SCOTUS: Not right vs. left but right vs. wrong

President Trump finds himself in the unique, once-in-a-generation position of being able to neuter the progressives on the Supreme Court. And as such, he has the opportunity to remove the politics from the court and begin the journey back to a more constitutional form of government.

I say more constitutional and not truly constitutional due to at least a couple of Amendments, like the 16th and 17th, that were lawfully ratified but clearly not envisioned by the founders.

As it has stood for decades, the Supreme Court has been described as right vs. left – conservative vs. liberal. But this isn't correct. It can't possibly be. Rather, the current makeup of the high court is right vs. wrong. Those who stand with and for the Constitution are right, and all others are just wrong.

Like it or not, and many don't, the Constitution and only laws that adhere to it are the "Supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, Paragraph 2). Any law or dictate that does not adhere is not merely liberal, progressive or statist, but wrong.

And this is why the president must replace Justice Anthony Kennedy with another Clarence Thomas, not another middle-of-the-road Kennedy clone, to resurrect the Constitution from the Statist pile of ash that has covered it for many decades.

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have all had the help of the Supreme Court, with much success, in remaking the Constitution into some kind of social compact rather than a document from which to fashion dispassionate federal law.

Mark Levin describes this as Constitutionalism vs. Statism.

Constitutionalism is supposed to be our form of government, where most of the power is vested in the states and the people. On the flip side, Statism is centralized control of virtually every aspect of our lives, run by "experts" – for the "good" of the people, of course.

And with the help of radicals on the high court, these statists continue to advance the social-compact paradigm.

As Mark describes, we need an originalist justice who will look at the Constitution to see if the document provides any guidance on any particular case, and if not, per the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the states to decide.

The states, as the nation's laboratories, as it were, can then make their own laws. Laws, like same-sex marriage and abortion may vary wildly from state to state, providing they, in doing so, do not violate the U.S. Constitution. They, of course, must adhere to the U.S. Constitution because it was they, the states, that ratified it in the first place as being the "Supreme Law of the Land," and as such are bound to it.

The statist judge will instead look at the Constitution and read into it something that clearly is not there and vice versa. He or she will take into account the politics of the day in determining what they "feel" is right or wrong and vote accordingly. The statist justice, like the statist politician, will then decide that this matter would be better served as a one-size-fits-all solution and is far too important to be left to the states or the people. And the people should show fidelity to their judgment and their opinion.

But as now Radio Hall of Famer Levin says, we constitutionalists want only one thing from the Supreme Court: "We don't seek to make the court more conservative, less conservative. We seek to have a Supreme Court that shows fidelity to the Constitution of the United States – the law of the land."

President Trump has the opportunity to affirm this with his next nominee. I trust he will make the right choice … by picking Sen. Mike Lee. Just had to get that in.