Democrats: SCOTUS Furor Even Worse Than Anticipated

    We finally know the specifics of Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S. In today’s TNN offering, we will walk you through their governance process, give you its history, and facts that prove this plan is not a conservative conspiracy theory — it’s factual. It’s not new. In fact, it has existed for a decade or more. On its own merits, it is scary. But the scariest realization is that it has been there for all to see from its inception, and Americans have either ignored it, seen it but dismissed it or have missed it altogether. See more about this in the “Summary” below.

Leftist Frenzy

Who would have thought that a kind, gentle, and soft-spoken jurist with a history of 300 legal documented opinions written during his 11 years a federal appeals court judge, would (according to Democrats) either be Satan himself or at least Satan’s best friend? That’s the story being trumpeted to the Nation by Democrat Party leaders in D.C. Putting it plainly from Dems perspective: Brett Kavanaugh is an evil Supreme Court nominee who wants to snatch all personal freedoms from every American — especially from women.

How to respond to such bombastic allegations?

How bombastic are they? Here are U.S. Senate Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA) — who is almost certainly a candidate for President in 2020 — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Roe v. Wade

Is it surprising that the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling by the Supreme Court 40 years ago is “the” hot button for whoever is to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s spot on the Supreme Court? Is it surprising that even before President Trump’s announcement of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to fill that spot, Leftists were screaming that “the” nominee (if confirmed) would single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade?

Enter Brett Kavanaugh.

Immediately upon his nomination, the Leftist abortionists began alerting every American that women’s rights — including abortion — would be immediately abolished by Justice Kavanaugh. Their cry would have been the same no matter who the President nominated.

In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2006 after his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, here is how Judge Kavanaugh replied to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when asked about his position on Roe v. Wade (click on the link to watch):

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4739106/schumer-questions-kavanaugh-2006

SCHUMER: “Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination? And do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee, like the president (George W. Bush) said he was going to nominate people, in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas?”

KAVANAUGH: “Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be a binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court.”

That answer, of course, was not sufficient to stem Schumer’s fear of the overturn of Roe v. Wade:

SCHUMER: “I asked you your own opinion.”

KAVANAUGH: “And I’m saying if I were confirmed to the DC Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”

SCHUMER: “I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure.”

KAVANAUGH: “The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view of that case.”

SCHUMER: “Okay, you are not going to answer the question.”

Kavanaugh’s answer seems clear and to the point to most, but not to Schumer who simply sought to disqualify Kavanaugh — a conservative judge who is thought to be Pro-Life — for his personal stance on abortion. But the “Ginsburg Rule” was invoked and has been often since the Senate confirmation hearing in 1993 of Ruth Bader Ginsburg then a Supreme Court nominee. Let’s look at it.

Ginsburg Rule

At her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her opening statement urged the Judiciary Committee to judge her fitness to be a Justice principally on the written record of her past 34 years of legal experience—as a law teacher, practicing attorney, and
federal appellate court judge. She then articulated a limit on what the Senators could expect their questioning to elicit from her. For, she said, she would be constrained, when responding to Senators’ questions, from providing any “previews,” “hints,” or “forecasts” of how she as a Justice might cast her vote on issues that might come before the Court:
“Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
In her subsequent testimony, Judge Ginsburg sometimes declined to address or discuss in any way an issue raised by a Senator’s question, in each instance referring to her earlier proclaimed intention not to provide any “hints or forecasts” on how she might vote on an issue once on the
Court.
Since that hearing, it has been — on both sides of the political aisle — not just acceptable but considered the just and right thing that nominees to ALL federal courts not be asked to give personal opinions on specific legal issues that are not specific to the Constitution or the Rule of Law. Of course, senators who are pushing political agendas will occasionally push nominees on certain hot topics (like Roe v. Wade) so as to politically expose nominees’ personal convictions and opinions about those topics.
Today’s Democrat Senators have thrown “The Ginsburg Rule” to the curb. They apparently do not care for historical precedent, the decency, and decorum that has been part of confirming judicial nominees to federal courts. Want an example? That same senator above — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — said this about the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing to be held for Judge Kavanaugh: “During confirmation hearings for nominees to the High Court, members of the Judiciary Committee have the right to hear the personal opinions of candidates on anything that might impact the way they would rule on any issue.” (paraphrased) Blumenthal angrily made that statement in an interview, demanding that Kavanaugh is forced to tell members of the committee where he stands on abortion and other hot political issues. Doing so would obviously obliterate the long-standing standard set by Justice Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing in which she stated refused to answer questions 70 times because “doing so would possibly prejudice any position I might take if/when that issue was part of a case the Supreme Court agreed to rule on.”

Why the Demand from Dems on this Issue?

The answer to that question not only explains past nominees’ reason for refusal to answer questions about personal views, it exposes Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S.

The Dem “Plan”

It’s simple: they have lost the election war in America, and they’ve thrown in the towel. For the last decade, Democrats have watched election after election at federal, state, and local levels in which Dems lost 1000+ seats of government to Republicans. That slide had already begun when their former leader — Barack Obama — installed and initiated the “new” Democrat plan that is still in use. What WAS and IS the Democrat plan?

Democrats understand that their old party platform based on higher taxes, increased regulations, increased government subsidies, open border immigration policies, diminished military, anti-law enforcement policies, anti-business legislation and restrictions, and socialized medicine with a much larger federal government running the show, was impossible to sell to the American people. Obama promised to install policies that would “fundamentally change” America. In his first term, he did just that, and America realized they did not like those changes. Those policies were not helping them, their wallets, or the towns and cities where they lived. They lost jobs and businesses while unemployment soared as they watched company after company abandon the U.S. for other nations with better financial policies.

Middle America stopped voting for Democrats. Democrat Party leaders were horrified at their loss of power, so frantically struggled to find a way out. Obama schooled them on the “new plan:” Make the American Judiciary the political arm of the American government — a Democrat government. He knew that federal judges and courts had the final say-so on all laws and policies. If Democrats could flood the federal courts with liberal activist judges, they would see federal court case verdicts based on liberal political philosophy and abandoning the longstanding Rule of Law for court rulings. That meant appointing activist judges wherever federal court judge openings occurred. Barack Obama did just that.

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate was 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.

In terms of Article I courts, Obama made 8 appointments to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

All were Democrats — and all were political activists.

The “Plan”

Now we know the reason for the outcry from the Left over the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to replace him. We know why long before the Kavanaugh appointment, the Left made preparations to fight ANY Trump appointee. They knew Trump would appoint a Conservative judge to the High Court — a justice that would certainly NOT be an activist, and would certainly rule according to Constitutional guidelines and certainly not for Democrat political leanings on any issue.

Democrats are in total melt-down.

Summary

There are several points I want to make here:

  • There’s a reason why our forefathers created the electoral college for our presidential election system. They knew large cities and heavily populated areas would eventually dominate national elections at the expense of those from rural and less populated areas. Therefore elections could not fairly be determined by just a popular vote. The “new” plan was to eventually with activist court decisions do away with the electoral college;
  • The Democrat Party has quickly slipped left politically — not just a little bit. The Party is now Far-Left, and can fairly be termed “Socialist.” In fact, many on the Left are past European Socialism and are flirting with Totalitarianism in which Big Brother Government totally controls the lives of the citizenry;
  • Democrats can no longer control the legislative process to install their Socialist agenda, which they for a decade have secretly been developing. And they have for a decade relied on activist judges to do that;
  • Donald Trump foiled their plan by “stealing” the election from HRC. They don’t know what to do.

We will continue to see and hear the shouts of anger and hate from the Left as the process of confirmation for Kavanaugh get underway. I fear that this may devolve into real violence. FOX News’ Shannon Bream was doing her show from outside the Supreme Court the night of the President’s nomination announcement. She had to terminate her show plan and move inside because Leftist demonstrators threatened violence. I think that is just the beginning.

Make no mistake: Brett Kavanaugh will be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. He “will not” because one Justice “cannot” overturn any federal law: that includes Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, and cannot install any new conservative laws at all. JUDGES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE LAWS! The only judges that have and are doing so number among those Leftist, activist judges appointed to federal courts by Obama.

I’ve said this before today, and it’s more applicable to today than any other: buckle up…..WE’RE IN FOR A RIDE!

Play

Judge Brett Kavanaugh: Let the War Begin

Never in American history has the Left been so politically incensed at the nomination of any judge to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday evening, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy — a moderate and often considered the “swing vote” on the High Court.

The rhetoric immediately turned to venom against the 12-year member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This began long before his nomination was announced and obviously was NOT because of his specific selection, but because of one thing only: he is considered by most to be a conservative. Let’s be honest: it ramped up because he is NOT an extremist from the Left.

Apparently, all civility in American politics is in our past. The streets around the U.S. Supreme Court were packed with demonstrators long before the President announced the nomination of Kavanaugh. Demonstrators waved signs and chanted angrily at the thought of ANY Trump nomination to the Court. It being Kavanaugh mattered little to most. Pre-made protest signs were everywhere with a space to write-in the name of whoever Trump’s nominee was when announced. Several protestors forgot to write the name “Kavanaugh” when his nomination was announced and waved the signs with “XX” where the name was meant to be added.

Before we discuss the hoopla and crazed idiocy front-and-center from the Left, why not talk about the nominee, his judicial past, and his qualifications to serve on the High Court? (Gee, that’s somehow a novel idea, right!?!?)

In his own words:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

J.D. Vance, who wrote the best-selling Hillbilly Elegy, recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to make the case for Kavanaugh, who was one of his professors at Yale Law School.

“He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts,” Vance wrote. “He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty. From the start of his career, he’s applied the Constitution faithfully, even when that made him a lonely voice. He has done so with particular tenacity on the issue that matters most to the president: taking power away from unelected bureaucrats and returning it to elected officials.”

Abortion

Kavanaugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold it, but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion. In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he “would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully” and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already “been decided by the Supreme Court”. During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found “many times”, citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion. Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).

Affordable Care Act

In November 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. After a unanimous panel found that the ACA did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.

Economics and environmental regulation

In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Free Speech Clause did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products.

After Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel striking down a Clean Air Act regulation, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed 6–2 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014). Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc of a unanimous panel opinion upholding the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and a fractured Supreme Court reversed 5 to 4 in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). After Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a per curiam decision allowing the agency to disregard cost–benefit analysis, the Supreme Court reversed 5–4 in Michigan v. EPA (2015).

In 2015, Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design. In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel finding that the CFPB’s design was unconstitutional, and made the CFPB Director removable by the President of the United States. In January 2018, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment by a vote of 7–3, over the dissent of Kavanaugh.

Terrorism

In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc circuit found that Ali al-Bahlul could be retroactively convicted of war crimes, provided existing statute already made it a crime “because it does not alter the definition of the crime, the defenses or the punishment.”  In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote the plurality opinion when the en banc circuit found al-Bahlul could be convicted by a military commission even if his offenses are not internationally recognized as war crimes under the law of war.

In Meshal v. Higgenbotham (2016), Kavanaugh concurred when the divided panel threw out a claim by an American that he had been disappeared by the FBI in a Kenyan black site.

Scholarship

In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that U.S. Presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.” This article garnered attention in 2018 when Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, whose 2016 presidential campaign is the subject of an ongoing federal probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

When reviewing a book on statutory interpretation by Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, Kavanaugh observed that judges often cannot agree on a statute if its text is ambiguous. To remedy this, Kavanaugh encouraged judges to first seek the “best reading” of the statute, through “interpreting the words of the statute” as well as the context of the statute as a whole, and only then apply other interpretive techniques that may justify an interpretation that differs from the “best meaning” such as constitutional avoidance, legislative history, and Chevron deference.

NOTE:

President Trump in his introduction of Kavanaugh at his nomination announcement at the White House stated that he does not ask justice nominees their personal stances on specific policies, opting to discuss their views of enforcement of the Constitution.

Summary

Judge Kavanaugh spent 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In his service there he has a trail of 300 written opinions on various cases that found their way from a District Court somewhere in the U.S. to his court on appeal. In those 300 opinions, legal experts, pundits, and political adversaries and advocates have the ability to create a significant portrait of the qualifications Brett Kavanaugh holds to be confirmed as the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Remember this when the noise about Kavanaugh and his appointment gets to an even higher fever pitch: President Trump a year-and-a-half ago released a list to the American public that contained 25 names of prospective judges he would consider for openings on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was numbered among those 25. Detractors have had 18 months to examine in intricate detail each word emitted from Kavanaugh’s mouth or written by his hand or dictated to a law clerk for all to hear and read. Numbered among those 300 Kavanaugh opinions are cases that blanket the legal landscape of pretty much every American issue-of-the-day. You can be certain that Leftist Trump haters “IF” there was anything of substance that would somehow justify not confirming Kavanaugh, (or any of the other justices on that list of 25 and the several who were added) the second Kavanaugh’s nomination was announced, the World would have seen and heard facts to disqualify him from service on the High Court.
Brett Kavanaugh IS a fine justice. He may be a conservative jurist, but he like his former boss — Anthony Kennedy — has issued opinions and delivered votes based on Constitutional interpretations of laws that have been in support and against some conservative issues. Why? Brett Kavanaugh is a Constitutional adherent. He has made it clear in his significant career to follow the U.S. Constitution in all of his judgments, always putting personal and political feelings aside. That’s the person we want to replace Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court — NOT a political hack.
Those on the Left obviously feel different.
Let Justice Prevail!
Note: In the next few stories on the Truth News Network (TNN) we will share some of the vitriolic tantrums from the Left regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment. At times some will appear humorous and others even childish. But what they each are is dangerous to the Rule of Law. I encourage all to be wary and diligent during this process. What happens to the U.S. Supreme Court and who numbers among its 9 members may be the most important issue of the this AND the next U.S. generations.
Play

Who Makes the Cut for SCOTUS Replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Speculation abounds. That’s a bit odd, since President Trump before his nomination of Neal Gorsuch to the Court released a list of 25 Supreme Court possibles. Gorsuch was one of those. But who is left? And who has the best shot?

Today let’s look at our top 6 that — surprisingly enough AFTER this story was written — was agreed to on the Sunday FOX & FRIENDS morning show.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5804080377001/

Brett Kavanaugh, former Kennedy clerk

Kavanaugh was a late add to Trump’s list of potential nominees, but many believe the 53-year-old judge who sits on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit might be the favorite. He was born in Washington, DC, and served in the George W. Bush administration. He also served as a lawyer for Kenneth W. Starr during the investigation concerning President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Most recently, he was in dissent when his court upheld an opinion requiring the government to facilitate an abortion for an undocumented teen in US custody. Kavanaugh clerks often go on to clerk for Supreme Court justices.

Thomas Hardiman, runner-up for Gorsuch seat

Hardiman, who serves on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has a personal story that appeals to the President. The 52-year-old judge was the first in his family to graduate from college, and for a time he drove a cab. Born in Massachusetts, he attended the University of Notre Dame as an undergrad and then went to Georgetown University Law Center. Sources said he was the runner-up for the Gorsuch seat. His judicial paper trail includes a dissent in a case where the majority upheld a New Jersey law that prohibits handgun possession without a permit. To bolster his opinion, Hardiman cited Scalia’s landmark opinion in DC v. Heller. If Trump has questions about Hardiman’s personality, he can always ask his own sister, who also sat on the 3rd Circuit.

Amy Coney Barrett, former Notre Dame professor

A former clerk to Scalia, Barrett was Trump’s pick for a seat on the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Born in 1972, she served as a professor of law at her alma mater, Notre Dame. She’s a mother of 7 — 2 of who were adopted, one is special needs.

During her confirmation hearing, she had a contentious exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, who asked her about past writings concerning faith and the law. At one point, Feinstein asked Barrett if the “dogma lives loudly in her.” Supporters of Barrett suggested Feinstein was attempting to apply a religious litmus test to the nominee.

Joan Larson, former University of Michigan professor

She serves on the 6th Circuit Court of appeals. She served on the Michigan Supreme Court. She was in the same confirmation hearing as Judge Amy Coney Barrett in which California Senator Diane Feinstein launched into some anti-Catholic allegations and rhetoric that shocked many. Before joining the Michigan courts she clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

Amul Thapar, former District Judge

Was the first South Asian-American to serve as federal judge and serves on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. His judicial experience includes extensive presiding over actual trials. That’s something many Supreme Court justices do not have. He was on the President’s list even when he was a district judge. he was then elevated to the Appeals Court by President Trump.

 

Raymond Kethledge, serves on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

He is from Michigan. He is known for writing his opinions so that non-legals have no problem understanding the detail. He has 9 years of serving on the Court. He is likened often to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. He is very thoughtful and deliberate in his hearings and his findings. Kethledge like Gorsuch is an originalist and launches into exhaustive detail in his opinions regarding their Constitutional basis.

 

Summary

No doubt the one of these (or any other judge) that is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Judge Anthony Kennedy will face major pressure in upcoming SCOTUS sessions — probably far more than their predecessor or even their fellow judges. Why?

Anthony Kennedy was nominated and confirmed as a conservative judge. However, in his 30 years or so serving on the High Court, he often has come down in agreement with the liberal side on some cases. That has been a surprise to many who expected his support to be conservative. Pro Life cases that came before the court many thought would serve to attack Roe v. Wade, primarily because Kennedy is Catholic and therefore assumed by most to be Pro-Life. But he is NOT.

Liberals are in shock at Kennedy’s retirement, primarily because in doing so President Trump has the chance to — in the words of Senator Cory Booker — “stack the Court” and attack womens rights as Roe v. Wade will certainly be overturned by this Court.

Of course that paranoia is unsubstantiated and is actually damaging to the Supreme Court. I know of no nominee to the High Court that has ever been put to a litmus test for any “hot” issue — especially not abortion. Just like it is assumed that the 6 listed above are conservative and would — if a Roe v. Wade case before the Court — support a Pro Life position, it was assumed so to would former justice Anthony Kennedy.

What the Left is missing is that whoever gets confirmed for the position needs NOT hold positions on issues for Senators, the President, or even the general public to know prior to confirmation hearings. What is critical for every member of the judiciary is that they be true Constitutionalists who stick to the nuts and bolts of the foundational structure for the American legal system and all its laws.

Yes, there is opinion always in rendering verdicts from the bench. But doesn’t every American use opinion every day in their lives in simply living? Any person who tells you they have NO opinion on any issue like abortion, Pro Choice, or Right to Life is certainly not telling the truth. Each judge on the High Court has personal opinions on everything. And EVERY judge on EVERY Supreme Court in U.S. history has had personal opinions on EVERY issue that comes before the Court. But they find ways to reconcile the decisions they render without letting that opinion cloud the decision. Supreme Court decisions must be based SOLELY on the U.S. Constitution and its position on each case. I’m certain that anyone of the 6 listed here will have no problem doing so.

For our friends on the Left: this process is NOT about Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Male or Female, Black or White. This process is about qualifications and an ability to lay aside personal political positions and opinions to allow the law from the U.S. Constitution be the only factor in each decision they make from the bench.

If it ever becomes about SCOTUS members’ opinions, the U.S. Justice System has died. And so will the Nation.

 

 

Today’s Important, Too

Did you notice?  This week already we are at war in Congress over the reform of the Healthcare Law, From the NSA and FIB, Admiral Rodgers and Jim Comey both testified about wiretapping before Congress, and today was the second day of grueling hearings regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch before the Senate Judicial Committee regarding his pending confirmation as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  I do not remember 48 hours in Congressional history that so much work was done, except maybe for arguments over how long an adjournment should last for Congressional vacations.

In all this noise one event stands out as what may be the most important historical event of the next few decades:  the next

Judge Neil Gorsuch

SCOTUS Judge.  I am enamored at this process and this judge.  I know, I know:  I’m a political junkie.  But the political pieces of this process are not necessarily what has grabbed my attention.  It’s the historical implications of not just this confirmation, this judge, or the hearings.  It is that for the first time in my memory the deep divide between conservatives and liberals in D.C. were front and center all day on international live television.  And the differences are monumental.

I have always known there are stark contrasts between the two thinking types, but I never knew how drastic they are.  Regarding federal judges and their nomination/confirmation process, I have heard the rhetoric about whether or not they were “Originalists.”  Originalists are those jurists who feel the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent laws as amended through two centuries are a literal roadmap for ALL things regarding private and public life for Americans just as written.  The other side believes the Constitution is a living, breathing entity that is changing as America and Americans change through the years, and therefore interpretations of Constitutional laws should morph at the same time.  While I have heard those titles placed on two groups of judicial thinkers, until today I never knew just how different those are.  ( By the way, Neil Gorsuch is an Originalist)

In grueling testimony that lasted about 12 hours, Judge Gorsuch fielded about every legal question you could imagine a dozen or so Senators could throw at him.  And boy did he do a great job!  If you missed the hearings, let me fill you in.  Judicial Committee Dems led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) grilled the Judge on all things Constitutional.  Each expressed their version of what the framers of the Constitution intended before beginning their questioning.  Each Democrat in their 30 minute allotted time questioned the nominee about specific cases that came before him on the 10th Circuit Appeals Court in Colorado as to why he ruled the way he did and why he did NOT rule the other way.  Judge Gorsuch was simply amazing in his responses.  He could have easily gotten flapped and out of sorts, because (as you can imagine) those questions were not friendly, not kind or flattering in any way, and were designed to expose some judicial flaw or flaws in the nominee that would certainly disqualify him from service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As you can imagine, questioning from the Conservative side of the room was much kinder, amicable, and, I am ashamed to say, more professional than was that from their liberal counterparts.  That is not to say they were soft on the nominee, but they each expressed their opinion of his 10 year service on the Federal Appeals Court, then asked substantive questions and allowed him to give complete and thorough answers.

It was glaringly obvious from the onset the Dems all used scripted talking points and were not seeking in any way to learn anything new about the nominee that might assist in their votes to confirm or not.  Not a Senator at the table that is liberal will vote for Gorsuch.  And that’s unfortunate.  He is probably the most qualified judge that has even been mentioned as a possible replacement for Judge Antonin Scalia.  He demonstrated today his understanding of U.S. and Constitutional Law, how that pertains to American individuals and companies, and what judicial responsibilities are and what courts and judges can and cannot do according to the law.  Democrats did NOT like that approach from the Judge.  Continually Democrats tried to pin him down, digging for answers to hypothetical cases that may appear in the Court after he begins serving.  Again and again he told the questioner he does not make judicial determinations in his courtroom based on his personal opinions or feelings, but always based totally on the law, AND that he could not discuss details of any potential case that might come before a court on which he served.

There were a couple of dramatic moments that vividly illustrated this vast divide between Democrats and Republicans as it pertains to Constitutional law and the Supreme Court.  The most dramatic was in a series of questions from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL).  He asked the nominee about details and thoughts the Judge used during his adjudication of several specific cases.  One specific case caught my attention.  It was about a truck driver who while driving was caught in a snow and ice storm which forced him to pull over in his truck with its trailer.  Temperatures during the storm were below freezing, so he left the truck and trailer there.  His company fired him for violating written company rules that prevented any driver from leaving his truck and trailer under any circumstances.  He sued the company in District Court who ruled for the company.  The driver appealed to Gorsuch’s Court.  He upheld the ruling against the driver.  Durbin berated Judge Gorsuch for in such a heartless way ruling “for” a big company against a “little” guy — the truck driver.  Judge Gorsuch in his response drew the picture in neon colors of the difference between how liberals and conservatives believe the Constitution should be viewed.

The nominee in his lengthy response to Senator Durbin explained that he and each judge involved in the case had no choice but to make a legal determination which excluded ANY personal feelings.  The company acted in good faith and made their decision based on written company policies that every employee read and agreed to work under at their time of initial employment.  Durbin interrupted Judge Gorsuch at this point in his response and said this:  “How could you — a judge — make such a harsh ruling against a truck driver who left his truck to keep from freezing to death?  Doing so was heartless, and illustrates a propensity to adjudicate in favor of corporations over people.”  The Judge’s response:  “Senator, I could not nor should any judge ever make any ruling based on personal beliefs or opinions, no matter how distasteful the details of a case may be.  I made that case decision based on one thing and one thing only:  the law.”  He continued, “Making laws is the job of this House, not the Courts.  Any law that would have prohibited the company from taking actions that it did should have been passed into law by this House.  That law wasn’t passed.  The company did nothing against the law and my finding was the only one I or any other judge could make.”

So there it is:  liberal politicians today want and expect federal judges to render decisions based on what they believe is the right thing to do regardless of what the law says.  Originalists (conservatives) feel that the judicial system is there for one purpose and one purpose only:  to interpret laws on the books.  Liberals want judges to render decisions on cases in their courts based on their personal political opinions of current issues regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says.  Judge Gorsuch to Senator Durbin:  “We don’t make laws.  You’re supposed to.”  The problem with that is Durbin and friends want all federal judges to do just that — write and rewrite laws to fit the liberal narrative of the day regarding the applicable political circumstances of each case.

That’s a scary and dangerous thought.  But it’s an important one.  As I said, this may be the most important next few weeks of the next few decades.  I encourage all to tune into C-SPAN or the national news network of your choice as you can tomorrow to watch the next round of questioning.  Neil Gorsuch should be easily confirmed.  But that’s another story.

Tomorrow:  Will the Nuclear Option be Necessary?

 

The Worst Leftover of the Obama Administration

            U.S. Supreme Court

No, it’s not Obamacare, although the behemoth is a multi-headed dollar eating dragon that is quickly crippling our economy and steadily eroding the quality of the greatest healthcare system in World history.  It is also not the constant bickering and name calling on Capitol Hill that seemed to if not start during his double term in office, certainly to escalate dramatically during his eight years.  It also is not the ever widening divides between races in our Country — growing at supersonic speed thanks to the political racist rhetoric designed to do just that.  And it is not the division that most thought would have been shuttered after the inauguration of America’s first non-white President.  In fact, with President Obama in office, all of these U.S. problems got worse and worse the older his administration became.  The worst leftover from the Obama Administration — as horrible as are the problems listed above — are the 329 federal judges appointed by the former POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, including two U.S. Supreme Court justices.  You can bet that each was fully vetted by the Administration and confirmed to be from “moderate” liberal to “hard left” liberal in their leanings before their nominations.  His purpose?  To fulfill to the best of his ability the promise he made again and again during his 2008 campaign:  to “fundamentally change America.”  His authority to do so?  Remember this:  “Elections have consequences.”  The number one consequence of his election and then re-election was his filling courts across the nation with Leftist judges who in many cases are making determinations in their courts not based on Constitutional principles where applicable or on actual content of federal laws, but on the judge’s personal interpretation of the intent of those who wrote each law.

I agree with you that this is a far-out basis on which any judge to render an opinion.  But they are doing it and doing it more and more every day.  It has never been more evident than the judgments rendered by the various federal judges who have weighed in formally on President Trump’s travel ban…twice now.  We have all read and re-read both versions of the ban.  I have read both several times.  They are plainly written with full explanation and quote existing law that authorizes a president to take such action.  Here’s the law that President Trump used to issue the two Executive Orders:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”  Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

I don’t know about you, but that’s very plain and easy to take literally.  Based solely on the “letter” of the law, President Trump had every legal right to issue such an order.  And NO court had any legal right to issue a temporary stay of that order.  So where’s the rub?

     President Donald Trump

First let me tell you how and why the specific courts were called on to adjudicate the various appeals requested of this ban.  The process is called “forum shopping.”  That is, when a regulation, order, or law is passed in the United States with which someone disagrees, IF it has a federal basis, the “injured” party (or “alleged injured” party) can go to a federal court anywhere in the U.S. and file their appeal in THAT court.  So what happened is the “alleged injured” party representatives took their request for a temporary stay of President Trump’s travel ban to courts that are the most liberal in the nation.  In two cases the judges that heard  the appeals were vocally anti Trump!  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in northern California — in the land of “fruits and nuts” — and heard the appeal of the issuance of a temporary restraining order of the first travel ban executive order.  That court is full of liberal judges and is the most overturned Court by the U.S. Supreme Court — 70% of their rulings between 2010-2015 have been overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court.   Judge Watson — the federal judge in Hawaii who issued the stay of President Trump’s second travel ban — was appointed by Obama in 2012, and — probably not a coincidence — met with Barack Obama the day before he issued his travel ban Temporary Restraining Order.  Hmmm…..

President Obama — a constitutional lawyer — knew full well the importance of stacking the courts in America with like minded liberal judges during his 8 years in the White House.  Why?  He needed to find the best way to guarantee his socialist agenda would continue after his presidency ended.  He knew that legislatively Americans would at some point soon (even though he thought Hillary would have succeeded him as President) elect conservative legislators that would nix the liberal laws and regulations he put in place and who he felt any liberal successor would implement.  The Judicial system in America has always been the great equalizer in Government.  He knew to keep the move toward pure American Socialism alive, he had to tilt the judiciary toward the Left.  And boy, did he.

Because of Barack Obama, the Nation faces a quiet (but almost deafening in its silence) dilemma:  how to overcome the monstrous tilt toward socialism in the federal judiciary initiated by Obama.  Remember:  most federal judges are appointed for life.  That means the bulk of those 329 appointees of his are there for a long, long time.  Sure there is an impeachment process for removal.  But you can imagine how difficult that would be.  So what can we do?

         Judge Neil Gorsuch

The only sure way to cripple if not defeat the Left’s march toward socialism is to make certain that conservative judges — ONLY conservative judges — are confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, starting with Neil Gorsuch who has been appointed to replace staunch conservative judge Antonin Scalia after his untimely and mysterious death.  (That death alone makes one think of John Grisham’s novel THE PELICAN BRIEF)  With Gorsuch’s confirmation, that will put the SCOTUS at 5 conservative (or 5 who make conservative decisions “most” of the time) to 4 liberal judges who NEVER depart from a liberal perspective.  Remember:  the final determination and only way to overturn a decision for any case that comes out of one of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal is through the U.S. Supreme Court.  What they determine is the ultimate determination and cannot be changed.  If the SCOTUS goes liberal, American goes Socialist — you can bet your life on it.

What do we do?  We do everything we can do to get our U.S. Senators to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Judge Scalia.  No, we don’t have a vote for that position.  But we do have votes for our U.S. Senators.  So we have a voice there.  And it needs to become a loud voice.  We need — through every communication vehicle we can amass — to let our Senators know we demand Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation.  We need to educate our friends and family members with the information you have just read — make sure they understand and push them hard to write, call, and/or email their U.S. Senators.

“If not us, then who……If not now, then when?”

 

Pelosi vs. Gorsuch: Part II

Yesterday I published Part I of analysis of this important historical political event including the actual ruling explanation authored by Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.  If you have not read yesterday’s blog post, please do so now along with reading Judge Gorsuch’s opinion that — according to Liberal Democrats — is proof that he should not be the next U.S. Supreme Court Member.  Here in Part II is the analysis of his opinion, its validity as it pertains to Congressional law, and information regarding the vitriol from the Liberal Left against Judge Gorsuch’s appointment.  Here’s Part II:

 

The case of a severely autistic boy in Colorado centered around the parents’ decision to remove him from public school to place in a private residential treatment facility, then demand the public school district reimburse for the costs of the private facility.  The school system had developed and implemented an educational program specifically for him which was implemented with many successful results.  The parents opted to remove him from the public school system to enroll in a residential treatment center at which the child lived 24 hours a day for 44 weeks of the year.  The parents petitioned the school system (and a resulting lawsuit) demanding reimbursement for their costs of his residence at the center.

The court (and Judge Gorsuch) ruled against a lower court’s decision in which the parents’ claim was affirmed.  The court’s position was that Congress had written rules specific to such cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.  Those rules plainly stated a demand under this law for reimbursement for education care received for such a child would only be allowed if the school system did not provide Free and Applicable Public Education (or the “FAPE” rule) to the disabled student.  In this case, the school and the parents had both declared that the child had made marked and dramatic improvement in education at the public school.  The parents in their claim stated those improvements did not all transition into his life away from school.  No additional marked “educational” improvements at the private facility were achieved.  The Court ruling found the parents’ claim was in direct conflict with the FAPE rule.  The decision written by Jude Gorsuch in NO way diminishes the disability or the child’s need and right for education in public schools.  But the Congressional law stops short of defining what level of educational achievement would trigger confirm the lower court ruling.

Minority Leader Pelosi has joined other Liberals in lambasting Judge Gorsuch.  They do so knowing their claims are false, but also knowing that most Americans will not investigate case history and will simply defer to the first “news” (and in this case definitely “fake news”) they hear as being the truth.  Remember that in the 2012 Presidential election campaign, Senator Harry Reid stated he knew factually that Mitt Romney had not paid a penny in federal income tax in 10 years.  The liberal media ran with it without fact checking it or questioning Governor Romney as to its truth.  It was patently false.  The Romneys in that period had paid millions to the IRS.  Do not forget Pelosi stood at a podium and told Americans speaking of the Obamacare law that, “We must pass this law so we can find out what’s in it.”  The Speaker of the House had not even read the bill — the only bill in U.S. history that in its operations would give direct operating control of 20% of the American economy to the Government.

Both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Schumer have said they will fight any Trump SCOTUS nominee if that nominee does not subscribe to “mainstream American ideals.”  But what ARE mainstream American ideals and who defines those?  Democrats feel that THEY are the only ones capable of defining what American mainstream ideals are.  What hypocritical and absolutely asinine statements and positions these are!

It is probable that there will not be a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch until the first week of April.  Be aware that the coordinated attacks against the character, integrity, qualifications and ability to serve as a SCOTUS are well underway by the Left and will continue.  Americans will be inundated with liberal vitriol and venom on every hand by liberals, all of which will be trumpeted by national media.  I encourage all to investigate these allegations for yourself.  Details of the positions of Judge Gorsuch are of public record.  Certainly it is unreasonable to research every one of his nearly 1000 cases.  But I urge all to get details of each of the specific cases referenced by the Left.  Numerous Democrats have already voiced their support of Judge Neil Gorsuch.  I would like to express confidence that the Senate will give the nominee full and fair investigation of his credentials.  Senate Republicans WILL do so, just as they did for both of President Obama’s far left nominees who were confirmed as are President Clinton’s appointed SCOTUS justices.  But under the watchful eye of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who joined others to unanimously to confirm Justice Gorsuch’s to his present judgeship — you can be certain all reason and reasonable confirmation processes are already out of the question.  He is spearheading the attacks from his comrades against the man who is among the top three most qualified judges in history to serve on the Supreme Court.  Let’s hope political party preferences will not poison the responsibility of the Senate  to confirm the President’s choice for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Pelosi vs. Gorsuch: Part I

This is such an important issue to discuss in full, I have researched in depth and am providing you with complete details of the initial unwarranted attacks on President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court.  I have edited the story extensively, but even then it is a little over 1000 words.  So today I’m giving you the first half of the evidence.  Tomorrow I will give you “the rest of the story” in “Pelosi vs. Gorsuch:  Part II.  Please devour, fact check, and please let me know your thoughts.

Let the attacks begin. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the Minority Leader in the House. She has a past of publicly making unsubstantiated claims against conservatives and conservative causes, copying the habits of former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in which he made outlandish allegations against people that were later proven to be false. Their purpose is simple: the first “news” that comes out is what 90% of the receivers of that news believe is factual no matter if there is a later retraction. Pelosi jumped right into that practice immediately attacking Judge Neal Gorsuch after his SCOTUS nomination:

“Elections have ramifications, and here is a living, breathing example of it,” Pelosi said. “The president, in his first appointment to the court and hopefully his only appointment to the court, has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America versus class-action suits on securities fraud; he’s come down against employees’ rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine and the rest. If you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy.”

“What saddens me the most as a mom and a grandmother, though, is his hostility toward children in school, children with autism,” Pelosi said. “He has ruled that they don’t have the same rights under the [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] that they could reach their intellectual and social advancement under the law — he has said that doesn’t apply to them.”

These charges by Pelosi are everywhere today in written news stories worldwide.  Here’s the problem:  liberal news media outlets have been proven again and again through the recent Presidential election cycle to neglect to ascertain the voracity of statements made to them by their news sources — in this case Nancy Pelosi.

Historical news editorial policy was to verify information from any source before ever releasing it as news.  No need to say how important this would be regarding a Supreme Court nominee.  But Pelosi immediately began making public allegations that came from a lengthy Democrat talking points document prepared by a liberal organization.  They actually prepared such documents to attack ANY of the three judges said to be possible candidates for SCOTUS appointment.

Liberals know that few Americans take time to fact-check such charges.  I will not bore you with all the details of Gorsuch’s many opinions written regarding cases brought before his Court, but he wrote 11 of the issues referenced by Pelosi.  I  read the entire opinion of one of the three he penned in which his recommendation was to overturn the lower court finding.  I reference below his finding which Pelosi so aggressively attacked:  Judge Gorsuch’s written opinion in the autistic child case.  (the link to that opinion is below.  The finding of the Court linked to below is lengthy.  Please take time to read it.  It’s VERY important.  I will go into the details of the finding in tomorrow’s blog post and document that the Liberal Left have since the election crafted a formal talking-point-document for all liberals to use in attacking any of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/171177/thompson-r2-j-school-v-luke-p-ex-rel-jeff-p/

Part II of this story will be posted tomorrow (Friday).  Thanks for reading!