Former President Barack Obama once said, “Elections have consequences.” This statement rings true, as the consequences of the Obama presidency are still being felt today.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate judges to the federal courts, which consist of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and the U.S. circuit courts and district courts. This presidential power might not seem flashy or exciting, but the results are lasting.
Power of the Supreme Court
Obama knew all too well how to exercise this power. To fill the vacancies left by justices who retired, Obama nominated two Supreme Court justices while in office. This set the stage for SCOTUS to have the majority of votes needed to rule in favor of so-called same-sex “marriage” in 2015.
The ramifications for this case, Obergefell v. Hodges, are still being felt today. Boys and girls are being adopted by same-sex couples and, as a result, are being deprived of having both a mother and a father. The public has broadly embraced homosexual ideology. The 2015 Supreme Court ruling lit a fire under an already devious and godless agenda. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to uphold righteousness and godly standards, and it failed.
Then the tide turned in 2017. Donald Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th president and immediately began reshaping the judiciary to be more conservative and constitutional. Trump, with only one term, nominated a near-record number of circuit and district court judges, compared to other presidents’ first terms.
Out of the 7,000 or more cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court, only 2% are taken up by the high court each year. This means that the circuit and district court nominations are important as well.
Opportunity of a lifetime
As a result of Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court, SCOTUS ruled in 2024 to overturn what is known as “Chevron deference.” According to Cornell Law School, “‘Chevron deference’ is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative action. It was coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).”
Chevron deference came about 40 years ago when the Supreme Court decided it would be common practice to defer to executive agencies (bureaucrats) when disputes arise about interpreting federal law, as opposed to forcing legislatures to clarify ambiguous laws. Its overturn was a major victory for constitutionalists and those who believe in smaller and limited government. This bygone deference had given executive agencies vast power to alter interpretations of various federal laws over the decades.
The upcoming national election will either be a captured or missed opportunity for the new president to utilize the recent Supreme Court ruling in Chevron to reign in many oversized and out-of-control federal agencies.
November will tell
America is at a crossroads, with the choice for our highest office being a candidate with strong Marxist leanings or one who still respects the Constitution and limited government. In the past four years, we’ve seen some commonsense victories around the country, and we’ve also seen some setbacks. The November 5 election, from mayor to president, is increasingly looking to be a pivotal moment when we will either continue drifting toward a Marxist utopia or begin the rebuilding process of this once-great nation.
Just as the 2008 election of Barack Obama set the stage for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex “marriage” in 2015 – along with a litany of other bad rulings – I suspect that the 2024 election could set the stage for major Supreme Court decisions ahead.
(Digital Editor's Note: This article was published first in the October 2024 print edition of The Stand. Click HERE for a free six-month subscription.)
