a president who has no respect for limits of his power, it makes it easier for future presidents to further erode the structure of our government and rise to greater heights of abuse of presidential power:

If the executive branch uses its enormous store of power to impose its "constitutional" will and ignore court decisions, the rule of law will be eviscerated. Even if Gingrich exercises this extreme power wisely, he must understand that his successor may not. He will have put in place a grandiose plan that permits a president, at his whim, to deprive the American people of life and liberty.

Conservatives are rightly outraged at the current abuses of presidential power in the White House. However, Newt Gingrich's vision for the judiciary is far dangerous to our country than anything Obama has done in office because its a direct threat on the Constitution. It strikes at the very core and foundation of our nation since our country is predicated on the dedication and respect for the rule of law. 

Conservatives are rightly concerned about activist judges, unconstitutional judicial decisions and the abuse of judicial powers. However, Newt's solution will not fix the problem but will contribute to the further imbalances of power among the three branches of our government. 

Legal Conservatives should rally around Mitt Romney because his solution to the problems in our judicial system is to appoint as many conservative judges who respect the rule of law and are strict constructionists. Mitt has an excellent record that legal conservatives can be proud of. As a result, Mitt Romney is the candidate legal conservatives want in the White House in 2012.

Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee: Good News For All Conservatives

Mitt Romney made headlines yesterday when he announced an advisory team of 63 lawyers to give him legal counsel on a wide variety of matters. These lawyers collectively released a statement on Mitt Romney's blog explaining why they are willing to participate on this advisory team. Its worth reading.

Mitt's legal dream team, will be co-chaired by the famous and sharp conservative legal scholar Robert Bork, Harvard Law School professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican during George W. Bush's presidency and Richard Wiley, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. There is also other outstanding lawyers on Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee. Many of them have served in George W. Bush's administration.

One of the most common criticism of Mitt Romney is that out of the 36 judicial appointments he made while Governor of Massachusetts, only 9 of them were Republican. However, a closer inspection reveals that statistic doesn't reveal the whole story because Mitt Romney appointed those 9 conservative judges in positions that really mattered. Here's Mitt Romney's explanation:

The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include ''strict construction, judicial philosophy."

''With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.

In other words, the appointment of liberal judges who had a solid record of being tough on crime had no influence or impact on state policy or laws. At the district level, the only thing that is relevant is their approach on crime. However, in judicial positions where a judge could have an impact on state law, policy or program, Mitt Romney picked conservative judges. Thus, Mitt Romney played his cards right by focusing his energy on getting key positions filled with conservative judges and was successful at it.

In fact, if you take a good look at Mitt Romney's record, it reveals that conservatives can have confidence in Mitt Romney as President when it comes to legal issues and judicial appointments:

If given a fair look, Romney’s record shows a leader who was determined to move the courts in Massachusetts as far to the right as he could.  Romney’s focus on appointing justices who were tough on crime should be applauded.  His efforts in creating a judicial nominating commission that would give conservatives a fair chance in a state dominated by liberals was a creative way of achieving the best possible results in difficult circumstances.  His appointment of conservative Christopher Moore to chair the Judicial Nominating Commission showed that Romney played his biggest cards where they mattered most.  Due to his constant criticism of judicial activism, his statements of support for judges such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts should be taken at face value, as his record gives us very little that would counter those claims.  If Romney is elected President, conservatives can count on him to appoint Supreme Court justices which will respect the constitution, rather than legislate from the bench.

This collection of top notch conservative lawyers and legal minds demonstrates Mitt Romney is no RINO when it comes to legal issues. Furthermore, it reaffirms his commitment to appoint judges who are faithful to the Constitution and will not legislate from the bench. Mitt Romney will seek to appoint pro-life judges and to uphold traditional marriage. Finally, given that Mitt Romney has a law degree, this panel reflects his own conservative legal views and what kind of lawyers he appreciates.

This is great news for conservative lawyers such as myself. However, regardless if you're involved in the legal profession or not, Mitt Romney's legal team is awesome news for all conservatives.