Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

THE MYTH OF THE STOLEN SUPREME COURT SEAT

Sunday, February 5th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Myth of the Stolen Supreme Court Seat

Democrats set the standard for the GOP on judicial confirmations.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters in the Ohio Clock in Washington, D.C., Jan. 31.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters in the Ohio Clock in Washington, D.C., Jan. 31. PHOTO: CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY/NEWSCOM/ZUMA PRESS

The confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuchis off and running, and opponents already know he’s superbly qualified with a fine judicial temperament. But Democrats are still itching for a fight, and their first line of offense is the myth of the “stolen” seat.

“This is a seat that was stolen from the former President, Obama,that’s never been done in U.S. history before,” declared Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley in announcing that he will attempt to filibuster Judge Gorsuch. “To let this become normal just invites a complete partisan polarization of the Court from here to eternity.” The “stolen” line is echoing across Progressive Nation, but it’s a complete political invention.

The “theft” is supposedly the GOP Senate’s refusal last year to vote on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. But the standard of not confirming a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Presidency was set by . . . Democrats. And by no less a Beltway monument than the current Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Mr. Schumer declared in a July 2007 speech to the American Constitution Society. Democrats then held the Senate and Mr. Schumer was putting down a marker if someone on the High Court retired. George W. Bush didn’t get another opening, but Mr. Schumer surely meant what he said.

The Democratic theft standard goes back further to Joe Biden’s days as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In June 1992 in President George H.W. Bush’s final year, Robber Joe opined that the President “should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Naming a new Justice, he said, would ensure that a confirmation “process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all.” If Mr. Bush made an election-year nomination, Mr. Biden said his committee should consider “not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

(more…)

Share

FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM HAS DECLARED WAR ON THE WORLD

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

 

JUSTICE AMERICA

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:   The problem is worldwide and growing by the day. The thinking that defeating ISIS will resolve the issue is naive. ISIS Is merely the “flavor of the day.” Yesterday (and perhaps again tomorrow) it was al Qaeda. Before that, it was Islamic Jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood and its ally Hamas dates to the thirties and is stronger now than ever. Boko Haram in Africa and Abu Sayef in the Philipines remind us the problem is not restricted to any particular region. Fundamentalist Islam is a world power and it has declared war on the world.

There were many losers in the election. Hillary would seem to be the biggest but in the great scheme of things she is not. She may turn out to be a bit player, after all.

The Democrats and liberals, in general, were set back exponentially and now control less of the government than at any time since the 1920s or perhaps even in the history of their party founded in 1828. They lost not only the Presidency, The House, and the Senate but will soon see the Supreme Court transformed into a bastion of Constitutionalism for at least a generation to come. The GOP will hold governorships in 33 states, the most in nearly a century. Some are predicting the end of a liberalism that threatened the very nature of the Republic. It may take decades to realize the full impact of what has happened, but America has been put back on the “right” path after decades sliding into a moral and economic abyss.

The Media lost “bigly”, especially CNN and the New York Times as did many others who did all within their power to  ensure Trump never entered the White House. They are now hoping they will see the inside of the White House in days to come.

(more…)

Share

HILLARY, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION

Friday, October 21st, 2016

 

For all you undecided voters out there, this is the number one reason to vote for Donald Trump !   Nancy 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary’s New Constitution

Clinton explains how she’ll gut the First and Second Amendments.

October 21, 2016

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than didHillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized  Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls “reasonable” was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the city’s police chief to award some temporary licenses—but not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. AsAntonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

(more…)

Share

TED CRUZ – 6 REASONS TO VOTE FOR TRUMP

Saturday, September 24th, 2016

 

 


This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Share

GEORGE SOROS, THE MONEY BEHIND THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT

Sunday, August 28th, 2016

 

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/george-soros-the-money-behind-the-transgender-move/

The money behind the transgender movement

Billionaire George Soros opens his wallet to transform America

 – The Washington Times – Thursday, August 11, 2016

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE :  Mr. Soros‘ IRS Form 990 gives us some clues. He’s funded a Streetwise and Safe organization in New York, with the purpose of supporting a “national project focused on increasing safety for LGBTQ youth during interactions with law enforcement and developing advocacy skills to engage debates around discriminatory policing practices,” according to his 2014 tax return.

Mr. Soros also gave $525,000 to Justice at Stake, a group that’s looking to promote diversity in the courts for people within the LGBT community.

“This lack of diversity on the bench can lead to the appearance of bias, and even actual bias,” the group’s website warns. “A more diverse bench improves the quality of justice for all citizens.”

You see, winning court rulings is not enough, you need to control the courts in order for them to be fair.

Three years ago, a Supreme Court ruling paved the way for gay marriage.

After it, the mainstream media had one question: What was next for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement? They had, after all, won the big fight. In addition, many corporations had adopted policies barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and two of America’s most watched shows at the time “Modern Family” and “Glee” featured openly gay characters.

“I really do believe [the Supreme Court ruling] is the domino that is going to tip over the rest of the dominoes,” Wilson Cruz, an LGBT activist, told CNN at the time. “Do not get in the way of this train, because it will run you over.”

(more…)

Share

JUSTICE GINSBURG’S WISH LIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Ruth Ginsburg’s Victory Lap

The Justice dances on the conservative Court’s political grave.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg in Washington in 2014.ENLARGE
Ruth Bader Ginsberg in Washington in 2014. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Liberals fond of griping that the Supreme Court’s conservative Justices are too political should check in with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.The Supreme Court’s oldest Justice sat down with the New York Times on Friday to deplore Republicans and predict a coming liberal ascendancy. “I can’t imagine what the country would be—withDonald Trump as our President,” the Justice averred, adding that the possibility brought to mind her late husband’s advice: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Justice Ginsburg also ran a victory lap at the results of the Court’s recent term after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Among the highlights, she noted, last month the Court upheld racial preferences in Fisher v. University of Texas in a 4-3 vote with Justice Elena Kaganrecused. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, which gutted an earlier opinion he wrote in the same case.

“I don’t expect that we’re going to see another affirmative action case,” Justice Ginsburg said. “I think [Justice Kennedy] comes out as the great hero of this term.” We wonder if Justice Kennedy appreciates the political shout-out.

Asked which precedents she’d overturn, Justice Ginsburg pointed to 2008’s Heller ruling that upheld the right to bear arms, calling it “a very bad decision” that could be overruled. Justice Ginsburg has previously said that without the need for a militia, the Second Amendment is “outdated” because “its function has become obsolete.”

Her other goal is overturning Citizens United v. FEC, which in 2010 restored First Amendment rights for businesses and unions. “It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens Unitedoverruled,” she said, thus signaling she’ll do everything she can to see that happen. She also boasted that she expected to be back in the five-vote majority soon.

We don’t recall another Supreme Court Justice so publicly telegraphing, outside a written opinion, a vote in a future case. No wonder so many Americans think the Supreme Court has become merely another political branch. Justice Ginsburg has confirmed it.

 

Share

WHY WE OPPOSE JUDGE GARLAND’S CONFIRMATION

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

We Oppose Judge Garland’s Confirmation

He is a friend of big labor and regulators, not small businesses.

By

Juanita Duggan  

Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

March 17, 2016

President Obama on Wednesday formally nominated Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. After studying his extensive record, the National Federation of Independent Business believes that Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent, the NFIB opposes Judge Garland’s confirmation.
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers. Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius. We fear that as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Garland could apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else.
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties. What worries us is that Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In fact, in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB.
With more than 320,000 members, our organization is the country’s largest advocate for small-business owners. When we asked members on Wednesday whether they wanted to fight the Garland confirmation, the response was overwhelming. More than 90% urged us to take action.
It is especially important that we get involved now because this year and in future sessions, the Supreme Court will hear cases in which NFIB is a plaintiff. We are challenging the Waters of the United States rule, an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water. The Clean Power Plan, another massive expansion of federal power that we are challenging, threatens to drive up energy costs for consumers—and for small businesses.
Given Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court, is there any question about which side he would take in these cases? When it comes to big government versus small business, we know where he would stand.
This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee. As the plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, our members know the power that a single Supreme Court justice can wield. We cannot support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

 

Share

HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLOCKED REPUBLICAN COURT NOMINEES

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Greatest Democratic Judicial Hits

What Republicans learned from Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 months in office. But there is so much more to recall:
• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.
Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.
The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.
Share

THE SUPREME COURT AFTER SCALIA

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Supreme Court After Scalia

The stakes are so high because the left made the Court so political.

Feb. 16, 2016
With the death of Antonin Scalia, Democrats and the media are graciously offering Republicans an ultimatum: Give them control of the Supreme Court now, or they’ll use the vacancy as a political club to hold the White House and retake the Senate. False choices don’t get more false than that.
The reality is that no one President Obama is likely to nominate for the Court this year has a chance to be confirmed in a GOP Senate. Republicans could vote for José Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but he’s 75 years old and too independent-minded for Democrats. Conservatives would revolt if Republican Senators voted to confirm any other Obama appointee.
And well they should. The stakes are simply too great with the High Court now split 4-4 on so many legal issues. The most important aren’t even the social issues like abortion and gay marriage that preoccupy the media. Roe v. Wade isn’t going to be overturned by replacing Justice Scalia, so the disputes would be over laws that regulate abortion in late term or to protect the health of the mother. Same-sex marriage won’t be overturned either.
The more consequential cases are over the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers that President Obama has so abused to serve his political goals. Take the First and Second Amendments. The Friedrichs case on coerced union dues that the Court is scheduled to rule on this year is probably now a 4-4 tie. That would let stand the mistaken Ninth Circuit ruling that denies workers their right not to support political causes they oppose. The Little Sisters of the Poor are also now likely to lose their religious-liberty challenge to ObamaCare’s coerced subsidies for abortion.
A new 5-4 liberal majority would also take aim at the conservative precedents of recent years. These include the 5-4 rulings upholding individual gun rights in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who read her Heller dissent from the bench, gave a speech saying she expected that a future Court would overturn Heller.
Share

OBAMA’S PLANNED CAPITULATION TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA

Saturday, September 12th, 2015

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.S. acquiescence to a bad Iran deal was no mistake

By James A. Lyons• James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015
There is no shortage of critics of the recently concluded nuclear agreement that President Obama has reached with the evil Iranian theocracy. All the “known concessions” by the Obama administration should come as no surprise. Make no mistake — these concessions were not due to incompetence nor the inability to negotiate. They are part of the president’s planned agenda to fundamentally transform America by diminishing our stature and credibility. It is another example of his misguided view that America must be humbled for the many “problems” we have caused throughout the world.

Mr. Obama’s game plan on how to negotiate with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had its genesis in the summer of 2008. According to scholar and author Michael Ledeen, around the time when candidate Barack Obama received the Democratic Party’s nomination, he opened a secret communication channel with the Iranian theocracy. The go-between was Ambassador William G. Miller, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who spoke fluent Farsi from his previous tours of duty in Tehran.

The message was, “Don’t sign an agreement with the Bush administration. Wait until I am president — you will get a much better deal! You will like my policies. I am your friend.” Here is a country that has cost thousands of American lives. Furthermore, all Americans should never forget that it was Iran that provided the key material and training support to the September 11 hijackers. Without that support the attack could not have been carried out, and some 3,000 innocent Americans who were doing nothing more than going to work would be alive today. Yet our president told this regime that he was their friend.

This borders on treason and most certainly violated the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from interfering in government diplomacy. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories