Category Archives: Supreme Court

Incredibly Stupid

Democrats are determined to obstruct the nomination of the eminently qualified Judge Gorsuch, because, as Kamala Harris put it, he “has consistently valued legalisms over real lives.”

Since “valuing legalisms” is Dumbocrat for “following the law”, what these clowns are really saying is that they won’t vote for Gorsuch because he’s such a good judge.

Source:

Leave a comment

Filed under Democrats, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court

Chuck E. Part Two

Once again, Schumer is caught in his hypocrisy!

Leave a comment

Filed under Charles Schumer, Supreme Court

Not a one of them spoke a word

Ted Cruz Pulls Democrats’ Pants Down on Opposition to Judge Gorsuch

2017_03 Gorsuch - My job

1 Comment

Filed under Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senate

On Gorsuch and Such… Day Two

The Democrat clown show lasted more than 11 hours yesterday.  As a public service, I’m posting an assembly of short clips of stalwarts such as Feinstein, Franken, Durbin, Coons, and especially Senator Pat “Depends” Leahy. Rush gave him that nickname because the first time he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee (how’s THAT for an oxymoron?), he purposely made Reagan’s plans to attack Libya public. He was removed from his committee assignment then, but as is always the case with pestilence, he returned. Watch the clip of this bald fraud and see if you can tell whether or not he’d been drinking or at least hung over. “Mumbles” would be a more appropriate moniker.

FNN: Sen. Leahy Asks Gorsuch About GOP Treatment of Merrick Garland, Obama’s Supreme Court Pick

They did their best to trap Judge Gorsuch, smear him or sully his record. What was first and foremost, apparently, was that they wanted a promise from him not to try to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Abortion is the sacrament to the religion of Liberalism and must be protected at all costs.  There were light moments ,and you must see what his obituary would be. Any senator who votes against this very good man should be beaten severely with their own bank book.

Timely new tv ad ‘The Ginsburg rule’ destroys Dems about to pound Judge Neil Gorsuch

“Democrats are attacking Judge Neil Gorsuch because he won’t promise to support their political agenda,” a voiceover in the ad begins. Then in a “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” moment, the ad pivots to the 1993 confirmation hearings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, during which she refused to answers posed to her by senators — in excess of 70 times.

Her repeated refusal prompted then-Sen. Joe Biden to come to her support.  “You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be,” he told her during the course of the confirmation proceedings.

Gorsuch Makes Minced Meat of Dick Durbin’s Gotcha Attempt

Senators on the Judiciary Committee took turns spending thirty minutes grilling Gorsuch.

When it was Sen. Durbin’s (D-IL) turn to bat, he flamed out. Gloriously.

“Do you believe that there are ever situations where the cost of maternity leave to an employer can justify an employer asking only female applicants and not male applicants about family plans?” Sen. Durbin asked.

To which Gorsuch sternly replied, “Those are not my words and I would never have said them.”

“I didn’t say that,” said Durbin.

“I asked you if you agreed with this statement.”

“And I’m telling you I don’t,” Gorsuch scowled.

WTF Is A Super-Precedent!? Gorsuch Makes Dianne Feinstein Look Like A Twit Over Roe v. Wade

AL FRANKEN IN A BLUE RIBBON MORON

Al Franken Beclowns Himself Over Gorsuch For The Second Day In A Row

Franken Visibly Frustrated When Gorsuch Doesn’t Take Bait on Merrick Garland Question

Gorsuch Fires Back At Democrats

Neil Gorsuch quizzed by Grassley, Feinstein about Roe v. Wade; see how he responds

Dem Senator Tries, Fails To Pin Down Gorsuch On Hobby Lobby Ruling

The case, which Gorsuch heard as an appeals judge and which was later heard by the Supreme Court, asked if for-profit corporations could bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  In this instance, the owners of Hobby Lobby said they had a religious objection to providing certain forms of contraception to their employees. Gorsuch ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, attracting criticism from Coons.

WATCH:

Coons asked Gorsuch why he ruled in favor of allowing for-profit corporations to bring claims under the RFRA.

Gorsuch responded that the law as drafted did not distinguish between natural persons and corporations, and that corporate personhood was a well-established principle of law. He further explained that the government conceded in that case that a non-profit corporation could bring a RFRA claim.

Coons rebutted that it was a “big leap” to take those facts and apply them to for-profit corporations.

“The position you’re advocating is a fine position,” Gorsuch responded. “It’s a respectable position. It’s a good position. It was adopted by precisely two justices of the Supreme Court.”

Gorsuch was referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. Two of the four dissenters in the case, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, declined to join the portion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion, which held for-profit corporations or their owners cannot bring claims under the RFRA.  Only Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor have taken the position RFRA doesn’t apply to corporate entities.

Coons then pivoted away from Hobby Lobby and asked generally about judicial deference to the beliefs of religious objectors.

Ted Cruz and Neil Gorsuch on “the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything”

What Gorsuch Would Want In His Obituary

The 49-year-old jurist then produced an at-times emotional two-minute monologue of what he would like his obituary to to be. It’s an assignment he gives his students at the end of each semester, Gorsuch told Sasse.

“They hate it. They think it’s corny. Well, it might be a little corny,” Gorsuch said with a hint of self-deprecation.

He continued:

“And people want to be remembered for the kindnesses they showed other people, by and large. What I try to point out is, it’s not how big your bank account balance is, nobody ever puts that in their draft obituary, or that they billed the most hours, or that they won the most cases. It’s how they treated other people along the way. And for me, it’s the words I read yesterday from Increase Sumner’s tombstone. And that means as a person, I’d like to be remembered as a good dad, a good husband, kind and mild in private life, dignified and firm in public life. And I have no illusions that I’ll be remembered for very long. If Byron White is as nearly forgotten as he is now, as he said he would be, I have no illusions, I won’t last five minutes; that’s as it should be. The great joy in life, Shaw said, is devoting yourself to a cause you deem mighty before you are thrown on the scrap heap. An independent judiciary in this country, I can carry that baton for as long as I can carry it, and I have no illusions I’m going to last as long as you suggest, and that’ll be good enough for me.”

12 Comments

Filed under Al Franken, Democrats, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Hobby Lobby, Neil Gorsuch, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senate

The Gorsuch Hearings

The democrats are in a tough spot. They have to come up with arguments against a man of such wisdom and character that he is almost unassailable. But assail him they will, because their voting base are a bunch of rabid, hate-filled ignoramuses created by a media who make sport out of ruining the lives of anyone who doesn’t take them seriously. Harry Reid, the miserable sludge who obstructed any republican efforts to govern, pulled the ‘nuclear option’ to get hundreds of O’s far left judicial nominees confirmed. He stopped just short of SCOTUS appointments. He has come to regret that, as the GOP are willing to use it to get Trump’s people confirmed. Gorsuch, a strict constitutionalist, is replacing the late Antonin Scalia. The real frenzy will not begin until the president is tasked to replace one of the leftist judges, like Breyer or Ginsburg. That would tip the balance on the court in favor of the Founding Fathers and away from ruling by personal opinion.

Get Ready To Rumble! Gorsuch Hearings Set To Begin

The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the grueling public vetting process of Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, tomorrow.
In a bid to place hurdles in the way of Gorsuch’s confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate, Democrats on committee have said they will probe him on several fronts based mainly on his record as a federal appeals court judge and a Justice Department appointee under former President George W. Bush.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz said Sunday on the Face the Nation that Democrats can try to block Gorsuch, but they will not be able to tank his appointment.

NARAL-Pro Choice, Planned Parenthood and a coalition of 50 other liberal groups sent Democratic lawmakers a letter in advance of this week’s confirmation hearings telling them to buck up.
‘Democrats have failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee despite the fact that he is an ultra-conservative jurist who will undermine our basic freedoms and threaten the independence of the federal judiciary,’ the letter stated. ‘We need you to do better.’

Dem Senators want to take Gorsuch down to satisfy base, but unlikely to succeed
Barring something extraordinary, Gorsuch will be confirmed for the Scalia Seat.


Vanity Fair eventually cuts to the chase, noting one teensy-weensy problem: “In the long run, the Democrats have no power to block Gorsuch, except in the unlikely event that a solid majority of Americans comes to view anyone but Garland in Scalia’s seat as an affront to the Constitution.”

Gorsuch Confirmation Presents Democrats With 2 Difficult Paths

When it comes to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, Senate Democrats appear to have two options: Get out of the way or get run over.
Senate Republicans’ enthusiastic backing of President Trump’s nominee ensures majority support even before the confirmation hearing begins Monday. But the Republicans also hope that enough Democrats are won over by Judge Gorsuch — or recognize the inevitability of his confirmation — that they join in efforts to head off an explosive showdown over a filibuster.

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch an ‘extremist,’ Feinstein’s office says

Feinstein’s office criticized him for his hostility to the Supreme Court’s doctrine of deferring to government agencies’ interpretations of unclear federal laws. He has called the doctrine a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

The release said he could also further weaken the tottering government regulations of political campaign financing. In a 2014 opinion, he called the act of contributing to campaigns “a basic constitutional freedom” entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection.

17 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Dianne Feinstein, Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senate

Resist We Much

What is happening here is blatantly obvious. The democrats, allied with a hyper-partisan judiciary, are conspiring to completely neuter President Trump by interfering with every lawful order he issues. What they are attempting to do, in essence, is usurp his authority to run the country by leftist judicial fiat. Trump must ignore this illegal restraining order to take back the powers granted to him by the Constitution to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

From Powerline:
What we are seeing here is a coup: a coup by the New Class; by the Democratic Party; by far leftists embedded in the bureaucracy and the federal judiciary. Our duly elected president has issued an order that is plainly within his constitutional powers, and leftists have conspired to abuse legal processes to block it. They are doing so in order to serve the interests of the Democratic Party and the far-left movement. This is the most fundamental challenge to democracy in our lifetimes.
The battle lines are clearly drawn. What Watson has done has nothing to do with the law. It is a partisan coup, and must be resisted.

More on the Left’s Judicial Coup
Two federal judges, one in Hawaii and one in Maryland, have enjoined execution of President Trump’s travel order. These court orders are obviously illegal and unconstitutional. Under the Constitution and federal law, the president has the power to suspend immigration from any and all countries if he deems it in the best interest of the United States.
The net result is that Trump has been stripped of his constitutional and statutory powers to protect the nation through control of who is permitted to enter the country.
***
As discussed in prior posts, the power to control who enters the country is uniquely a presidential power. Not anymore, unless the Supreme Court acts to restore that power.
I disagree to this extent: the moment the next Democratic president is inaugurated, the executive’s constitutional powers will magically be restored and, indeed, extended.
Arguably President Trump has a duty to disregard the Hawaii and Maryland courts’ illegal injunctions, and direct the executive branch to carry out his order. His obligation under the Constitution is to exercise his powers in defense of the American people.

THIS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY END UP AT THE SUPREME COURT, EVEN BEFORE THE HEARINGS ON NEIL GORSUCH. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE COURT MAY EITHER DECLINE TO HEAR IT OR SPLIT 4-4, LEAVING THE TRO IN PLACE. IT’S A SAFE BET THAT, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A SLAM DUNK, THERE IS NO WAY BREYER, BROOMHILDA THE WITCH, OR HER TWO UGLY SISTERS WILL GIVE A FAIR DECISION WHEN IT COMES TO DONALD TRUMP.
THE SUPREMES VOTED 9-0 IN 2012 TO HOLD OBAMA’S NON-RECESS RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE LABOR BOARD WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT DID HE DO? RAISE HIS MIDDLE FINGER, SMILE, AND SAY ‘FUCK YOU,’ AND HIS HAND-PICKED UNION THUGS WERE STILL SERVING WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE. TRUMP MUST DO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, BUT WITHOUT THE FINGER. OUR SECURITY DEPENDS ON IT.

Trump’s Refugee Order Looms Large Over Gorsuch Hearing
The ongoing legal battle over President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugee and migrants may dominate next week’s hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
“You can find example after example of Judge Gorsuch siding against workers even in the most dire circumstances,” she said.
Trump’s revised executive order on refugee and migrants, and two new court orders temporarily enjoining its enforcement, could hijack the hearing and dominate the proceedings.

Judge Considers Ordering President Donald Trump to Double 50,000 Refugee Inflow to the United States
A federal District Court judge in Maryland is considering whether he should order President Donald Trump to double the annual inflow of refugees up to 100,000 per year.
Any demand by the judge that the federal government airbus an extra 50,000 migrants — including many adherents of Islam’s sharia legal system — into American neighborhoods would be an unusual intervention into government roles normally left to the elected President and Congress.

5 Problems With The Hawaii Judge Halting Trump’s Travel Ban
The executive order, which was a loosened version of a previous version struck down by another court, suspends entry to the United States for 90 days from nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.
“This is an unprecedented judicial overreach,” Trump said of Judge Derrick Watson’s order, during a rally in Nashville.
Whether you agree or disagree with the executive order — and there are plenty of people on both sides of that debate, for many different reasons — the judge’s ruling has some serious problems. Here are a few of them.

YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THIS… THAT’S WHY YOU COME HERE

Plaintiff behind Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque
Imam born and raised in Egypt, migrated to U.S.
Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.
One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.
Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

SPLIT IT: Congress Considers Splitting The 9th Circuit
Judges Sidney Thomas, Carlos Bea, and Alex Kozinski give testimony before a House panel on splitting the 9th Circuit.
Democrats on the subcommittee argued that the administrative and logistical concerns Republican lawmakers raised were little more than a thin veneer masking their ideological hostility to the court.
“Like clockwork we see proposals to split the 9th Circuit whenever it hands down decisions with which conservatives disagree,” said Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler.
“The 9th Circuit has long been in the sights of Republican politicians,” he added.

7 Comments

Filed under Constitution, Democrats, Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch, Republicans, Supreme Court, Syria

The Myth of the Stolen Supreme Court Seat

2017_02-scalia-seat-wasnt-stolen

The myth of the “stolen seat” stems from the GOP-majority Senate’s refusal to vote last year on President Obama’s nominee 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 two prominent Democrat leaders, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer.

Does anyone honestly think that, had the roles been reversed in 2016, and a Democrat-majority Senate faced a Republican lame duck president’s nominee, Sen. Harry Reid would have held a confirmation vote?

Sources:

Leave a comment

Filed under Charles Schumer, Democrats, Joe Biden, Supreme Court

Two stunning examples

Judges are supposed to interpret the law according to precedents, not legislate or indulge in social engineering from the bench.  Here are two stunning examples of the latter from Dan Bongino’s Facebook:

1) When the Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare penalty was a tax, they ignored Barack Obama himself who had vigorously argued in a nationally televised interview that it was not a tax. So, when it’s a liberal agenda item, the President’s words do not matter.

But, in arguing against the Trump Executive Order on immigration, the left and their judicial allies insist on bringing up Trump’s campaign language about a “Muslim ban” even though the Executive Order says nothing about a Muslim ban. So, when it’s a conservative agenda item, the President’s words do matter.

scalia-government-by-unelected-committee

2) When Arizona passed an illegal immigration law which mimicked federal law, the Supreme Court struck down portions of the law with Justice Kennedy saying , “The State may not pursue (immigration) policies that undermine federal law.”

But, now that liberals dislike the Trump Executive Order and the federal immigration law it is based on, they are vigorously arguing for a state role in national immigration policy and the courts seem more than happy to agree.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Donald Trump, Immigration, Obamacare, Supreme Court, Taxes