Judging From Their History Dems Should Be OK With A Delay
Feb 17, 2016 2016 Election, Tyranny
A lot has been going on since Justice Scalia died over the weekend. The liberal left celebrated his death and mocked his life and the job he did in the Supreme Court. They mocked him because he had the audacity to actually use the Constitution when he interpreted law instead of using his feelings or his partisan beliefs like say, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor.
Barack Obama and Democrats in the Senate, smelling blood in the water and not wanting to let an opportunity to give the court a liberal majority, made demands of Republicans who, thank goodness, hold the majority in the Senate. These Democrats demanded that the Republicans make sure Obama’s nominee gets a shot. They basically want a rubber stamp for whichever left wing socialist America hater Obama nominates.
Republicans, so far, are having none of it. They want to wait and let the next president make the nomination.
The Democrats have a point (besides the ones on top their heads) in that the president, under the Constitution, has a duty to nominate. We can ignore for a moment that Obama has never abided by his duty under the Constitution and focus on what they want. They want Obama to nominate and that nomination not to be blocked.
They seem to forget that the Constitution also says that the president nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate. So the Senate has to consent and they do this by voting yes or no. Obama can put forth all the nominations he wants but there is nothing wrong with voting no on each and every one of them.
Democrats would have you believe this is out of the ordinary and unprecedented but our history shows it has been done before and that one vacancy existed for over two years because the Senate and president did not see eye to eye.
Now that was a long time ago but blocking nominees has happened in the recent past. Hell, Chuck Schumer, a guy who looks like his neck threw up, vowed that any vacancy in the Court that happened during George W Bush’s lame duck term would be blocked. Schumer made this declaration 19 months before Bush’s term would end. No vacancy came up but it was already out there that if one did no nominee would be considered.
In 1960 Democrats passed a resolution that presidents could not nominate during an election year.
Many Democrats now screaming for the vacancy to be filled have records of voting against nominations and of holding up the process. So the reality is there is no reason for Republicans to give in and allow Obama to get another liberal on the SCOTUS.
If they do not like it well that’s just too bad.
But if he does nominate anyone I think it would be reasonable to expose their entire life, make a mockery of their judicial experience, chastise them for their views, pick apart their judicial opinions, and generally make their life and the lives of their family miserable until they decide to withdraw from consideration.
Oh how horrible!
Two words, Robert Bork.
Now liberals, please quit your whining and sit back and accept that which you were so willing to do when you were in the majority.
And Republicans, do not give in to these morons. Mitch McConnell, you have a history of caving to Obama. If you do then you can rest assured you will lose control of the Senate and Trump will likely be the nominee for the Republican Party. Screw us over and we will strike back.
Do not let Barack Obama get another young liberal partisan hack on the court so the rest of us will be forced to live with their anti-American decisions for decades to come.
It is time to sack up and fight.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: delay, ginsberg, kagan, liberals, lies, nominee, Obama, scalia, scotus, sotomayor
The Constitution Trumps ALL Other Reasons
Apr 3, 2012 Political
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case against Obamacare and the initial impressions from most thinking people are that it will not stand. The impression is that the individual mandate will not pass Constitutional muster and that the entire law might be struck down. The left realizes this and has begun its attacks. They have been chastising Justices for being unwilling to read a 2700 page law to determine which parts can be saved.
This anger comes from the same people who did not read it before they voted to pass it.
There is speculation that Obama already knows how things will shake out and I think that if he does it is because Justice Kagan leaked the results of the vote to him.
He made his first public statements on the issue yesterday and he discussed how it would be unprecedented for this law to be ruled unconstitutional. He discussed how justices are unelected and he said that the bill was passed by a “strong majority” in Congress.
This is all bluster and to me indicates he knows how the vote went and he is positioning himself to run against the Republicans who challenged this and the “activist” court that threw it out.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, period. In that document the Supreme Court is charged with making sure the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches are within the confines of it. The Court is not activist if it rules that the Constitution was violated. An activist court is one that makes its own rules or laws. One that follows the Constitution is not activist no matter how much Obama claims it is. It would be an activist Court if it went through the legislation and decided piece by piece which parts are OK. That is for Congress to do. The Court only needs to decide Constitutionality of the mandate and then decide to scrap the entire law or not. Congress should handle the aftermath.
It also matters not one bit how many members of Congress voted to pass a bill. If every single member voted to pass a bill establishing the Catholic Church as the official church of the United States it would be unconstitutional. You can bet that Obama and every other person screaming about the majority in Congress who passed Obamacare would be lining up to oppose such a ruling because it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obama would not say the Court should not overturn it because it was passed by a strong majority, he would be screaming about violating the Constitution.
We have a Supreme Court to ensure that majorities of any kind do not violate the Constitution and pass laws that affect people in violation of our law. That is their function and they are tasked with that duty.
One thing is certain; the number of members of Congress who voted on something is not a criterion the Court uses to determine if an item is Constitutional.
James Clyburn (D-SC) has suggested that Obama run against the Supreme Court. As Obama pointed out, they are unelected but his public statements leave the impression he is doing just that.
Perhaps, but it will do him no good. If Obama is concerned with majorities, a large majority of Americans (larger than the majority that passed Obamacare) oppose Obamacare and those folks will not be swayed by some argument that runs contrary to the idea that the Supremes upheld the Constitution.
Liberals will generally support Obama but are fed up with high unemployment and gas prices so they might stay home on Election Day.
Blacks, of course, will support him in overwhelming numbers no matter what he does.
The important take away is that the Constitution trumps all other items and that the Supremes are tasked with ensuring that document is upheld by the other two branches of government. This is why Obama does not like the Constitution and why he feels it is an outdated document.
It is also why he ignores it.
The true activists on the Court are the liberal justices whose work involves social engineering. They do not follow the Constitution and they work to uphold liberal ideas with little regard for the Constitution.
These justices Obama does not refer to as activists.
Obama says rejection would be unprecedented but he is wrong (hyperbole anyone). I would like to say it is unprecedented that something that is so obviously unconstitutional would go down to a 5-4 ruling.
Sadly, a 5-4 ruling is the norm as liberals ignore the Constitution in favor of social engineering.
Obama is proud of them even if he does not understand the Constitution.
Maggie’s Notebook has an interesting article.
The Daily Caller has an article about Obama’s hollow threat to the Supremes…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Democrats, kagan, laws, lies, Obama, obamacare, supreme court
Kagan Changes Tune Now That She Is In The Seat
Jun 30, 2010 Political
Elena Kagan will be confirmed barring any major gaffe (a Joe Biden type gaffe) on her part. There is no way (short of a filibuster) to stop her confirmation even though she has little experience for the position which should not be an issue, she is after all, in the mold of Barry and he was the least qualified person to hold his current job.
Kagan will end up being a Justice on the Supreme Court and despite what she says, her politics and personal views and NOT the Constitution will guide her. Chuck Schumer describes her as a moderate which she is definitely not. She seems intelligent and articulate but moderate she is not.
She banned military recruiters at Harvard (and yet insists she didn’t) because she disagreed with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I have no problem with that action as long as she then refused federal funding in accordance with the law. Kagan has been describing what she did but her version is different from reality. She opposed DADT but did not initially ban recruiters because of the funding issue. As soon as a lower court ruled the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional she banned them. This is because she would not lose the money. When the Supreme Court overturned that ruling she allowed recruiters once again. She is not as principled as she claims because she put getting taxpayer money ahead of her so called principled views.
A principled person would have banned them regardless of the money.
But having principles is not necessarily her strong point. Case in point, she avoided many questions by claiming that the issue might come before the court which is not unusual for a nominee to do. However, in her case she is doing that which she railed against in the past:
Kagan in 1995:
In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.Kagan today:
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule on pending cases or cases “that might come before the court in the future” — or to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues. The New York Times
The common feeling is that nominees evade things during confirmation and claim they will follow the Constitution and then do what they want once on the bench. Of course Kagan and her supporters say she would not do such a thing but she has demonstrated that she will change her stance based on politics. She said that nominees should be more open but now the politics of the issue requires her to do the exact opposite.
Kagan also refused to comment on past rulings of the Court because she felt she would be grading the Court. How is this even an issue? She should comment on the so called settled cases and let the Senate know how she would have ruled or how she feels about a ruling. You can bet she would not mind commenting on past cases that are popular. If someone asked her how she felt about Brown v. Board of Education or the Dred Scott Decision you can bet she would tell how wonderful it is that we now have fully desegregated schools and and how the Fourteenth* Amendment overturned Scott and made freemen citizens and not property.
So why not opine on other decisions? If stare decisis is so sacrosanct, why not comment?
It is also alleged that Kagan was instrumental in altering a document in order to present a view to the Supreme Court that was not intended by the experts who wrote the document. This is dishonest and should have resulted in her disbarment. The document altered changed an opinion of OB doctors from anti partial birth abortion to pro partial birth abortion. This should tell us all we need to know about her.
There is no doubt Kagan is a progressive and will rule based on progressive ideals. We expected that when Obama nominated her. Her lack of experience is troubling and we could end up with the same kind of disaster we call Obama. The difference is, the longest we can possibly be stuck with him is eight years. She is young and her appointment will be for a lifetime which could be 30 or 40 years.
Well, at least that is plenty of time for on the job training.
At least Al Franken had a good time. I have to say it is a pretty good drawing.
*changed from Thirteenth
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al franken, inexperience, kagan, Obama, recruiters, solomon amendment, supreme court