by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Earlier today, the trauma of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation finally ended with the Senate's vote to confirm the latest conservative member of the Supreme Court. The question now is, just what will be the effect of this new addition to the bench? Normally, the answer to this question would center on the balance of power in the Court. It would invite a substantive conversation regarding legal jurisprudence and the views of the new member regarding constitutional interpretation. This time it's different. This time the conversation is about an extrajudicial issue. This time the conversation is about the implications of Justice Kavanaugh's successful confirmation on the threats to the nomination process. Here's the bottom line, if Justice Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, the floodgates would have opened to the continued practice of decimating Republican nominees. Don't get me wrong. It's very possible that the practice of destroying judicial nominees will continue since we have already seen the level to which the Democrats are willing to stoop in order to accomplish their goals. But at the very least, we now have two failed nominee character assassinations. More importantly, on this occasion, the attacking Party has seen the public backlash of its vicious and malicious attacks on an individual with an impeccable record as a citizen and as a public servant. In two weeks, the Democrats have seen an unprecedented loss of a 10-point, generic poll advantage over the Republicans. What's more, President Trump's favorability ratings are now at a high of 51%. Undoubtedly, there will be a time (really soon) for a discussion regarding the substantive implications of Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. But for now, the biggest and most pressing consequences deal with the nomination process and the steps needing to take place to ascertain that such a destructive and salacious nomination process never happen again. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
0 Comments
For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Let's be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself. I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court's opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the "correct" position on a matter. In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court? In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence as inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one. In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges. Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That's politics. That's the Supreme Court. Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because the liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench? The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen. In a women's conference at Princeton University last week, Elena Kagan said, "It's an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process." Important to whom? Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That's because the Court is in fact not impartial. And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court? Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government. A chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall. In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis's book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. "You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," he said. "A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." (emphasis added) The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It's time to allow the Court's opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It's time to fashion a legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. After Cloture Vote, 51 Vote Majority For Judge Kavanaugh Is In The Horizon.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The United States Senate held its cloture vote regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's unnecessarily contentious confirmation process on Friday with the Judge holding a narrow, 51-49 majority. The vote begins the 30 hours clock to the question of his confirmation, which ought to take place on Saturday. The vote, and the rhetoric leading up to it, was largely predictable as Democrats lined up against him, and the Republicans supported him. Despite its foreseeability, there are a few insights to be gleamed from the final tally. First, the key to the puzzle continues to be Senator Jeff Flake whose vacillations have left him at odds with the Republican caucus and Republicans in general. Today, he was a yes vote, but the question still remains whether his present position can survive until Saturday. On the flip side, Senators Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Joe Manchin, a Democrat, each parted with their respective parties canceling out the effects of their descents. Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine and a shaky supporter of Kavanaugh voted in the affirmative. Although the results of the cloture vote do not guarantee confirmation, senators tend to vote in same way they do in the final vote. Kavanaugh supporters are hoping this will translate to a confirmation of the Judge on Saturday. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The Labor Department released its unemployment statisticsfor September Friday, and the numbers are still resoundingly playing in favor of President Donald Trump and his economic policies. In September, the job market added 134,000 jobs bringing the unemployment rate down to 3.7%, the lowest level since 1969. In an added boost for the Trump economic agenda, wages are up 2.8% compared to this time last year signaling that the lagging wage numbers for which the President's policies had been criticized may be working. The uptick appears to be led by an increase in nonfarm wage increases Of course, The New York Times, in its headlinewas quick to ascribe the accomplishment to eight years of job growth. The Wall Street Journalwas more celebratory with its headline touting the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing. The Nobel Peace Prize Bypasses President Trump.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Last week The Federalist Pages predicted that although Donald Trump has been the most impactful, peace-promoting figure in the world last year, he would not be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. True to form, the Norwegian Nobel Committee did not recognize the American President's contributions to global stability, freedom, and peace. Instead, they chose to award the Prize to a pair of advocates fighting sexual violence against women during times of war. They are are Dr. Denis Mukwege and Ms. Nadia Murad. Dr. Mukewge's story is absolutely fascinating. A Congolese gynecologist, Dr. Mukwege has devoted the majority of his professional life to the treatment of women who have been victims of serial rapes as a result of the Second Congo War. In 2012, Dr. Mukwege appeared before the United Nations where he brought attention to the violence that had been taking place against women. A month later, his family was forcefully held at his home while the attackers waited for him to return so they could assassinate him. His life was spared by the intervention of his security guard. Murad is from Sunjar, Iraq. Along with 6,700 women, Murad was captured and taken into slavery in Mosul by ISIS. She was beaten, burned, and recurrently raped. Instead of concealing her past as has been the case for the overwhelming number of women who suffered her plight, she has become a staunch advocate against wartime sexual violence upon women. She has appeared before the United Nations, the United States House of Representatives, and the House of Commons in England. Her efforts are testaments to her unparalleled bravery and have, along with Dr. Mukwege's work, brought attention to this incredibly grave terrible injustice. Although it did not select President Trump, The Federalist Pages applauds the Norwegian Nobel Committee for having, at least this year, selected worthy recipients of a prize that celebrates peace. We will see what it does next year. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. Judge Kavanaugh's Opinion Piece may Not be Helpful.by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In an unprecedented move, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation vote is imminently before the Senate, published an op-ed in The Walls Street Journal, tonight. The piece, entitled "I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge" serves as a reassurance of his impartiality and an explanation for his emotional performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's a nice piece, except. . . he shouldn't have ever penned it. Make no mistake, this piece was not written to reassure any of us. Judge Kavanaugh wrote this editorial because he was advised to do so. And the reason someone advised him to do it is quite simply to reassure three senators: Senators Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski. These are the only people in the whole target audience whose impressions of Judge Kavanaugh actually count, and the only ones the piece was intended to sway. So, why should he have notwritten the article? Three reasons. First, by writing the piece he has just extended his participation in the world of politics. Second, he inadvertently admitted that he was somehow more emotional than he had the inherent right to be, which plays right into the hands of Democrats. And third, he injected opinions about the Court and the judiciary with which many conservatives disagree, this making room for unnecessary and extraneous debate. Every lobbyist knows that once the fight to get something passed is won, your best bet, in fact your onlyvalid strategy, is to stop talking. Brett Kavanaugh has won this thing. He has survived the most immensely disgusting confirmation process in the history of the United States. For half the country, and at least fifty senators and the Vice President, he walks on water. Unfortunately for him and for our nation, that's the absolute best he is ever going to achieve. So, at this point, his role is to make himself really small and hope that no unforeseeable event derails this process. Obviously, I am not privy to the information his handlers have, but I can scarcely see how writing this opinion piece, however candid it may be, can help his odds. As a matter of fact, it opens up just one more uncontrollable factor into the mix; one more thing for his detractors to exploit and use against him. Second, Judge Kavanaugh has nothing to apologize for. As far as I'm concerned he was as measured as anyone could have been under such circumstances. In the few instances where he taunted his inquirers, I recognized that the confrontation was warranted. But worse, in the article, he admitted that he was "too emotional" at times, which is exactly what the media and the left wants to use against him. I'm willing to bet that by the time anyone reads this article there will have already been some leftist hypocrite who will have said, "See, even Judge Kavanaugh admits problems with his temperament!" even though the reality is that he handled himself better than just about anyone would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Finally, he put into play conversations about his views of the court and the judiciary. For example, there isn't a self-respecting conservative who believes that the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution, yet that is exactly what the judge calls it in his op-ed. In fact, the irony of the matter is that it is precisely because the Supreme Court is such a partisan institution that that the lovers of the Constitution are fighting so hard for him, and people like him, to get appointed to the Court. If the Court were really nonpartisan, then who cares who occupies those seats. The results would be identical. By the way, it is also the reason the legislature must be able to override the aberrant opinion of the Supreme Court when it speaks on issues of constitutionality. Additionally, Judge Kavanaugh said that the Supreme Court was the last line of defense for the separation of powers when in fact, many conservatives believe that under the effects of Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary has become the lead soldier of the destruction of the separation of powers. Undoubtedly, Judge Kavanaugh is an amazing candidate for the Supreme Court, and he must be confirmed. And although he will make the Court stronger and more respectful of the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, his successful appointment is just one battle of a greater effort; one that preserves the dignity of man and limits the power of government and its abilities to intrude upon our personal liberties. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. Investigators Discover How China Is Hacking The United States.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. For many, the thought of a hacker attacking American companies conjures up images of a bespectacled, chain smoker sitting in some dark room in a warehouse somewhere, probably in Asia, figuring out ways to bypass passwords and security blocks. It seems, though, that China is bypassing that process altogether. Bloomberg Businessweek is reporting today that China has been hacking American computer programs through the implantation of tiny microchips into the computer's hardware, allowing for access into the computer's brain from the moment it is manufactured! The implantation of hacking facilitating equipment at the time of its production, a process known as seeding, is a significant development in the world of cyberwars. The danger of such activity would be monumental as secretly installing these types of components into motherboards designed for security, intelligence, and military applications would be tantamount to gaining access to America's next steps before they can be brought to fruition. The Bloomberg Businessweek story tells of an experience by Amazon and Elemental Technologies. In providing its services, Elemental needed specialized servers manufactured for them. The manufacturer was Super Micro Computer, Inc., a company out of San Jose, but whose workforce is mostly Taiwanese or Chinese. It appears, according to the report, that China was able to infiltrate Super Micro Computer, Inc. and implant the microchips there. Although both Amazon and Element are denying the allegations, anonymous FBI and CIA investigators have laid out meticulous details of the ploy and the ensuing investigation. Officially, the CIA and the FBI are refusing to comment, but the potentially to 30 U.S. companies may have been affected. If true, then this type of activity will support President Donald Trump's contention that China is actively involved in cyber-activity against the United States. More importantly, foreign entities will have just devised a way through which they may directly interfere with American elections regardless of how isolated the polling devices may be. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. White House Not Finding Any Corroboration On Kavanaugh Within The FBI Report.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The White House is not finding any corroboration with the Brett Kavanaugh accusers saysThe Wall Street Journalin a reportpublished Thursday morning. Although the word from the White House is preliminary and was obtained from "people familiar with the matter," it is at least reasonable to conclude that no earth shattering insight has been gained from the FBI investigation exercise. The implications of this development are multiple. First, as previously predicted by The Federalist Pages last week, those opposing Kavanaugh will cite the inadequacies of the FBI investigation as the reason for the lack of corroboration and might, in an attempt to further disrupt the nomination process, claim nefariousness as the reason for the inadequacy. Those supporting Kavanaugh will feel all the more vindicated in their contention of Kavanaugh's innocence and be emboldened in proceeding with the vote. Indeed, about the only evidence that has been gleamed from this exercise is that supporting Senator Jeff Flake's poor judgment and the pressing need for him to move on to his next job before he further disrupts an already strained political environment. Time For Democrats To Pack It Up. by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to invoke cloture on Thursday signaling the beginning of the end of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process. Sadly, I expect all sorts of last minute shenanigans and diversionary tactics from Senate Democrats. Regardless of the Democrats' misbehaviors, with any luck, this contentious process will come to its conclusion on Saturday, or even Sunday, and Judge Kavanaugh will rightly become Justice Kavanaugh. Undoubtedly, the approach of destroying a judicial nominee with unsubstantiated allegations and unbackable accusations backfired on Democrats. To be sure, their antics have given George Soros operatives center stage in the national forum. And we have heard more from Lisa Milano in the past week than we have since the days when we actually enjoyed seeing her on "Meet The Boss." But the greater effect has been to further alienate the Democratic Party from mainstream America, something the post-dissection of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign debacle identified as needing to be corrected. Indeed, instead of regrouping and developing constructive solutions that may be left of center, the Democrats' strategy has been to veer even further left in their political ideology. A year ago Democratic leadership was hell bent on opening up America's borders, promoting socialistic policies such as a guaranteed living wage, and enacting single payer health insurance, unconstitutional as some of these proposals may be. But increasingly, their attitude has taken aim not only at attacking basic national precepts, but even attack foundational pillars of western civilization. Suddenly, a valid policy proposal is to allow states to interfere with the national government's charter of securing our boarders and enforcing federal law. For the new Democrats, it's okay to believe that we can have cities where felons and misdemeanants are given safe harbor in which to run and hide from the law. It's a great idea to give non-citizens the power to vote, thus diluting Americans' voices. And so desperate are the Democrats to regain power that it's suddenly okay to actually discard the quintessential presumption of innocence of a person whenever it suits the Democrats! The consequence of this political tack has been to cost the Democrats big! At least one recent national poll has Democrats losing 10 points on their favorability ratings. And at least two key Democratic Senators in red or reddish states are in peril of losing their seats this November due to their jurisdiction's negative responses to their party's antics. What used to be a blue wave is increasingly taking on a deep shade of red with less than 35 days left to the general election. But perhaps more importantly, the Democrats' antics have brought to center stage some of the most destructive personalities in their camp. I've already mentioned Lisa Milano whose message is one of hatred and vengeance towards men. But consider the damage caused by actions of Senator Diane Feinstein and her concealment of material information to an investigation, Senator Cory Booker and his Spartacus moment, Senator Mazie Hirono and her call for all men to shut up, Senator Kamala Harris and her what-am-I-thinking questions to a judicial nominee, and Senator Richard Blumenthal and his feigned gratitude for Dr. Christine Blaisey-Ford's appearance. Oh, of course, and who can forget Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's award-winning performance when inquiring about a 35 year old high school yearbook's code word for flatulence? These people's performances have been so surreal that they make a good case for Democrats to run to a presenile Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi for cover! Or better yet, they should put up Peter Strzok as a senatorial candidate. The last four weeks have been a tumultuous time for the American people, and it is undoubtedly the result of antics from the wackiest fringes of the Democrat Party (yes, "wacky" was specifically and carefully selected to describe the fringe of which I speak). If there is any strategic acumen left to the Democrats, they will call their shenanigans to a halt, recognize their loss, and get back to the business of attacking America's problems with solutions crafted under the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America. The country, I'm sure, will be much better for it. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. Puerto Rico's Governor Demonstrates His Spineless Demeanor by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. It seems a week doesn't go by where I am not astounded at the level of ungratefulness and hypocrisy in politics. This week, the Ungrateful Backstabber Award goes to Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Roselló for having endorsed Senator Bill Nelson in his reelection bid against Governor Rick Scott. Why? You ask. To be sure, a Democrat endorsing another Democrat is no shocking development. But here's the thing: no national public figure has been more active in bringing assistance to Puerto Rico nor done more to accommodate displaced Puerto Ricans than Governor Rick Scott. Hurricane María hit the island territory on September 20, 2017. Although the initial casualty figures were amazingly low, everyone knew the true scope of the devastation and humanitarian crisis was going to be colossal. This was an island far removed from the mainland that had essentially lost the totality of its power grid. There was no drinkable water for its 3,327,917 inhabitants. Its roads were blocked or destroyed. There was no ground access to the island's interior. No access to the rural, poorer communities far from Puerto Rican harbors and docks. There were no schools for kids, and countless roofless homes stood as irregularly shaped remnants stripped of their abilities to provide protection or comfort from the elements. By September 21, 2017, it was clear that Puerto Rico was America's greatest humanitarian challenge. Of course, the federal government helped, eventually approving $2.2 billion of aid. Cargo ships made their way to the beleaguered island to drop off supplies and personnel. The U.S. military set up around-the-clock operations inclusive of countless helicopter sorties to send water and food into the island's interior. And, of course, President Trump visited the island on October 3. But consider the actions of Governor Scott. On September 28, a mere eight days after the hurricane hit, Governor Scott, at Roselló's request, traveled to Puerto Rico, not for a show of support, but to coordinate the island's response and recovery efforts! Let's not forget, Scott was already juggling Florida's response to Hurricane Irma, the largest natural disaster to have ever hit the state, from a mere ten days earlier. On October 5, through the actions of Governor Scott, Florida became a FEMA host-state for Puerto Rico, the only state to do so. Throughout the month of October, Scott traveled to Washington, D.C to meet with the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Michael McCaul, and the Chair of the House Appropriation Committee, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, among countless others, to advocate, not just for Florida, but for Puerto Rico. Scott sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget pleading for assistance for Floridians and Puerto Ricans. He sent a contingency of utility workers to Puerto Rico to help in the infrastructure reconstruction efforts. He aided Puerto Rican families that had been displaced by the effects of the hurricane by activating Florida's Emergency Response Team. He adjusted Florida's school requirements to accommodate displaced Puerto Rican children and insisted that the legislature provide funding to accommodate for the influx of these students. And on January 11, 2018, Scott met with Puerto Ricans, in a town hall in Puerto Rico, with Governor Rosselló at his side to discuss the status of the island's ongoing relief efforts. Truly, the list of documented, selfless and life-saving activities by Governor Scott in support of people not in his jurisdiction who were suffering from the devastating effects of a massive natural disaster while responding to his own state's challenges cannot be recorded. Of course, Senator Nelson did his part. He visited Puerto Rico on October 16, 2017. During his visit, he flew with Roselló in a helicopter to go inland. And while speaking in San Juan, he encouraged displaced Puerto Ricans to register to vote in Florida because "they have been very embracing of my public service." Of course, he clarified that he was not encouraging them to depart forever. Nelson also assured Puerto Ricans that FEMA would do its part while again noting that he has a close tie to Puerto Rico because he lives in Orlando. And, of course, Nelson stood out by supporting the delivery of aid to the island at the federal government's expense, along with every other member of the United States Senate. One would think that in light of the colossal work Governor Scott has done on behalf of Puerto Rico, work that is unparalleled by any other national figure and truly stands as being beyond the call of duty, that Puerto Rico's own governor would demonstrate some semblance of gratitude towards him. But instead, what Roselló did on Monday was to deploy the political knife, sharpen it, and insert it into the back of Puerto Rico's greatest advocate and champion, Governor Rick Scott. But that's par for the course for Democrats today. Even Roselló has recognized his own hypocrisy by clarify that, in his opinion, both Nelson and Scott are "great people running for office," and that, "In no way should one take this as a negative toward somebody. It's a positive for somebody. This might fall on deaf ears, but we need to steer away from, in every contest, to see who the villain is and the superhero is. In many cases we have find folks running for office." Indeed! And in the world of political endorsements one's position in such circumstances is to stay out of it. The truth is that Governor Roselló's endorsement isn't going to make a hill of beans of difference to the outcome of Florida's senatorial race. But in supporting Nelson, Roselló has made a resounding statement about his lack of values, integrity, and loyalty. The big loser in this endorsement exercise is not Governor Scott, who Roselló was aiming to injure, but Roselló himself who has cheapened the value of his word and demonstrated himself to be a political hack. Clearly, in this case, Roselló's best option was to simply shut up. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S defense AGAINST THROWING ICE WHILE IN COLLEGE.by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. So? Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing. Promise Kept. NAFTA Gone. by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. A deal experts said was dead in the water materialized over the weekend when Canada announced it had reached an agreement with the United States to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The deal came about as a frustrated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a late night meeting with his cabinet. Indeed, the materialization of an agreement serving to improve America's trade position in North America would not have occurred were it not for the negotiating prowess and vision of President Donald Trump. The workings of the trade deal actually date back to before President Trump's election. From the beginning of his campaign, then-Candidate Trump voiced his frustration at the United States' involvement in a deal that was hurting American workers. Calling them "bad deals," Trump expressed his befuddlement at how politicians could agree to such catastrophic trade deals. NAFTA quickly became a centerpiece of Trump's campaign for president and the object of his ridicule. Upon assuming power, President Trump wasted no time threatening the stability of NAFTA by announcing his intention to pull the United States out of it. Predictably, the naysayers took to the airwaves, arguing that NAFTA was a creator of jobs. Investor Dennis Gartman called such a move, "egregiously stupid," and CNBC proudly published his opinion. Meanwhile at Forbes Magazine, Professor J. Bradford DeLong called the prospect of leaving NAFTA, "a disaster" while Stuart Anderson, the author of the article, mocked Trump by stating that visual aids were needed to teach the President why leaving NAFTA was a bad idea. Anderson held nothing back when he concluded, "Donald Trump does not know much about the trade agreement he has so frequently criticized." Undeterred, President Trump continued to place his disapproval of NAFTA at the center of public discourse. Recognizing his greater advantage over Mexico, he then pealed America's southern neighbor into a separate agreement that did not include Canada calling it a "terrific agreement for everybody." With the Mexican trade deal solidified, Trump turned his attention to Canada, this time suggesting that he might leave Canada out of the deal if it did not negotiate. Canada remained defiant. "We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class," said a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. For Canada, there were a number of sticking points to a new deal. First the NAFTA dispute resolution process that protected the cultural exemptions was "fundamental." This "exemption" protected Canadian artistic products, including media outlets. Understandably, Canadians feel threatened that American networks might buy Canadian media affiliates and essentially control their media coverage. Further, the abandonment of Canada's tariffs on American dairy products was considered too great a threat to be acceptable. But President Trump remained undeterred. He imposed an October 1 deadline upon Canada, insisting that if it did not provide the text for a new trade deal to the United States Congress by that time he would move ahead with the deal with Mexico and exclude Canada. Trudeau did the only thing he could and called for "common sense to prevail." He appealed to Canada's partners, including the European Union, to ramp up their pressure on the United States. But the reality was that Canada could ill afford to be kept out of a new North American trade agreement. The Canadian dollar was weakening, and the prospect of Canada continuing without a treaty seemed like a doomsday scenario for its economy; and for Trudeau's impending reelection. With negotiations seemingly hopelessly stalled as recently as late September, Canadian negotiators went to work. And by Sunday, September 30, the two countries agreed to terms. The new agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is nothing short of revolutionary. Among other provisions, the USMCA curbs Canada's high tariffs and low quotas on American dairy product; drops the percentage of a car needing to be manufactured in China that would still allow it to be considered "North American;" includes provisions that help NFL advertising; and forces Canada and Mexico to respect American drug patents for ten years. And Canada gets to keep its cultural resolution process exemption. In a very real sense, the trade deal vindicates President Trump. He identified a palpable problem in North American trade and placed his political capital on the line to see it terminated. As a result, Trump emerged much stronger, an important perception at a time when he is knee deep in trade negotiations with China. But more importantly, President Trump's priority of protecting American workers and improving the environment for American businesses prevailed. There is also the glaring realization that these new agreements would have never come to fruition without President Trump. The events leading to Sunday's breakthrough would never have been possible without Trump's aggressive, even bombastic style. Most importantly, when President Trump said he would walk away from the deal, he was believable, forcing all players to look hard at the possibility of having no deal at all. Say what you want about President Trump, he has become America's greatest weapon in international negotiations, much to the joy of the American worker. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. A New Supreme Court Session; A New Threat To Our Liberties by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Today is the first Monday in October and as usual, it is the start of the Supreme Court's session. The Court enters the session with only eight members, meaning there is no tiebreaker. If there is an equal vote, then the lower court's decision will stand. And there is no shortage of cases awaiting it. Weyerhauser Co. v. US Fish and Wildlifequestions the Endangered Species Act and the owner's right to challenge the designation of private land as critical habitat. In Madison v. Alabama, the court is asked whether the Eighth Amendment allows for a state to execute a prisoner who can't remember his or her capital offense because of mental disability. And Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, asks whether the ruling inWilliamson County Regional Commission v. Hamilton Bankrequiring that property owners exhaust state court remedies prior being reviewed in federal court should be overturned. Overall, there are twenty cases slated for consideration in the October docket. Many of these cases will have a big impact on our rights, our liberties, and upon the future interpretation of our Constitution and statutes. While most of us enter this latest Supreme Court session with thoughts of the impending judicial nomination, the circus it has become, and the impact these proceedings will have on the Court's future, the greater question remains unaddressed; namely the role of the Court and the checking of its power. In a discussion with Judge Gregory Maggs hosted by the Supreme Court Fellows Program, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of his conscious effort at checking his own ability to influence the future interpretation of the Constitution by reminding himself that it was someone else's Constitution he was writing on. Christopher Scalia, the late-Justice Antonin Scalia's son, related his father's concerns of how much of what the modern Court does rightfully belongs in the legislature. And Senator Ben Sasse echoed the sentiment in between circus performances at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Hearing last week. Once again we enter a Supreme Court session under the effects of Court's of the power grab in Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, Justice John Marshall's determination that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide what was constitutional and what was not is at odds with the views of many of the Framers. George Washington, in his Farewell Address warned of the importance of changing the Constitution through the amendment process and not by usurpation as the latter was the "the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." And Thomas Jefferson (who was not a Framer of the Constitution) warned that allowing judges to be the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions "would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy," and cautioned that such an arrangement would have never been accepted by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So, we enter another session with the balance of power skewed in the direction of the judiciary. To a great extent, every law passed by Congress is essentially a trial balloon floated to see if it passes muster before a board of appointed reviewers. Literally, the nature of our liberties hangs at the unchecked hands of the Court, which in today's environment is able to overturn practically any rule, statute, ordinance, or law at its whim, and when it does so on constitutional grounds, there is nothing the other branches can do about it other than capitulate. Such a power is at the very least disconcerting and inconsistent with a government that is designed under the construct calling for a balance of powers between three coequalbranches of government. And once again, we are faced with the question of what to do about it. Yes, one answer is to get better judges. But hiring great people to work within a certain branch of government is not a check on that branch's power. The real solution is to create an external impediment on the branch. In this case, it is a step that should have been implemented in the nineteenth century in direct response to Marshall's opinion. The most logical correction is a legislative override amendment. Under this provision, a supermajority of the legislature would be able to override an opinion of the Court and keep a statute operational. It is a provision adopted by Canada, Israel, the European Union, and Australia, among others, and it is one proposed by Madison himself to Thomas Jefferson when the latter penned a draft of the Virginia Constitution. In a nutshell, once the Court issues an opinion, Congress would have four years to overrule it through a supermajority vote of about 60%. In such instances, the law would remain operational despite the opinion of the Court. At the very least, such a provision would have a chilling effect on activist judges. It would send legislation back to Congress for consideration and debate, and it would allow a ruling inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of the American people to be nullified. If there is one thing the Kavanaugh nomination proceedings teach us is that the Supreme Court is as political body as any other. Knowing this, then why ought it be given full reign on the interpretation of the nation's governing document? The question we must be asking ourselves is, to whom does the Constitution belong? If the Constitution of the United States belongs to the Supreme Court, then we have no right as citizens to tinker with the Court's opinion on the document's interpretation. But if the Constitution belongs to we the people, which I believe it does, then we must demand an instrument by which we may overrule the opinions of errant judiciary. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. |
Details
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.Dr. Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer who served as State Representative for South Sarasota County in Florida for four years. He is the author of Heathcare Reform: The Truth, The Federalist Pages, and The Case for Free Market Healthcare. Archives
April 2019
Categories |