Differences in concepts are not "semantics". Freedom cannot be defended on the basis of "competing" statists. "Competition" between states with no principles of the rights of the individual is not how this country started and is not a way to "leave tyranny behind". Differences between states can be important and does affect population flows, but it is not fundamental to ridding the country of tyranny. Only a change in the dominant philosophical views within the country can lead to that.

I would suggest Mike Lee - Senator from Utah. His father was a chief advocate who argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and who taught Constitutional law to his children around the dinner table. Lee would be a solid pick.

Another one might be Trey Gowdy, but I'd rather see him get put in as Attorney General with the mandate to clean up all the political favoritism in the Justice Department.

Who could possibly be farther left? Idi Amin?

Completely agree.

A Supreme Court Justice should be a firm believer in these United States of America, a historian of this republic and a scholar that exegetes the U.S. Constitution. Being a Judge has its pro's and con's, but being a strict U.S. Constitutionalist is paramount.

This is my 2 cents worth

I agree with this article in total. A Fuller is exactly what we need, as well as a new President that will probably have the chance to appoint two more Fullers.
By the way, what was wrong with being a Jacksonian Democrat? Every time the term is used it is very negative. I recently read "American Lion" by Jon Meacham and liked Jackson a lot. I don't think letting bums sleep in the downstairs of "the peoples house" would be practical today but other than that, there was a lot to like.

I call it the operation of a free market when people can leave New York and move to Utah if Utah offers a better environment in their self interest. That is what happens in reality.
I have no interest in arguing with you over semantics.

Governments do not compete with coercive laws on a "free market". That is not what a market means, contrary to the "anarcho-capitalists". Refugees from oppression are not trading governments.

State governments are in competition to keep the people as residents. The free market means that people can leave tyranny behind. No one said Jefferson was anarcho capitalist, but he did oppose many parts of the original constitution because of the centralization of power.

Correct. That is my point. You said it better.

Trump indeed has a chance if he can accumulate the 1237 for first ballot win. I don't trust the "establishment" to endorse him even if he gets the 1237. He will need every possible vote to overcome the looters and entitlement seekers. I accept that Trump will not pull punches on Hillary and I will certainly vote for him myself, but there are so many of "them", he needs every one of "us" to make the final deal.

Given that Trump is leading the Republican primary and does better in states with open primaries vs states with closed primaries is a good indication that he actually has a chance.

And, while he may be a bit "New York" blunt and not politically correct, he will be perfectly willing to go to all the places in Hillary's past that everyone else will be "too gentlemanly" to do.

Look what happened when he called him sexist and he called her an enabler. Weeks worth of stories about the Clinton escapades and her attempts to cover them up. There is such a gold mine there, all the way back to Watergate.

There is still some probability that Cruz could get the nomination and Hillary could be indicted. All is not yet lost. It is also possible that Trump could overcome the odds and defeat Hillary. I'm more concerned that Hillary could be disqualified and Sanders could win on the votes of the looters. 'Downright scary thought!

If Hillary becomes President, she is likely to appoint Obama or someone even farther left. The Senate is wrong to blindly refuse to consider any Obama appointee. If he/she is rejected on substance, fine. However, an up or down vote is morally required if Obama can find someone to accept his nomination. Napolitano hasn't got a chance of being considered although he would be excellent.

and I led with "Yep" because I agreed with you...
:)

The "free market" does nothing to prevent tyranny by state governments. It presupposes constitutional government based on the rights of the individual. Jefferson was not an "anarcho-capitalist".

That is not "all they have to say". They don't have to say anything but if they want stay in office they have to explain what they are doing and why. The Senate has joint responsibility for appointing Federal judges. For a Senator to say nothing but "let the next president pick his own judge" is an evasion of responsibility, for both this Congress and the next.

"Who's the WE in the original question? Gulchers? Voters? Yo' mama?"
It's "yo' mama." :) The "we" is actually inspired by the people in Ayn Rand's Rule by Consensus lecture who are zealous in their centrism in the absence of legal boundaries to what the gov't can do. I used the sarcasm tag to indicate I don't mean the comment literally. I'm saying it's the alternative to rule of law.

Yep.
The "we" posed in the original post want "someone who will adjudicate decisions based on interpretation of the Constitution's relationship to the cases' arguments, and at the same time make sure that everyone's personal ethics, morals, religion and prejudices are taken into account Fairly."

I'm wrong? :)
Who's the WE in the original question? Gulchers? Voters? Yo' mama?

If they simply cannot resist politicizing it and say "let the people decide [in the presidential election]," they should agree to give a bank check to whomever the next president wants to appoint. :)

a defender of unalienable rights...period.

Sadly I am afraid that you are correct

for me the who part is Judge Andrew Nepalitano

No one in particular, but there must be many judges across the country that take individual liberrty seriously. Ginsburg (no, not that Ginsburg) might have been a decent choice, but his 1987 nomination by Reagan was derailed by marijuana use during the 1960s.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/30/us/...