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
John Roberts: The Umpire Strikes Out
Jun 25, 2015 Commentary, Political, SCOTUScare
There is no doubt Chief Justice John Roberts is an intelligent man. He can cite and discuss legal cases without notes and he is well versed. These fact make his two decisions in the Affordable Care Act (previously known as Obamacare but now to be known as SCOTUScare) quite perplexing. Roberts basically rewrote the law and twisted logic as well as stepping out of his area of responsibility to ensure that the law formerly known as Obamacare survived.
When the ACA was being forced on us the Obama Regime said that the fee for not getting insurance was a penalty and NOT a tax. Obama chided George Stephanopoulos when George said the penalty seemed to fit the dictionary definition of a tax. Of course Obama was lying then because he knew it was actually a tax.
But the Regime called it a penalty and defended it as such to the public. The Democrats called it a penalty in the law and told their constituents that it was not a tax. Mr. Gruber, the POS who helped with this said it had to be called a penalty or it would have never passed and that the Regime depended on the stupidity of the public to get it passed.
When the Regime went to court it argued that the penalty was really a tax for the purpose of arguing in court and that anything to the contrary was just silly.
Despite overwhelming evidence John Roberts sided with the left wing of the court and rewrote the legislation to make the penalty a tax and within the authority of Congress. He upheld the law by legislating from the bench.
Fast forward to now. There is a portion of the ACA that says subsidies will only be available to those who get insurance from exchanges established by the state. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this sentence means the individual states. This is how it was intended and the Democrats along with Goebbels Gruber even told us that it would be in the best interest of the people if states set up exchanges so that the people could get subsidies. Given the straight forward language and what they said there is no doubt what it was supposed to be. This sentence was the subject of a Supreme Court case and once again Roberts sided with the liberal wing and rewrote the legislation. Roberts read the minds of those in Congress (Democrats only) and concluded that they really meant that state and federal government.
Roberts disgraced himself and his court and his legacy will be one of failure. I do not like the left wing right wing idea of a court. Courts are supposed to be impartial and rule on the law. Roberts made himself a legislator along with the lefties and rewrote the law to once again save Obama.
After Roberts knelt before Obama and pleased him there is no doubt now how he will vote on gay marriage. This issue should be left to the states and Roberts made a big deal of states rights when he was nominated but he will vote with the rainbow crowd and swallow hard for Obama.
It seems to me that Roberts must have been neglected as a child. His parents probably did not love him and daddy was probably never around. Roberts appears to need the approval of others and he seems to go out of his way to get the approval of Obama, his closet lover.
John Roberts once believed, or at least he said he did, that the judiciary was there to interpret not to make up the laws. Roberts basically stated that it is not his job to play the game or make the rules but to make sure those playing the game are following he rules. He did that when he compared judges to baseball umpires: “[I]t’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
Roberts has gone from being just the umpire to also being on the rules committee. Instead of just making sure others follow the rules he is now changing them to suit his master’s needs. Indeed, the umpire has struck out.
Justice Scalia put it most succinctly when he stated in his dissent (it is well worth your time to read the dissent. Scalia basically spells out how it should work in a legal and logical way and he holds little back with regard to how he views his colleagues in the majority):
Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. Court Ruling
Scalia is correct. This court has a mandate and it is to protect and save the law now known as SCOTUScare. Obama put Kagan and Sotomayor on the court because they are not jurists they are activists. They do not care what the Constitution says or what is lawful or right as long as their liberal views and desires are taken care of. They are there to ensure the liberal agenda (I should call it the Communist agenda since Jarrett and Obama were raised by Commies and are commies themselves) is upheld the law and the Constitution be damned. Add those two to Buzzy Ginsburg, Breyer and wishy-washy Kennedy and you have the make up of a court that ignores the rule of law. When Roberts joins the mix it equals the downfall of society and the furtherance of communism.
God help them all when the day comes for them to be held accountable. It will be quite unpleasant indeed.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: communism, dissent, lies, pussy, roberts, scalia, scotuscare
Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew
Jun 29, 2010 Political
The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.
The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.
The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.
The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.
Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.
How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?
As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.
No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.
Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.
Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.
I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.
The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.
The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.
How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):
In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.
While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.
These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.
One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.
If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.
UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.
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: blacks, gun control, Obama, scalia, Second Amendment, slavery, stevens, supreme court, thomas
Did Scalia Makes Sotomayor’s Case For Her?
Jun 5, 2009 Political
Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:
“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”
I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.
The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.
One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.
There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.
One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:
I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.
I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?
Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.
But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia
This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?
I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.
Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.
If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.
Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.
[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: judge, Obama, scalia, sotomayor, supreme court