February 1-2, 2017
Feb 01 01:49 Trump's grand slam nominee Feb 01 11:39 Democrats' dilemma: fight or flop? Feb 01 20:11 Prof. Dershowitz vs. Brian Fallon Feb 01 20:43 Elizabeth Warren, unhinged Feb 02 02:56 Another ill-informed do-gooder Feb 02 11:25 Democrats' non-participation trophy Feb 02 13:52 Stupid then or dishonest now? Feb 02 18:16 Sen. Schumer, spoiled brat edition
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Trump's grand slam nominee
In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, President Trump didn't hit a home run. Metaphorically speaking, he hit a grand slam in his first major league at-bat. It's apparent that it's a grand slam when the NY Times publishes an op-ed gushing about Judge Gorsuch.
Neal Katyal's op-ed isn't something that you'd expect to find on the NY Times' op-ed page. The fourth paragraph of Katyal's op-ed is gushy, saying "I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation's highest court."
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the editors at National Review wrote "Originalism has faced resistance in modern times mostly because liberals would rather not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution in order to edit it to their liking, removing its structural limits on governmental power and putting their preferred policies beyond democratic review. Gorsuch's record gives us cause to believe that he would use his vote and his voice to side with the actual Constitution ."
President Trump looked totally confident when he announced his pick:
President Trump explained why he picked Judge Gorsuch. He outlined the lengthy, impressive list of qualities Judge Gorsuch possesses. After President Trump finished his presentation, he turned the microphone over to Judge Gorsuch.
One thing that seemed to jump out at everyone was when Judge Gorsuch said that a judge that agrees with every ruling he's made "is probably a bad judge." The clear intent of that statement is that judges that agree with their rulings are most likely substituting their policy preferences for the text on the page. For instance, a judge that bans flag-burning isn't doing his/her job. Few people think that burning the flag is the right thing to do. Most people would criticize it. The First Amendment, though, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't prohibit people from saying things we find hateful.
Based on what's out there, Judge Gorsuch understands that perfectly. That's why we should think he's the best possible pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.
Posted Wednesday, February 1, 2017 1:49 AM
No comments.
Democrats' dilemma: fight or flop?
Now that President Trump has picked Judge Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, Democrats face a difficult decision. Within their meeting rooms, they're asking whether they should fight President Trump's pick or whether they should try to push Judge Gorsuch enough to please their special interest puppeteers.
It isn't difficult to figure out which camp Sen. Franken is in. In his statement after the announcement, Sen. Franken said "Long before his election, President Trump promised to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, who held a deeply conservative view of the Constitution and the Court. In the coming weeks, I will be closely examining Neil Gorsuch's background, but I have serious concerns about his judicial philosophy-especially on issues like access to justice, corporate accountability, workers' rights, and women's health. I was hopeful that the President would have selected someone like Merrick Garland, a consensus candidate lauded by the same Republicans who ultimately refused to hold a hearing on him for nearly a year."
I wish someone would explain to Sen. Franken that Supreme Court justices aren't supposed to be legislators. That's his job, at least for a little while longer. Another perspective is whether Democrats should push Judge Gorsuch a little before caving.
That's apparently what Sen. Durbin is thinking :
Only 12 days into this administration, we've already seen unlawful executive orders blocked by a federal court, and the unprecedented dismissal of an Attorney General for disagreeing with the president. I believe the independence of our judicial system, and especially the Supreme Court, is more critical now than at any time in recent history. That is the context in which I will review this nomination.
I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him - both of which were denied to an eminently qualified nominee presented by President Obama. The American people need to know what they can expect from this nominee, and that he will protect our fundamental constitutional rights on issues like voting rights, immigration, privacy, and women's health. In recent years, the court's decisions have shifted dramatically toward big money corporate interests at the expense of American workers and small businesses - we need a Court that is on the side of Main Street, not Wall Street. This Supreme Court seat does not belong to President Trump or to any political party. It belongs to the American people, and I will work to make sure their voices are heard in this debate.
This article suggests that Democrats will back off. I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:39 AM
No comments.
Prof. Dershowitz vs. Brian Fallon
Apparently, Brian Fallon didn't get beat up enough during the election when his candidate, Hillary Clinton, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After defending the worst presidential candidate in recent history, Fallon has decided that he'd like to match constitutional wits with Alan Dershowitz. Fallon wrote this op-ed to spin the Democrats' BS that President Trump's firing of an insubordinate acting AG was scandalous.
Fallon's lightweight arguments aren't persuasive. In the op-ed, Fallon said "It is an entirely appropriate exercise of the attorney general's authority to determine whether, and how, to defend a president's executive orders in the face of legal challenge. In this case, while Trump's executive order may avoid explicit mention of banning Muslims or assigning preference to Christian refugees, the order will certainly have that discriminatory effect."
Meanwhile, Prof. Dershowitz wrote that "Sally Yates is neither a hero, nor a villain. She made an honest mistake when she instructed the entire Justice Department not to defend President Trump's wrong-headed executive order on immigration. The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not 'right.'"
Firing Sally Yates wasn't just proper. It was essential. She disagreed with President Trump's policy. Prof. Dershowitz said that that's wrong:
There are significant differences between the constitutional status of green card holders on the one hand, and potential visitors from another country who are seeking visas. Moreover, there are statutory issues in addition to constitutional ones. A blanket order to refuse to defend any part of the statute is overkill .
If she strongly disagreed with the policies underlying the order, she should have resigned in protest, and left it to others within the Justice Department to defend those parts of the order that are legally defensible.That's what happens when you send a boy king to do a man's job.
Posted Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:26 PM
No comments.
Elizabeth Warren, unhinged
To nobody's surprise, Elizabeth Warren's statement on President Trump's pick of Judge Gorsuch was filled with criticism.
Sen. Pocahontas started by saying "President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test. Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests."
That's rich coming from a 1-percenter who got a $1,300,000 line of credit from Bank of America but didn't disclose it, thanks to a loophole created for bought-and-paid-for politicians. Then Sen. Pocahontas said "Judge Neil Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have reviewed in detail, paints a clear picture. Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women's access to basic health care."
Rather than giving this mean-spirited (and likely dishonest) spin, why doesn't Sen. Pocahontas cite the specific rulings? Is it because these rulings weren't really about what Sen. Pocahontas says they're about? Is it perhaps because she's twisting Judge Gorsuch's record because she's playing to the Democrats' special interests?
This is especially rich:
Every day, our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for our independent judiciary, our civil society, and the rule of law. Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans - civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don't need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence.
Sen. Pocahontas doesn't want an independent judiciary. She wants a judiciary that rules favorably on the Democrats' agenda . That isn't independent, just friendly.
Posted Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:43 PM
No comments.
Another ill-informed do-gooder
Michelle Brane of the Women's Refugee Commission was on Tucker Carlson Tonight last night. During the interview, Ms. Brane said a couple things that were either spin or were dishonest. My first impression is that Ms. Brane's statements were proof of her ignorance.
Carlson started the conversation by saying "I'm looking at the polling on refugee resettlement and the public cannot be described as supporting it, now or in the past, strikingly low support for resettling refugees in this country. And if you ask people 'do you want them resettled where you live, in your neighborhood', it's even lower and I'm wondering why that is. I'm wondering why people don't support it."
Ms. Brane replied "Well, first of all, I'm not sure people don't support it and some polls show that they don't support it and I know that support for the programs varies. It varies over time. It varies geographically."
Later, Ms. Brane stumbled onto something when she said "At least the Americans that I engage with, and I try and be diverse in my encounters with people, I do think that people do support it." That's important because it's apparent that Ms. Brane hasn't visited the cities with high refugee populations. People don't support refugee resettlement because they're a definite economic hardship on local communities.
The way that the program is set up, from what I've seen up close, it's destined to fail. NPOs love the money that the State Department pays them to resettle refugees. Once they're settled, though, the NPOs' job is essentially finished. Because many of these refugees don't have the skills to be employed, they either start applying for local government benefits or they're perfect targets for radicalization.
Refugee resettlement programs are lucrative for organizations like Lutheran Social Services or Catholic Charities. The State Department pays these charities quite handsomely to find refugees a place to live. Once that's over, however, the communities, not the charities, pick up the rest of the refugees' tab.
Those of us that've dealt with the resettlement programs' expenses know that the NPOs get the money but that the communities get the bills.
Posted Thursday, February 2, 2017 2:56 AM
No comments.
Democrats' non-participation trophy
Sen. Hatch didn't hesitate in changing the Senate Finance Committee rules after Democrats failed to attend a confirmation vote for Steve Mnuchin to be President Trump's Treasury Secretary and Rep. Tom Price to be President Trump's HHS Secretary for a second day in a row.
This morning, Democrat senators didn't attend the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, where Chairman Barrasso had scheduled a confirmation vote to recommend Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator.
Democrats are trying to prevent Republicans from putting in place President Trump's cabinet. Republicans, growing weary of the Democrats' tactics, have opted to not let the Democrats' obstructionist tactics prevail. They're sending the signal that the Democrats' obstructionism hurts the American people. Republicans are sending the signal that Sen. Schumer's stunts won't be tolerated.
Thus far, leaders of The Resistance have insisted that their Democratic puppets dance. Thus far, Democrat senators haven't resisted these special interest tyrants. It's just more proof that Democrats don't represent people. This video is proof aplenty that Democrats exclusively represent special interest groups:
If Democrats keep pulling these stunts, they'll suffer massive defeats in 2018. Republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority after the 2018 election. If Democrats want to be all obstruction all the time, their participation trophy will be political irrelevance. They will have earned that 'trophy'.
Posted Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:25 AM
No comments.
Stupid then or dishonest now?
One of the questions that the supposedly MSM isn't asking of Democrats concerns Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally straightforward. First, let's inform people who've been comatose for the last 10 years that Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with a 95-0 vote. That means Chuck Schumer voted for his confirmation. That means Joe Biden voted for him. That means Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him. That means Harry Reid voted for him.
One of the silliest arguments being made against confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was made by Nan Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice. She told FNC's Tucker Carlson that this time it's different because the appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Ms. Aron's reply is silly because appointments to all appellate courts are lifetime appointments. But I digress.
The questions that the MSM should ask Democrats that voted for Judge Gorsuch then and who are still in the Senate is this: Are you being dishonest now in calling Judge Gorsuch names? Were you that stupid when you voted to confirm him in 2006? If you're being dishonest now, why should people trust your criticisms? If you were hoodwinked in 2006, why should people think that you aren't getting it wrong this time?
Nan Aron's opposition to Judge Gorsuch is simple: he wasn't appointed by a Democratic president and because he's wrong, in Nan's opinion, on abortion. Aron's litmus test, her religion really, is that everyone should 'support a woman's right to choose.' Anyone who doesn't hold that view is outside Ms. Aron's mainstream.
Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and Bernie Sanders won't hesitate in filibustering Judge Gorsuch. That's because they're thinking about running for president in 2020. If they don't filibuster, they're toast in 2020. What's still in question, though, is whether red state Democrats up for re-election in 2018 will filibuster, too. Sherrod Brown has announced he'll vote against confirming Judge Gorsuch. The rest of the vulnerable Democrats are sitting silent.
Eventually, they'll face a moment of truth. I don't expect to see lots of profiles in courage at that point.
Posted Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:52 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Feb-17 05:43 PM
Gorsuch is a clear cut above John Roberts.
It is much like comparing a cone snail to a box jellyfish.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Feb-17 05:45 PM
Bernie is still an independent, isn't he? He votes with the Dems on organizing, but they still are too corporatist.
Hoping the Justice Democrats get traction, but not expecting it. You must be happy with the Bannon-Mercer presidency.
Sen. Schumer, spoiled brat edition
It's clear that Sen. Schumer and his leadership team can't resist acting like spoiled brats. This article offers an unsightly insight into Sen. Schumer's peevish mindset. According to the article, "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic Senate leaders refused to meet with Judge Neil Gorsuch Thursday. The act appears to be revenge against Republicans for holding the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia open and not holding a hearing for Obama Supreme Court appointee Merrick Garland."
Sen. Schumer doesn't sound like the Senate Minority Leader. He sounds like a toddler going through terrible twos while constantly throwing hissy fits. Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, issued a statement, saying "By refusing to meet with Judge Gorsuch, Senate Democratic leadership is taking Washington gridlock and obstruction to a new low and placing Senators McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester, and other Democrats up for reelection in 2018 on the endangered politicians list."
Apparently, Sen. Schumer thinks it's more important to fire up his out-of-touch base than to act like an adult. Lou Dobbs put it perfectly in this video:
Sen. Schumer's stupidity and tone-deafness will keep him as the Senate Minority Leader until 2022 and possibly longer. He has only himself to blame for that.
Posted Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:16 PM
No comments.
