Tag Archives: Antonin Scalia

Religious affiliation now a disqualifier for public service according to Democrats?

Posted on by

So say Leftists, to include Diane Feinstein.

From Breitbart.com:

Dianne Feinstein Interrogates Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith

by Joel B Pollak

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether the Catholic faith of a judicial nominee would disqualify her from carrying out the duties of her intended office.

Stop. My first thought? President John F Kennedy. A Democrat. Back in 1961. Have we not progressed from there? Or have we regressed? Not A, but B.

Feinstein told Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Let’s listen to Diane Feinstein.

Now let’s listen to Dick Durbin.

Furthermore, Demorats ask: “can a Catholic be a judge?” A far cry from a Catholic president, is it not? Back in 1961? Back then: “a Catholic will ruin our nation.”

Perhaps we should next rightly ask: can a Muslim be a member of Congress? If not a Christian, then why a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a Shinto priest? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, go away. Right? Because they are “religious.”

Or is this a Constitutional issue the likes of which persons such as Diane Feinstein don’t comprehend as illustrated by her discourse with the late Antonin Scalia?

Gorsuch also happened to school Diane Feinstein during hearings.

Are you, like me, beginning to question the validity and veracity of Diane Feinstein with regard to overall competence? If not, you certainly should. We continue.

Feinstein was referring to abortion, though her question was based on a law review article written by Barrett in 1998 that argued that Catholic judges who object to the death penalty should recuse themselves from cases in which it is a possible sentence because “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice.”

But wait. There’s more.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” yet Feinstein and other Democrats on the panel effectively imposed a religious test on Barrett. It was the second time in recent months that the opposition had attempted to do so: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked Russell Vought, nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, about his Christian belief that salvation comes only through Jesus, as if that would be disqualifying.

Bottom line — the one that the American Media Maggots fail to report?

Barrett stated, “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on my duties as a judge.”

There was a bit of pushback, from Politico.com:

Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee

by Josh Gerstein

At least two prominent university presidents are accusing senators of religious bias for challenging a Catholic judicial nominee over her faith-driven views during a confirmation hearing last week.

University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber both wrote letters objecting to lawmakers’ pointed questions on the topic to Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett last week, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Jenkins wrote directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, taking issue with her statements that Barrett’s worldview seems strongly driven by “dogma.”

“Your concern, as you expressed it, is that ‘dogma lives loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country,'” Jenkins wrote. “I am one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly,’ as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation. Indeed, it lived loudly in the hearts of those who founded our nation as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology.”

Look, this is truly nothing new in terms of today’s Demorats. Religion, with the exception of Islam, means nothing. Perhaps less than nothing, rolling over to subjugation and oppression.

If only Leftists would focus their critical eyes inwards.

Demorats fear the law. They only wish new interpretations and not decisions based but upon precedent.

BZ

 

 Share

US Kabuki Theater Pt VIII:

Posted on by

This is the continuation of a series of posts dealing with issues where some individuals in the United States government are attempting to hold at least a portion of the rest of the federal government accountable and responsible for its actions and inactions. The public displays we find, however, are not unlike the most bizarre of Kabuki Theater or Theater of the Absurd.

Here, the late Justice Antonin Scalia speaks with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday regarding originalism, textualism, purposivism and gun control.

This is just 1/9th of 1/3rd of our government confirming and upholding our basic freedoms. Further, let me state: this is the best of our government in action. Our government at work. What we pay it to do.

Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, these are your federal tax dollars either

  1. At work, or
  2. Pissed away with abandon

More to come.

BZ

 

 Share

Trump to get second and likely third SCOTUS nomination

Posted on by

And trust me, the Demorats’ blood pressure right now is going 210/190. Numerous camshafts are being thrown and an abundancy of Leftist heads are exploding.

They just can’t seem to get a break.

From the AP.org:

Big cases, retirement rumors as Supreme Court nears finish

by Mark Sherman

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground.

The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony Kennedy were to use the court’s last public session on Monday to announce his retirement.

I received information in January of this year that another opening was coming for 2017 following Antonin Scalia’s passing, which was filled by Neil Gorsuch. Imagine that. Turns out I’m likely correct.

Of course, I’m not the only one saying it, but I was the first to say this publicly. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley indicated this was likely in April. Senator Ted Cruz spoke about the likelihood while addressing the NRA in May.

Statistically speaking, let’s remember that two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy, are in their 80s, and Justice Stephen Breyer is 78. I call that a clue.

Overall, Demorats have taken a few blows recently. They are in a significant kerfuffle. You know: disarray. Confusion. Even insanity as, reading the news, you see they are doubling down on what hasn’t worked. They are leaning into the punches. Yay team.

Even the New York Times, the old Gray Lady herself, bleeding readers and hemorrhaging advertisers, admits The Donald is winning. As “bad” as he is, Hillary Clinton was obviously worse and continues to be so. Her saliva still breaches Demorat decks and hulls not unlike that of the Alien creature.

Demorats are 0 for 4 in recent special elections yet, listening to them and to their paid cheering section, the American Media Maggots, they had it all in the bag because these elections were going to be a “referendum against Trump.” $23 million dollars was spent on the Jon Ossoff election in Georgia, the most expensive House race in history. George Soros money. Leftist money. Celebrity Leftist money. Cash from everywhere except the contested district. Despite all that, Republican Karen Handel handed Ossoff his own head.

Speaking of AMM cheerleaders for Leftists, Newt Gingrich suggests:

Shockingly, the NY Times in a brief clear-headed manner writes under Maureen Dowd:

Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along.

The Demorats are still following Hillary Clinton’s “it’s my turn, dammit, because I’ve paid the dirty political price to get here no matter my song, no matter my content.” Demorats hate that they still have to represent the little people, the proles, the serfs, the groundlings, the rabble, the unilluminated and unwashed in the inconsequential flyover states. They hate that they still have to represent a few Caucasoids. They hate that they still have to realize there is actually a pitiful smattering of life outside the DC Beltway or New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or San Francisco. They hate that they can’t attend even more cocktail parties in DC or tool around in larger limousines or spend with no limitations whatsoever. They hate that they may appear to be a bit responsible for their decisions though, thankfully, they haven’t fully gotten there yet.

In the meantime they have Russia and they have identify politics and they have Russia and they have race and they have Russia and they have gender and they have Russia and they control all the -ists extant.

What, truly, are the Demorats? They are the Party of No.

A few final points.

1. The Demorats made a rather stupid mistake by insisting the Republicans push they so-called nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, thinking they would do no such thing. 51 is now the magic number. Button pushed.

2. With Neil Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench, the Supreme Court is mostly back to where it was when Scalia was alive; that is to say, with Kennedy being a bit of a major pendulum.

3. If a second opening occurs — and it will — resulting in President Trump’s installation of a true applier of law instead of a shill for Leftists, momentum will move to the right in terms of decisions.

4. Notice a trend? I do. It’s only 2017. What do you think the possibilities are that, between now and, say, 2019 or 2020 another Supreme Court justice retires? I’d wager the likelihood is rather high.

5. If Trump acquires a third nomination and keeps the Senate, the Supreme Court will be more conservative for at least another generation. Case closed.

I can hear the overpressure building from here.

BZ

 

 Share

Big Red Handle: pulled

Posted on by

The GOP said they’d do it.

The Demorats filibustered Judge Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS. They didn’t have to. It was their decision.

So the GOP pulled the Big Red Handle.

John McCain thinks they’re “idiots” for having done so.

In the end, however, McCain voted in the same fashion as all the other Republicans in the senate.

From CNN.com (who says I’m not egalitarian?):

Senate GOP triggers nuclear option to break Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch

by Ashley Killough and Ted Barrett

Washington (CNN) The Senate Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option” that allowed Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

The chamber is now expected to vote to confirm Gorsuch Friday. The controversial changes to Senate rules, made along partisan lines, allows filibusters of Supreme Court picks to be broken with only 51 votes rather than 60.

The actions on Thursday and Friday cap more than a year of tension over an empty Supreme Court seat, as both parties in the Senate are poised to take action leading to an outcome neither party wants.

It’s a situation loaded with nuance, procedural twists and Senate history — not to mention a spot on the nation’s highest court — and a standoff that reflects a peak in polarization following a deeply divisive presidential election.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Subsequent party-line votes allowed the GOP majority to change the rules, leading up to the final vote breaking the filibuster. After the final vote was gaveled, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went down his row and gave high fives to Majority Whip John Cornyn and two aides.

Here, however, is a very interesting article from the NYT.com:

After Senate Filibuster’s Death, Somber Lawmakers Seek Path Forward

by Jennifer Steinhauer

WASHINGTON — The conventional Washington wisdom dictates that the end of the judicial filibuster is also the end of life as it is currently known in the Senate.

In truth, it may not make that much of a difference at all. In an unexpected way, it may well herald the beginning of a better era for the Senate.

The Senate Republicans’ successful effort on Thursday to end the 60-vote threshold to proceed with confirmation of Supreme Court nominees was really only the final step in a process set in motion by Democrats in 2013 when they removed that threshold for other nominees.

That set off a far bigger firestorm, and Republicans now have simply extended that precedent.

Republicans are quick to point out — and many Democrats privately agree — that had former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the White House last year, and Democrats taken the Senate, a similar confrontation was likely in the other direction, and that Democrats may have needed to take the same step as Republicans took to confirm any Supreme Court nominee that Mrs. Clinton had chosen.

Color me gobsmacked, now, because the New York Times just allowed a bit of truth to creep out of an article. Yes, the Demorats would have done precisely the same thing had they been in power. Because of this, I have a sneaking suspicion that Jennifer Steinhauer may not quite have a loving, hallowed and lengthy work future at the Gray Lady.

If you wish to see how all the senators voted, please click here.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Manchin described Thursday as a “very sad day,” saying the Supreme Court won’t have “have a check and balance” system in which the minority has input on future justices. He argued that senators will “rue the day that this happened.”

“They all know what goes around comes around,” Manchin told reporters. “I was just extremely sad.”

And yes, in a way it was extremely sad. But it was the Demorats who decided to filibuster what is fundamentally a good, honest, serviceable and dedicated individual like Judge Neil Gorsuch who has continued to maintain that he has and can remain independent in his opinions from the bench. He follows the law and allows it to inform and guide him. He does not, unlike Demorat/Leftist judges, attempt to create transformative new law out of thin air where precedent does not primarily exist.

Both sides blamed each other for the episode. Democrats blasted Republicans for using the workaround. Republicans, meanwhile, said they felt they had no other option because of the Democratic filibuster.

But the real truth comes next, from Orrin Hatch.

“For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Democrats made such a fuss about this (nominee),” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “They look stupid. The next one, I mean I expect Armageddon.”

CNN spoke to Senator Hatch on Thursday.

I feel compelled to repeat some things I’ve written before here on the blog and stated on my radio show — which is on tonight, by the way, the Bloviating Zeppelin’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, at 8PM Pacific and 11PM Eastern tonight on the SHR Media Network. At the appropriate time click ON AIR to listen.

Republicans, on the other hand, argue Gorsuch answered more than 20 hours of questions and was abiding by what’s known as the “Ginsburg standard” so as not to show his cards on how he’d rule in cases that may come before him.

Hitting back against the argument that he’s extreme, Republicans say Gorsuch sided with the majority in 99% of his opinions as a federal judge in the past decade, and the GOP said that of the 2,700 cases he has ruled on, 97% were decided unanimously.

On Friday at 11:30 Eastern, the senate will vote up or down on Judge Neil Gorsuch. A majority vote will yield confirmation.

There will be Armageddon as Hatch suggests. I have it on good information there is a chance that, later this year, another opening on SCOTUS will occur. I believe that President Trump will deign to nominate an individual not unlike Judge Gorsuch. That will tend to move the court to the right. Further, as this is only 2017, there is every chance that between now and 2020 there will be another opening on SCOTUS and the opportunity for President Trump to nominate a person similar to Judge Gorsuch.

If this is true, and I believe it so, this may impact the US Supreme Court for, literally, decades to come.

So yes, the Demorats were rather stupid to filibuster Judge Gorsuch.

What will be the immediate result of this? Will the Demorats become even more obstructionist than they are now, considering there are over 1,000 vacancies still requiring installation in the Trump presidency?

Time will tell.

BZ

 

 Share

If it’s Friday it must be Gorsuch

Posted on by

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said this week that, by Friday, Judge Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed as a SCOTUS jurist to replace Antonin Scalia, who died a little over a year ago on February 13th of 2016 at the age of 79 whilst vacationing at a West Texas ranch.

First up, from the WSJ.com:

Next Up Thursday: Cloture Vote and Rule Change

The Senate is on the verge of a major rules change sparked by Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice, as Republicans and Democrats barrel toward a partisan showdown on the Senate floor over the future of the filibuster.

The first procedural vote on Judge Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, is expected Thursday morning—a vote where the GOP is expected to fall short. As a result, Senate Republicans are expected to use a procedural motion that would eliminate the filibuster for this and future Supreme Court nominations—expanding on changes that Democrats initiated in 2013.

What were the changes initiated in 2013 by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? From the WSJ.com:

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

by Paul Kane

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

Confirmation of three US DCA picks to the DC Circuit.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

Translated: it’s best for my party and my party is in charge therefore that’s what we are going to do.

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

Thank you. History, meet schadenfreude. Shake hands and come out fighting.

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

Shelby was remarkably prescient.

From November 22nd, 2013.

Can anyone remotely say “goose and gander”? WSJ.com continues:

After the Senate Goes ‘Nuclear’ on Supreme Court Nominees, Will Legislation Be Next?

Republicans are expected Thursday to change the Senate’s rules to make it easier to confirm Supreme Court nominees. The move has aroused concern that legislation may be the next target.

The Senate, its occupants worry, is just one step away from acting a whole lot like the House if the party in the minority is no longer able to block legislation.

Right now, most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. Most of the time, Democrats and Republicans have to work together unless unless one party controls more than 60 seats in the chamber. Currently Republicans hold 52 seats. Both parties have tried to use the chamber’s procedural tools to their advantage, leading to more frequent standoffs.

Then Breitbart.com writes about the situation now.

Constitutional Option Unstoppable: John McCain and Lisa Murkowski Will Vote Yes

by Ken Klukowski

WASHINGTON,D.C.—Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday that they will not allow a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, and will instead vote for the constitutional option to restore a simple-majority vote to confirm Supreme Court nominations, making that outcome now almost certain.

Really? And how will they manage to halt it?

Earlier during the day Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that he had the 50 votes he needs—plus Vice President Mike Pence as a tie-breaker, if needed—to invoke the constitutional option and confirm President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee.

With his towering stature in the party, both in seniority and later as the 2008 presidential nominee, McCain was seen by some as the de facto chairman of the Gang of 14 effort in 2005 to save the option of filibustering judicial nominees in the future — but allowing through many of President George W. Bush’s nominees that were then being blocked by a Democratic filibuster. Ironically, that strategy’s architect was none other than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who implemented it in 2003.

Do you see this? Do you see the wheels within wheels? On the other hand, this is McCain serving McCain and, simultaneously when it pleases him, doing the work of the GOP.

“The unprecedented nature of the Democrats’ filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has left me in a difficult position,” the Arizona senator lamented on the state of affairs in 2017, and after surveying years of past practice in Senate confirmations.

“I’m left with no choice,” McCain declared. “I will vote to change the rules to allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority.”

The Nuclear Option. What is it?

That said, what is cloture?

“What if the Republicans become the majority again?” Inside baseball, but very important. Full circle. Should be no shock to anyone. But, zounds, a major shock to the Demorats who hadn’t fully anticipated that the Republicans — heretofore unpossessed of a spine — actually grew a modicum of one under a president who coiffed an orange dead cat on top of his head.

Again, more on the “nuclear option.”

Trent Lott coined the term. But here is a graphic.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Judge Neil Gorsuch.

One thing that I simply cannot understand. Please, someone attempt to explain to me, obviously, the advantage acquired by the Demorats in the filibustering of Judge Gorsuch. Because, once changed, the rule will allow the GOP to acquire another potential SCOTUS nominee during this term or another subsequent.

I have information to indicate there may likely be another SCOTUS vacancy extant somewhere in 2017. Then, between 2017 and 2020, my guess is that there will likely be another SCOTUS vacancy. That’s three.

By forcing a filibuster the Demorats will have, potentially, enabled the next three SCOTUS replacements. With luck they won’t be Left-leaning. This could be an unprecedented achievement in all of US history.

All under President Donald Trump.

Three Demorat Senators have had the guts to take a stand.

With 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP needs eight Democrats to join them to break a filibuster, which takes 60 votes.

So far, however, only three Democrats have come out saying they would support Gorsuch – Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

Who and what? Time will tell. These are my thoughts.

BZ

 

 Share