Tag Archives: Neil Gorsuch

Democrats conspire to obstruct Kavanaugh hearing and pay Antifa protesters

Posted on by

And there is evidence to prove it.

Aurally, photographically and otherwise.

But first, this statement: Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Senate.

Beginning, from Breitbart.com:

Dick Durbin Admits: Democrats Plotted to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Hearing

by Joel B. Pollak

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court that he and other Democrats participated in a conference call on how to disrupt the hearings.

Durbin was responding to a question by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who cited an NBC News tweet from earlier in the morning that reported that Senate Democrats had planned over the Labor Day weekend to use protests and interruptions.

The hearing had already been disrupted several times by protesters — led by the anti-Trump and Democrat-aligned Women’s March, which claimed credit — and several senators also interrupted proceedings with interjections.

Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina asked:

“This is outrageous.” And then Durbin assumes full Deflection Mode.

Then, from TheGatewayPundit.com:

Schumer Plotted Kavanaugh Disruptions in Weekend Call – Including Execution of Mob Tactics

by Cristina Laila

President Trump’s Supreme Court pick Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning

Democrats and screaming protesters interrupted the hearing for the first half hour.
Judge Kavanaugh has not even been sworn in yet!

It was all planned.

Democrats plotted the coordinated protest over the holiday weekend. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a phone call and Committee members are executing now, reported NBC’s Kasie Hunt.

Of course we know the results.

Judge Kavanaugh was heckled by screaming protesters Tuesday morning.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) unleashed on Democrat lawmakers for requesting to delay Kavanaugh’s hearing over ‘withheld documents.’

Kavanaugh gave the Senate Judiciary Committee over 430,000 documents which is two times more than any SCOTUS nominee in US history, but this isn’t good enough for the Democrats.

This occurred the very first day of the hearings last week.

People like this should be led away if for no other reason than their shrill voices break glass and injure the eardrums of small children and animals.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk made some observations about the Kavanaugh protests outside the Capitol. And protesters themselves learned something significant as well: there is a difference between “free speech” on a college campus and free speech in real life. Listen to the purposeful indifference of the police regarding the protester’s umbrage.

But wait; there’s more. Here, the Daily Caller provides an inside peek at the Kavanaugh protests.

So: Antifa and other paid to protest? Naturally.

From LawAndCrime.com:

Doctors claim they saw protesters get paid to disrupt Kavanaugh hearing

by Ronn Blitzer

Judge Brett Kavanaugh‘s Supreme Court confirmation hearing was interrupted several times by protesters who shouted over Senators who were speaking, many of whom were arrested. Now, three men from Texas who were there claim that they saw some of them get paid for their actions.

Video of their comments has been circling in conservative circles, and the men were speaking with Adam Schindler, a digital strategy consultant who is a supporter of President Donald Trump. The doctors’ story has not been verified by any official body, but Schindler has shared photos that appear to back up their claim.

It gets better. Photographically.

In one image that he posted to Twitter, a woman in a black and white top can be seen with a man who appears to be handing her cash. In another photo, an individual who appears to be that same woman is being escorted out of the hearing by officers.

That photo is above. As my professors in college would say, “compare and contrast.”

Same chick, same hair, same ugly dress, getting removed from the Kavanaugh hearing. How about a confirmation photograph?

Check the cash. But why stop there? The article continues:

One of the men, Dr. Tom Schlueter, described one of these alleged transactions.

“One thing was there were people who had come along … who had a bag of money, and people would hand them a piece of paper, and then they would give them money,” he said. “So we know money was exchanged for some of the people to be here, just to protest.”

Schlueter then described instructions that these people supposedly received.

“They were actually told, we heard them say this, ‘when you go in, we want you to yell, to scream, and even possibly to get arrested.’ So that was some of the processes we saw happening,” he recalled.

Good ol’ American grassroots protests. Uh, by people who otherwise wouldn’t be there unless they knew some coin was in the offing. Here is the audio.

Then this from the GatewayPundit.com:

CONFIRMED: Organizer Vinay Krishnan Who Was Caught Paying Off Kavanaugh Protesters — Works for Soros-Linked Organization

by Jim Hoft

On Tuesday several Texas doctors attended the Kavanaugh hearing in Washington DC. After the hearing the doctors told reporter Adam Schindler that they witnessed organized activists with a bag of cash paying the rent-a-mob protesters.

So perhaps you’re wondering, “who is Vinay Krishnan”?

Vinay is an “organizer of civil disobedience” who works for a George Soros-funded group, the Center for Popular Democracy.

I’d like to end the post with this, in what is likely the most revealing thing said during the Kavanaugh hearings, spoken by young Two-Fer Kamala Harris, a rising star for Demorat consideration in the 2020 presidential election. Listen to this interchange.

“That book that you carry” is only the US Constitution. But who holds that dear? Her? Leftists? Demorats? The American Media Maggots? Of course not. Kamala Harris couldn’t be more smarmy, dismissive, alienating, snide, smug, berating, self-righteous, arrogant and plastered with what she fervently believes is her inherent intellectual superiority.

But four very important bottom lines are these:

  1. President Trump is just that: the President of the United States of America, and
  2. Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sits on the SCOTUS bench, and
  3. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed as a sitting member of SCOTUS, and
  4. I’ll wager President Trump is going to be afforded the opportunity to nominate a third SCOTUS member before the end of his first term or early in his second term.

BZ

 

 Share

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

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

54 to 45: Judge Gorsuch confirmed

Posted on by

Following a filibuster by the Demorats and the subsequent enabling of the “nuclear option” by the GOP on Thursday, Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as the newest associate justice to the US Supreme Court on Friday, by a Senate vote of 54 to 45.

The installation of Neil Gorsuch removes the confusion experienced by SCOTUS and the confounding issue of cases being returned to their originating DCAs. That is to say, if, during an opinion, SCOTUS had a 4-to-4 tie, the opinion of the lower court held.

This now at least gives the court the ability to reach majority decisions of 4/5, 5/4, a highly important difference.

Judge Gorsuch will be officially sworn in on Monday, April 10th.

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