House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa issued a memorandum and draft contempt report on Thursday making the case for holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. The report details the Department of Justice’s stonewalling of the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” program investigation. Under the program, ATF officials actively allowed as many as 2,000 illegally purchased guns to flow into the hands of U.S.-based operatives of a Mexican drug cartel. In December of 2010, suspected illegal aliens killed U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in a firefight. Investigators found two AK-variant guns which they linked to the DOJ’s “gunwalking” program. This tragedy sparked the Oversight Committee’s current investigation.

I am very pleased to report that the Tennessee legislature has given overwhelming approval to a constitutional amendment that would replace Tennessee’s current method of selecting judges, the Missouri Plan, with a modified federal method. 

The Missouri legislature is considering a constitutional amendment to modify the way judges in Missouri are selected. The legislation under consideration, sponsored by conservative Missouri Senator Jim Lembke, would significantly improve the judicial selection process by making some slight changes to the commission that nominates judges. Under the state’s current method of selection, known as the Missouri Plan, a seven-member commission sends the governor a list of three nominees from which he must select a judge to fill any appellate vacancy. The structure and left-wing dominance of the nominating commission (the distinctive feature of the Missouri Plan) has led many to argue that the state should amend the constitution to either directly elect judges or have them selected under something mirroring the advice/consent model set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

During the debates on the U.S. Constitution, James Madison proposed the appointment of judges by the president with the concurrence of the Senate. Madison believed “this would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.”  Alexander Hamilton echoed that statement in Federalist 76, explaining that nomination by the chief executive was superior to nomination by a collective body because:

After a busy few weeks working on the Obamacare case, I want to draw some attention back to another matter of importance to conservatives. Public officials in Tennessee continue to debate whether the state should abandon its Missouri Plan method of judicial selection in favor of something more like the federal method. As I reported several weeks ago, some Republicans in Tennessee have been carrying water for the trial lawyers and Soros-funded special interest groups who would prevent that from happening. 

Now that the rush of the last few days is over, here are a couple more thoughts on the arguments.

After yesterday’s heartening arguments, today’s arguments carry even more importance, because it seems likely the Court will actually reach the severability question.       If there are political consequences for the Court’s decision on the mandate argued yesterday, there could be even more consequences to today’s arguments. If the law is struck down in its entirety, expect the president to dust off his 2010 State of the Union talking points, which charge the Court with what he calls “judicial activism,” but in reality seem to criticize any court decision that finds a law of his unconstitutional.

Today was the main event at the Supreme Court, debating the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The Court’s audience, including more than a few members of Congress, was full for the marathon two-hour argument. Even near the back of the courtroom, I shared a bench with three senators — the Court’s VIP section was obviously inundated.

Today we witnessed the first salvos in the landmark Obamacare litigation. The issue is whether the Anti-Injunction Act operates to bar consideration of the individual mandate issue until 2015, after the penalties for not purchasing health care have been assessed. 

No matter how the Court rules on today’s question, it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, because the Court would still need to decide the thorny issue of whether the Medicaid expansion is coercive on the states. 

All signs point to the Court allowing this case to continue on the merits.