Category Archives: US Supreme Court

Who could stop a Trump SCOTUS nomination? Democrats? No, Republicans

Posted on by

And at this point there is at least one Republican who is vowing to do precisely that, if he doesn’t get his way.

It is Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, a man doing justice to his last name. This should not be completely unexpected, as he learned at the lap of the Master Republican RINO himself, Senator John McCain, also of Arizona.

From RollCall.com:

Flake Confirms He’s Stalling Trump’s Judicial Nominees Over Tariffs

by Niels Lesniewski

Said Sunday he wants the Senate to respond to president’s trade policy

Sen. Jeff Flake has gone public with his threat to stall judicial nominations seeking action to rebuff President Donald Trump on tariffs.

It comes more than a week after the Arizona Republican first held up the nomination of Britt Grant to be a judge on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals at the Judiciary Committee.

“We’ve approved a number of judges. That is important,” Flake said Sunday. “But, Article I — the Congress, Article II — the executive, are important as well.”

“I do think that unless we can actually do something other than just approving the president’s executive calendar, his nominees, judges, that we have no reason to be there,” Flake said. “So, I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us will stand up and say let’s not move any more judges until we get a vote for example on tariffs.”

This, you see, is perfectly in keeping with the McCain Doctrine, which distills down to this: “It’s all about me, it will always be about me and, when in doubt, see the first part of this sentence.” Perhaps BZ is not the fondest friend of John McCain. Veritas.

Luckily, a dime was dropped and somehow Flake got back in line. Would loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation. From AZCentral.com:

Jeff Flake says he won’t stall Supreme Court pick over tariff dispute

by Ronald J. Hansen

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake said Wednesday he would not try to strong-arm the Trump administration on tariffs — or other issues — by withholding his support from a Supreme Court nominee.

A lame duck about to piss in the champagne? Narrowly avoided.

But let’s go back in time for a moment and revisit just how it might be that the Demorats got into their current predicament — back to, say, 2013 and some little thingie called a filibuster involving then-Senator Harry Reid.

Who was it that said “elections have consequences?” Or: “don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.” Isn’t that what Obama heralds us to do? Win an election? And what happens if we do?

Are we to actually wield the power we acquire from said elections?

Too late Obama. You were right, there are consequences. On both sides. Some go along. Other just like to pinch a loaf in the punchbowl.

Yes, there are consequences to losing an election. They have visited the Demorats. But instead of taking Obama’s advice and not attempting to break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building, the LDAMM would rather just, well, break it.

Oh; and a few others as well. Altogether too many of them have an (R) behind their names.

Back to the original question: if Flake is eliminated as an obstructionist, who is left? Or Left?

Would it perhaps be some female Republicans?

From Politico.com:

The fate of the Supreme Court could ride on these 2 senators

by Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan

Sen. Susan Collins took a notable phone call Thursday as she enters the eye of the Supreme Court confirmation storm: It was White House counsel Don McGahn, sounding out the moderate Maine Republican in what she called a “preliminary discussion” of the high court vacancy.

Republicans control the Senate by a single seat and Arizona Sen. John McCain has been absent for months. That means any single GOP senator has enormous sway over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick.

Which is why Jeff Flake was of concern. One vote. Here’s two more.

I have admitted many times since 2016 that I voted for Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head, for two very specific reasons. I hold to that two years later, as firm or firmer than ever:

  • President Trump is not Hillary Rodham Clinton, and
  • President Trump will make infinitely better SCOTUS nominations than HRC.

I and many others like me are being proven quite correct. We already are witness to the positive effects of Neil Gorsuch.

None matter more than Collins and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who also received her own call from McGahn on Thursday. Then on Thursday evening, the two were part of a small group of bipartisan senators to meet directly with the president himself.

How critical a handful of votes potentially become.

A year ago, the two moderate Republicans, along with McCain, stopped Obamacare repeal in its tracks while helping to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Now, as they weigh how to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the two are about to be squeezed more than ever — by liberals seeking a Republican to stop the court from outlawing abortion rights, among other potential conservative rulings, and by their fellow Republicans looking for a show of party unity on a hugely consequential vote.

But after all, it’s about politics and most everything is a negotiation in DC. So let’s examine some of the top Trump SCOTUS candidates.

From the NYPost.com:

Women are frontrunners on Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees

by Mary Kay Linge

Trump has winnowed down his short list of candidates to “about five,” two of them female, he said Friday.

He promised to make his selection from the same list of 25 jurists that he publicized during his 2016 campaign, which includes six women.

What about names? And what about age? If given the chance, any president would rather install someone who would potentially sit for years on the court.

International betting sites taking wagers on the eventual nominee see Amy Coney Barrett as a front-runner.

“There’s a lot of buzz about her, with good reason,” legal pundit John Hinderaker of the Power Line blog told The Post.

If you recall, she was mercilessly grilled by Demorats over her religion — illegally, I might add — when she was in contention for a 2017 federal circuit judgeship.

Then Diane Feinstein decided it was time to lump up Amy Barrett’s faith. “The dogma lives loudly in you.”

Funny how the religion of Demorats is never questioned because, these days, people like Nancy Pelosi pull the Religion Card frequently. But that’s just fine.

Bush question: is there a Harriet Meir amongst them?

Joan Larsen, 49, is also in the running, Hinderaker said.

“She was confirmed to the federal bench in November without a lot of fireworks, on a 60-38 vote,” he said. “She passed so easily such a short time ago, you’d have to ask why anyone who voted for her would oppose her now.”

This is an interesting point.

Murkowski opposed President Barack Obama’s appointee Elena Kagan, but otherwise she and Collins have voted for nominees under presidents of both parties. Collins and Murkowski both met with Obama nominee Merrick Garland, who never received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

The two senators said this nominee will be no more important than any other Supreme Court votes they’ve cast. But each acknowledged that the political stakes might be higher than ever, given their party’s narrow majority, the approaching midterms and the potential for the Supreme Court to be reshaped for a generation.

“This is what goes on in the Senate. Sometimes you’re in the pressure cooker,” Murkowski said. Asked whether a pressure campaign could backfire, as it did on Obamacare repeal, she paused and replied: “I could just say something flip, like ‘Watch me.’”

Then she added: “I don’t mean to be flip. … I take it very, very seriously.”

They both enjoy the spotlight focused upon them. They enjoy the fact that perception indicates they possess sufficient power to obstruct a very serious vote. They enjoy the recognition of their power however intermittent it may be. Alaska and Maine don’t customarily acquire power in terms of states. They have to grab for their 15 Minutes of Ring when it comes around.

Alan Dershowitz weighs in:

In addition, there is this: what will happen to the Demorats who are in possession of areas that, in the 2016 presidential election, voted for Donald John Trump? Dare they piss off their constituents and slay every nomination Trump makes? Can they afford to do that politically?

Danger, Will Robinson.

BZ

 

 Share

Trump “travel ban” ALLOWED by US Supreme Court

Posted on by

As we suspected, there is Fake Law as well as Fake News.

The lower federal courts who consistently and in a clearly-biased fashion continuously overturned President Trump’s so-called “travel ban” from dangerous Middle Eastern countries in order to more closely attempt to vet who is allowed into the United States have had their rulings overturned today — Monday — by the US Supreme Court.

From CNBC.com:

Supreme Court allows President Trump’s travel ban to go fully into effect

  • The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban on six Muslim-majority nations to go into effect.
  • Two of the nine justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented.
  • The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

What the American Media Maggots will not, trust me, emphasize is that this was a 7 to 2 ruling, meaning that damned near all jurists ruled in favor of the travel ban.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.

That means Kennedy, Breyer and Kagan — liberal and swing members — voted in favor of affirming the travel ban. We now know where Ginsburg and Sotomayor side.

Ginsburg was a dissenting vote because it’s what she does. We expect no less. Sotomayor voted as a dissent because she is a supporter of illegals — it’s that simple.

Finally, an indicator that the United States federal judiciary has not gone totally off the rails.

BZ

 

 Share

SCOTUS SAYS: TRUMP TRAVEL STAY TO REMAIN IN PLACE

Posted on by

Meaning: with one exception, the US Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s ability to keep some persons from entering the United States. The US Supreme Court has also agreed, 9 to 0, to take up the case and hear arguments in October.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban

by Stephen Dinan

The Supreme Court said Monday that most of President Trump’s travel ban executive order can go into effect, delivering the first major victory to the new administration on perhaps his most controversial policy to date.

Wait for it. Wait for it. See the photograph.

Fig.1: Leftist heads exploding across the United States. Again.

The US Supreme Court wrote today, in part:

To begin, we grant both of the government’s petitions for certiorari and consolidate the cases for argument. The clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October.

The court also wrote.

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the 2C entry suspension. We grant the government’s applications to stay the injunctions. To the extent the injunctions prevent the enforcement of statute 2c with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bonified relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

You may read the full opinion here.

To continue with a further explanation from the Washington Examiner:

Justices said the lower court rulings that blocked Mr. Trump’s policy were far too broad, and said the president can begin to enforce his ban against foreigners who don’t already have some ties to the U.S.

That means the president can begin denying visas to visitors from six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who don’t already have family in the U.S., or some other prior connection such as participation in an education program. Mr. Trump is also free to halt refugee admissions worldwide, with the same exception for people who already have a connection to the U.S.

The justices said Mr. Trump is at the peak of his powers when acting on national security concerns in immigration matters when dealing with people who don’t already have a tie to the U.S.

The court’s ruling was issued in an unsigned unanimous opinion, though Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have gone further and lifted the entire injunctions.

Let me be blunt. The US Supreme Court has essentially told the 4th and 9th District Courts of Appeal their rulings are illogical — and of course they were. The are, as I termed them, fake law.

Of great import are two points: first, that the Supreme Court held unanimously, 9 to 0, to grant this emergency stay. Then, in the opinion itself, not once was there a reference to there being a “Muslim ban” nor was there one reference to Trump’s campaign rhetoric for an extremely critical reason: it’s not pertinent to the case at hand. Further, Justices Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas all said they would have gone even further, enforcing the ban in full.

This is a massive win for Conservatives and President Trump, and a massive loss for Demorats and Leftists. Gorsuch was a win. This is a win.

More to come.

BZ

P.S.

Can you guess just what the American Media Maggots are NOT covering today? Correct. That would be the US Supreme Court ruling in re Trump’s travel ban.

Gosh. I wonder why.

 

 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

Neil Gorsuch confirmed as SCOTUS associate justice

Posted on by

From FoxNews.com:

Gorsuch sworn in as Supreme Court justice ahead of key cases

Justice Neil Gorsuch, vowing to be a “faithful servant” to the Constitution, was sworn in Monday to the Supreme Court, capping a grueling confirmation process and filling the seat once held by the late Antonin Scalia. 

The latest addition to the court was sworn in at a public ceremony in the Rose Garden. Justice Anthony Kennedy – Gorsuch’s former boss – administered the Judicial Oath, the second of two Gorsuch took.

“To the American people, I am humbled by the trust placed in me today,” Gorsuch said after taking the oath. “I will never forget to whom much is given to much will be expected, and I promise you that I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great nation.”

At the ceremony, President Trump called Gorsuch a man of “unmatched qualification” and “deeply devoted” to the Constitution.

“I have no doubt you will rise to the occasion, and the decisions you make will protect our Constitution today and for many generations of Americans to come,” he said.

The second of my two primary Trump Voting Factors has occurred. Antonin Scalia’s position on the US Supreme Court has been filled with a Scalia-like jurist.

The WashingtonPost.com writes:

Gorsuch will be put to work immediately. The court meets privately Thursday to consider cases for the next term. On the list is a plea that the court decide whether the Second Amendment grants a right to carry firearms outside the home. Another case asks whether businesses may refuse to provide wedding services to same-sex couples.

Next week, the court begins its last round of oral arguments for the term. Gorsuch, who in the past has defended the rights of religious objectors to laws they say violate their beliefs, could be the deciding vote in a major “separation of church and state” case from Missouri.

The timing is perfect and, for once, I have to tip my hat to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He persevered in terms of enacting the so-called “Joe Biden Rule” and held his mud against the firestorm that resulted from the Demorats. Let us review the rule:

McConnell took serious heat but kept on track. Further, he displayed spine in terms of activating the nuclear option in the face of the Demorat filibuster.

It is possible the court may reveal that it is deadlocked on several cases it has heard this term. The court, with four liberals nominated by Democratic presidents and four mostly conservative justices picked by Republicans, would schedule rehearings in those cases so Gorsuch could break the ties.

Moreover, one of the most important cases for the GOP and conservatives is just around the corner.

And in a matter of weeks, the court might be called upon to get involved in Trump’s second travel ban targeting refugees and people entering the United States from certain countries.

In some ways, Gorsuch is the prototypical justice. He is the 109th man among the 113 justices in the court’s history. All but two of the men were white. He is a favorite of the conservative legal establishment and has family roots in Republican politics.

Like five of his colleagues, Gorsuch attended Harvard Law School; the others went to Yale. He was hired as a Supreme Court clerk by fellow Coloradan Justice Byron White. Because White had retired by then, Gorsuch was loaned to Kennedy for the 1993-94 term.

He becomes the first former clerk to serve on the court alongside his boss.

GOP 1, Demorats and Leftists, 0.

BZ

 

 Share