Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

One of the questions that the supposedly MSM isn’t asking of Democrats concerns Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally straightforward. First, let’s inform people who’ve been comatose for the last 10 years that Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with a 95-0 vote. That means Chuck Schumer voted for his confirmation. That means Joe Biden voted for him. That means Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him. That means Harry Reid voted for him.

One of the silliest arguments being made against confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was made by Nan Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice. She told FNC’s Tucker Carlson that this time it’s different because the appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Ms. Aron’s reply is silly because appointments to all appellate courts are lifetime appointments. But I digress.

The questions that the MSM should ask Democrats that voted for Judge Gorsuch then and who are still in the Senate is this: Are you being dishonest now in calling Judge Gorsuch names? Were you that stupid when you voted to confirm him in 2006? If you’re being dishonest now, why should people trust your criticisms? If you were hoodwinked in 2006, why should people think that you aren’t getting it wrong this time?

Nan Aron’s opposition to Judge Gorsuch is simple: he wasn’t appointed by a Democratic president and because he’s wrong, in Nan’s opinion, on abortion. Aron’s litmus test, her religion really, is that everyone should ‘support a woman’s right to choose.’ Anyone who doesn’t hold that view is outside Ms. Aron’s mainstream.

Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and Bernie Sanders won’t hesitate in filibustering Judge Gorsuch. That’s because they’re thinking about running for president in 2020. If they don’t filibuster, they’re toast in 2020. What’s still in question, though, is whether red state Democrats up for re-election in 2018 will filibuster, too. Sherrod Brown has announced he’ll vote against confirming Judge Gorsuch. The rest of the vulnerable Democrats are sitting silent.

Eventually, they’ll face a moment of truth. I don’t expect to see lots of profiles in courage at that point.

Now that President Trump has picked Judge Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, Democrats face a difficult decision. Within their meeting rooms, they’re asking whether they should fight President Trump’s pick or whether they should try to push Judge Gorsuch enough to please their special interest puppeteers.

It isn’t difficult to figure out which camp Sen. Franken is in. In his statement after the announcement, Sen. Franken said “Long before his election, President Trump promised to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, who held a deeply conservative view of the Constitution and the Court. In the coming weeks, I will be closely examining Neil Gorsuch’s background, but I have serious concerns about his judicial philosophy-especially on issues like access to justice, corporate accountability, workers’ rights, and women’s health. I was hopeful that the President would have selected someone like Merrick Garland, a consensus candidate lauded by the same Republicans who ultimately refused to hold a hearing on him for nearly a year.”

I wish someone would explain to Sen. Franken that Supreme Court justices aren’t supposed to be legislators. That’s his job, at least for a little while longer. Another perspective is whether Democrats should push Judge Gorsuch a little before caving.

That’s apparently what Sen. Durbin is thinking:

Only 12 days into this administration, we’ve already seen unlawful executive orders blocked by a federal court, and the unprecedented dismissal of an Attorney General for disagreeing with the president. I believe the independence of our judicial system, and especially the Supreme Court, is more critical now than at any time in recent history. That is the context in which I will review this nomination.

I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him — both of which were denied to an eminently qualified nominee presented by President Obama. The American people need to know what they can expect from this nominee, and that he will protect our fundamental constitutional rights on issues like voting rights, immigration, privacy, and women’s health. In recent years, the court’s decisions have shifted dramatically toward big money corporate interests at the expense of American workers and small businesses — we need a Court that is on the side of Main Street, not Wall Street. This Supreme Court seat does not belong to President Trump or to any political party. It belongs to the American people, and I will work to make sure their voices are heard in this debate.

This article suggests that Democrats will back off. I’ll believe it when I see it.

In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t hit a home run. Metaphorically speaking, he hit a grand slam in his first major league at-bat. It’s apparent that it’s a grand slam when the NY Times publishes an op-ed gushing about Judge Gorsuch.

Neal Katyal’s op-ed isn’t something that you’d expect to find on the NY Times’ op-ed page. The fourth paragraph of Katyal’s op-ed is gushy, saying “I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the editors at National Review wrote “Originalism has faced resistance in modern times mostly because liberals would rather not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution in order to edit it to their liking, removing its structural limits on governmental power and putting their preferred policies beyond democratic review. Gorsuch’s record gives us cause to believe that he would use his vote and his voice to side with the actual Constitution.”

President Trump looked totally confident when he announced his pick:

President Trump explained why he picked Judge Gorsuch. He outlined the lengthy, impressive list of qualities Judge Gorsuch possesses. After President Trump finished his presentation, he turned the microphone over to Judge Gorsuch.

One thing that seemed to jump out at everyone was when Judge Gorsuch said that a judge that agrees with every ruling he’s made “is probably a bad judge.” The clear intent of that statement is that judges that agree with their rulings are most likely substituting their policy preferences for the text on the page. For instance, a judge that bans flag-burning isn’t doing his/her job. Few people think that burning the flag is the right thing to do. Most people would criticize it. The First Amendment, though, says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It doesn’t prohibit people from saying things we find hateful.

Based on what’s out there, Judge Gorsuch understands that perfectly. That’s why we should think he’s the best possible pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.

This article highlights just how unhinged today’s Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying “Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. ‘This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,’ Merkley told Politico. ‘We will use every lever in our power to stop this. … I will definitely object to a simple majority.'”

This isn’t surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they’d get former President Obama’s third term. They thought they’d win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.

The important point, though, is that today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in putting America first. Today’s Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don’t get their way. Today’s Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.

Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.

Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”

If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don’t care about this:

Democrats only care about maintaining power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer announced that Senate Democrats would be willing to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS pick if the pick is certified as mainstream by Sen. Schumer. This article highlights the fact that President Trump isn’t a typical Republican in that he’s willing to fight back.

During an interview with Sean Hannity, President Trump said that he’d encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the nuclear option if Democrats filibuster President Trump’s pick to replace Justice Scalia. According to the article, “Trump said Thursday that he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the ‘nuclear option’, changing Senate rules on a majority vote, if Democrats block his Supreme Court pick. The president’s stance could amplify pressure on McConnell, a Senate institutionalist who is reluctant to further erode the chamber’s supermajority rules, to barrel through Democratic resistance by any means necessary.”

In the past, senators’ word was trusted. Sen. Schumer ended that last week by reneging on an agreement to confirm Mike Pompeo to be President Trump’s CIA director. Sen. Schumer is a weasel who won’t hesitate in using any tactic to get his way. That includes reneging on agreements or playing fair.

The past 2 weeks, Sen. Schumer has talked about President Trump’s cabinet as the #SwampCabinet, filled with “millionaires and billionaires”. That’s funny considering the fact that Sen. Schumer has cozied up to most of those millionaires and billionaires. In fact, he’s accepted tons of contributions from those millionaires and billionaires.

Apparently, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Pocahontas think that situational ethics are the best ethics.

Because President Trump is willing to fight back and expose the Democrats’ hypocrisy, expect the Democrats to feel the pain of President Trump’s wrath if they continue their feeble resistance.

Years ago, the joke was that the most dangerous place to be in Washington, DC was between Sen. Schumer and either a microphone or a TV camera. The truth is that he’s a politician with an oversized ego (by politicians’ standards) who’s about to get trampled by a guy with a 140-character megaphone.

Sen. Schumer talks tough but he isn’t tough. Since taking office as the Senate Minority Leader for at least the next 8 years, he’s talked about delaying the confirmation hearings for 8 of President-Elect Trump’s cabinet officers. This past week, he said that he’d do whatever it takes to stop the confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. It’s time for him to sit down and shut up. He’s enhancing his reputation as a blowhard.

Sen. Schumer’s recent appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show didn’t hurt his reputation with the far left. While appearing on Maddow’s show, Sen. Schumer said he’d do his best “to hold the seat open.” That’s coming from a guy who’s insisting on people in his political mainstream. Don’t forget that he’s endorsed Keith Ellison to be the next chairman of the DNC. Ellison isn’t known for being a moderate, meaning we shouldn’t trust Sen. Schumer’s definition of mainstream. Apparently, Sen. Schumer’s definition of mainstream is someone from the far left.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Now that the new Congress has been sworn in, Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court has faded into history’s mists. With the nomination’s passing came the obligatory statements from the Senate Majority Leader and the new Minority Leader.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said “I’ve been clear throughout that the next president would name the next Supreme Court justice. Now, the president who won the election will make the nomination, and the Senate the American people just re-elected will consider that nomination.”

New Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), issued a sour grapes statement through his spokesman, saying “What Senate Republicans did to Judge Garland, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution was appalling. Judge Garland is respected on both sides of the aisle. That he did not even get so much as a hearing will be a stain on the legacy of the Republican Senate.”

To the average voter, that sounds like “BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.” It sounds like sour grapes. The truth is that Democrats wanted to shift the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation when Justice Scalia unexpectedly passed away. Republicans essentially said ‘Not without a fight first.’

While Democrats express their sour grapes, the American people will move on. They’ll worry whether Senate Democrats will attempt to force families to continue using the ABACA. They’ll worry whether Democrats will insist on not protecting the US-Mexican border. People in Chicago will wonder if the Trump administration will be called in to deal with all of the gang-on-gang violence or whether they’ll be frequent targets of gang-on-gang violence.

Sen. Schumer has more than a little pressure on him. If he makes deals with President Trump, he’ll get booted by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for being too soft. If he takes a Warren-like hard line, he’ll imperil somewhat moderate Democratic senators for their 2018 re-election campaigns.

After reading this Washington Times article, there’s little doubt in my mind that President Obama will appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

First, the article says “Mr. Obama’s moment will come just before noon, in the five minutes that the Senate gavels the 114th Congress out of session and the time the 115th Congress begins. In those few moments the Senate will go into what’s known as an ‘intersession recess,’ creating one golden moment when the president could test his recess-appointment powers by sending Judge Garland to the high court.” It continues by saying “The move would be a legal gamble under the high court’s last ruling in 2014 on recess appointments. That 9-0 decision overturned a handful of Mr. Obama’s early 2012 picks, saying the Senate was actually in session when the president acted, so he couldn’t use his powers. That ruling also said, however, that there’s a difference between appointments made during the annual yearlong session of Congress, dubbed ‘intrasession,’ which Mr. Obama used in 2012, and picks made at the end of the year, after Congress adjourns, which are known as ‘intersession.'”

This statement is downright foolish considering who we’re talking about:

William G. Ross, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, said Mr. Obama would have the power to elevate Judge Garland. But he said it would be “politically unwise and damaging to the prestige of the court. It would exacerbate acute political tensions that have roiled the transition process and promise turbulence from the very start of the Trump administration, and it would contribute to the growing public perception that the court is unduly political,” Mr. Ross said.

Anyone that thinks President Obama worries about doing controversial things is kidding themselves. He thrives on those things. That’s why I’m certain he’ll appoint Garland.

The political downside for Democrats is that they’d be required to defend that indefensible decision. Republicans would use that against them in 2018, which is already shaping up to be a bloodbath for Democratic senators. That, however, isn’t a big deal to President Obama. What does he care? He’s already decimated the Democratic Party during his time in office:

Since President Obama took office, there are 12 fewer Democratic governors, 63 fewer Democrats in the US House of Representatives, 12 fewer Democrats in the US Senate and almost 1,000 fewer Democrat state legislators.

Why would President Obama care if Republicans picked up another dozen Senate seats after he’s out of office?

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

After reading former Sen. Richard Lugar’s NYTimes op-ed on immigration, it isn’t surprising that he isn’t a senator anymore.

The first major tipoff came when he said “whether or not you like President Obama’s actions, he has operated under longstanding provisions of law that give the executive branch discretion in enforcement.” It’s stunning that a former senator would make such a foolish straw-man argument. That isn’t the heart of United States v. Texas. The heart of U.S. v. Texas is found on pg. 7 of Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s opinion when he said “One of these memoranda contained an order establishing a new program utilizing deferred action to stay deportation hearings and award certain benefits to four to five million individuals residing illegally in the United States.”

SCOTUSblog talked about the topic of standing in this post, saying “Here is what is at issue regarding state “standing” to sue: to be allowed in federal court under Article III, a state government — like anyone else who seeks to sue in those courts — would have to show that the action being challenged causes it a definite injury or harm. The injury cannot be theoretical or speculative; it must be real, existing right now or predictably.”

That actually shouldn’t be that difficult to prove. It’s inevitable that having “four to five million individuals residing illegally” in Texas or one of the other 25 states that filed the lawsuit would cost individual states financial harm to one degree or another. That harm might come in the form of higher costs for health care programs, education or other benefits that are paid for at the state, county or school district level.

More importantly, though, Judge Hanen stated that one of Jeh Johnson’s memoranda “contained an order establishing a new program” that would “award certain benefits.” That isn’t allowed by Article I of the Constitution. Only the legislative branch is allowed to create new programs. The executive branch executes the programs on the books.

If the justices cared about the Constitution’s authorities, they’d admit that the executive branch has the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion but that it doesn’t have the authority to create a new program that Congress hasn’t authorized through legislation.

The thought that a senator, especially one that’s been a committee chair, doesn’t understand this is a bit frightening.

When KSTP’s Tom Hauser interviewed Sen. Klobuchar, (DFL-MN), Sunday morning, they discussed President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Like an actress reading from a script, Sen. Klobuchar said that Judge Garland is a moderate. That term is interesting because it’s empty. Being the inquisitive type, I sent Sen. Klobuchar a message for clarification. It read “Sen. Klobuchar, you told Tom Hauser that Judge Garland is a moderate. I understand what a political moderate is but I don’t know what a judicial moderate is. I’d appreciate it if you’d explain what your definition of a judicial moderate is. Further, if Judge Garland is a moderate, does that mean Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan are radicals or ideologues? I’d appreciate a quick, substantive reply.”

Sen. Klobuchar’s auto-response said “Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. This is a confirmation that we have received your message. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business on behalf of the people of our state. Please continue to visit my website at http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov to follow what I am working on, both in Washington and Minnesota. It is frequently updated with current news and events regarding my work in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, many constituents ask about tracking the progress of legislation. One useful tool is to regularly check my website. Another resource I recommend is the Library of Congress legislative information website, http://thomas.loc.gov. I hope you find this information helpful. – Amy”

Since Sen. Klobuchar hasn’t explained what a judicial moderate is yet, I’ll rely on something that Dennis Prager wrote about Judge Garland:

In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”

What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”

Apparently, a judicial moderate sides with Big Labor 100% of the time. Forgive me if I don’t agree that that’s the definition of a moderate. Forgive me if I think that sounds more like a hardline leftist ideologue. Then there’s this:

Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”

Again, that sounds more like the definition of a leftist ideologue. It doesn’t sound like a centrist/moderate. This is worth checking out, too:

Technorati: , , , ,