The Fight for the Constitution ... and 6 More Weeks of Winter

My friends, Punxsutawney Phil has spoken. Six more weeks of winter. A furry little rodent saw his shadow, and just like that, millions of grown adults nodded solemnly and said, “Well … that settles it.” One of these years, I’m telling you, I want to be the guy holding that groundhog up for the whole world to see. What a gig.

On today’s Toddcast, we walked through two recent court cases that illustrate the legal rift in our nation today. In one, a federal judge blocked efforts to require proof of citizenship to vote — effectively allowing illegal aliens to vote by simply checking a box, according to Stephen Miller. In another, a Biden-appointed judge rejected Minnesota’s attempt to block ICE from enforcing federal immigration law. Same system. Two very different outcomes. And both reveal just how much the courts matter right now.

That naturally led us into a broader discussion about the judiciary itself — especially the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito has now served 20 years on the Court, and his record provides a clear contrast between judges who interpret the law as written and those who try to create law from the bench. Alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Alito represents what originalism is supposed to look like: fidelity to the Constitution, not political outcomes.

We also talked about the danger of judicial activism, court-packing schemes, and the Left’s nonstop push to treat the Constitution as a “living document” that conveniently changes with political fashion. That approach doesn’t preserve liberty — it erodes it. The framers understood human nature well enough to build restraints into our system, especially in moments when emotion and politics run hot.

As we approach a critical election season, these issues aren’t abstract. Election integrity, immigration enforcement, free speech, parental rights — all of it eventually flows through the courts. And if we lose the rule of law, we lose the republic.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

🗳️ Citizenship matters when it comes to voting
🧾 Executive orders clarify law, they don’t (or at least, they shouldn’t) create it
🛂 Federal immigration law must be enforced uniformly
⚖️ Judges should interpret the law — they are not legislators
📜 Originalism protects liberty better than judicial activism
🇺🇸 The Constitution restrains power, especially in emotional times
🦫 My love of Punxsutawney Phil & Groundhog Day

The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

My friends, the issues we’re facing today are serious. The decisions being made are consequential. And for the first time in a long time, we’re actually fighting back. In some cases, we’re even winning.

We’re moving the battle lines. We’ve reclaimed ground long surrendered to the lovers of big government. But with those victories comes intensity — sometimes off the charts.

That’s why I’m grateful for a little levity today.

A harmless, lovable little fuzzball named Punxsutawney Phil gets carried on stage by men in black top hats, predicting the weather like it’s science. It’s an entertaining spectacle, and I love it.

Six more weeks of winter? Fine. I’m used to the cold. Compared to the fight for this country, that’s a minor inconvenience.

For today, let me enjoy the levity — because it won’t last long.

In last week’s newsletter, we asked the same question asked in national surveys: Is ICE too aggressive, not aggressive enough, or about right in its efforts to deport illegal immigrants?

Here’s what you said:

That’s a striking contrast with the broader national picture. In a recent national poll, 58% of Americans said ICE has been too aggressive in its enforcement, with far fewer saying it’s not aggressive enough.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. We’d love to hear from you on future surveys.

The judiciary was never meant to replace either of the other branches of government. It was designed to be its own branch—separate from the legislative and the executive, distinct in its role, and limited in its power. It has no army. It controls no purse. And it has no direct accountability to voters.

Its authority rests on one thing alone: judicial restraint.

That restraint is what the Constitution demands—and what too many judges today seem eager to abandon.

For twenty years, Justice Samuel Alito has stood as a reminder of what the judicial role is actually supposed to be. Not to decide what the law should say. Not to correct outcomes that feel uncomfortable. And certainly not to chase public approval. The job is to interpret the law as it was written and apply it faithfully to the case at hand.

That may sound unremarkable. Today, it’s almost revolutionary.

The Founders understood something we’re in danger of forgetting: when judges begin to treat the Constitution as flexible clay instead of fixed law, self-government erodes. If meaning changes with the moment, power inevitably shifts away from the people and toward the bench. What was once decided through debate, legislation, and elections becomes settled by opinion and decree.

That is why originalism matters.

It is not nostalgia. It is not ideology. It is discipline. Originalism insists that the meaning of the Constitution and the law is not whatever five justices think is best for the country today, but what the text actually says and what it meant when it was adopted. If that result is unpopular or inconvenient, the remedy lies with legislators—not judges.

Judicial activism flips that logic on its head. It asks courts to fix laws instead of interpret them, to anticipate consequences instead of applying text, and to act as guardians of outcomes rather than guardians of the Constitution. That approach does not restrain power. It concentrates it.

We do not need judges who agree with us. We need judges who are willing to rule against their own preferences out of respect for the law itself. As Justice Alito put it, the Court is not supposed to do what is popular—it is supposed to do what is right. And by “right,” he meant applying the Constitution and the law faithfully, regardless of the reaction.

Without that principle, the judiciary does not merely function as one branch of our republican system of government.

It quietly becomes something far more powerful than it was ever meant to be.