Advertisements

[VIDEO] Schumer Proposes a Deal on Gorsuch Nomination, GOP Responds

Advertisements

[VIDEO] Media, Democrats Praise Gorsuch Confirmation Performance 


[VIDEO] SUPERCUTS: Democrats Whine About Originalism at Gorsuch Hearing

 


[VIDEO] Franken Visibly Frustrated When Gorsuch Doesn’t Take Bait on Merrick Garland Question 


[VIDEO] Sen Cruz Calls Out Democrats On Double Standard They’ve Created For Gorsuch 

 

 


Charles Krauthammer’s Religious Epiphany

harry-pray-krauthammer

He guaranteed Neil Gorsuch elevation to the Supreme Court.

…Donald Trump for winning the election. Hillary Clinton for losing it. Mitch McConnell for holding open the high court seat through 2016, resolute and immovable against furious (and hypocritical) opposition from Democrats and media. And, of course, Harry Reid.

supreme-court-ext

God bless Harry Reid. It’s because of him that Gorsuch is guaranteed elevation to the court. In 2013, as Senate majority leader, Reid blew up the joint. He abolished the filibuster for federal appointments both executive (such as Cabinet) and judicial, for all district and circuit court judgeships (excluding only the Supreme Court). Thus unencumbered, the Democratic-controlled Senate packed the lower courts with Obama nominees.

curtains-for-harry

Reid was warned that the day would come when Republicans would be in the majority and would exploit the new rules to equal and opposite effect. That day is here.

nr-reid

The result is striking. Trump’s Cabinet appointments are essentially unstoppable because Republicans need HarryReidClockonly 51 votes and they have 52. They have no need to reach 60, the number required to overcome a filibuster. Democrats are powerless to stop anyone on their own.

[Read the full story here, at The Washington Post]

And equally powerless to stop Gorsuch. But isn’t the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees still standing? Yes, but if the Democrats dare try it, everyone knows that Majority Leader McConnell will do exactly what Reid did and invoke the nuclear option — filibuster abolition — for the Supreme Court, too.

Reid never fully appreciated the magnitude of his crime against the Senate. As I wrote at the time, the offense was not abolishing the filibuster — you can argue that issue either way — but that he did it by simple majority. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Neil Gorsuch: Everything You Need to Know. Q&A with Randy Barnett 

Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

 


[VIDEO] REWIND: Scalia on Flag Burning 

american-flag-burning

 


A Constitutional Amendment Overturning Citizens United: Really? How?

shutterstock_380347219-web-660x440

Peter J. Wallison writes: One jarring note in Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was her statement that she would press for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

“The New York Times is a corporation, so this language would prohibit the Times from editorializing in favor of or against either Ms. Clinton or Donald Trump. Moreover, it might shut down blogs, or firms like Facebook or Twitter, that are corporate vehicles for the expression of opinions about candidates by others.”

This 2009 Supreme Court case held that corporations had the same rights as individuals to make statements for or against the election of a candidate for public office. Particularly difficult to understand was her linking Citizens United to the fact that our economy is not functioning well for many Americans.

A sign during a protest against the Citizens United decision in Portland, Oregon. Credit: Flickr/lance_mountain

A sign during a protest against the Citizens United decision in Portland, Oregon. Credit: Flickr/lance_mountain

“Clearly, closing down newspapers that publish editorials wouldn’t be satisfactory to many Americans, and if extended to other corporate opinion forums would be highly unpopular among the American people. How, then, could the language be modified to allow the New York Times and other corporations to express their views and still overturn Citizens United?”

Taking the last point first, what could be the link between Citizens United and a poorly functioning economy? It’s likely that Ms. Clinton wanted her listeners to infer that corporate power, expressed through independent expenditures—presumably Hidden in plain sightcontributions to superpacs or other hidden sources—had distorted the public’s will for the benefit of powerful private parties.

[Order Peter J. Wallison’s book “Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again from Amazon.com]

This is a peculiar claim to make after almost eight years of the Obama presidency, in which the most significant government actions—the Dodd-Frank Act, ObamaCare, and various tax increases on corporations and wealthy individuals—could hardly be said to favor corporations or business interests generally. It is also peculiar in light of a recent Wall Street Journal report that hedge fund contributions to Clinton superpacs have outraised those to Trump superpacs by a ratio of more than 2000-to-1 ($46.5 million to $19,000).

0109-SUPREME-COURT

But leaving aside these anomalies, what is it about Citizens United that has stirred Ms. Clinton to propose something as drastic as a constitutional amendment, especially one affecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech?

[Read the full story here, at AEI]

Many of Ms. Clinton’s listeners who cheered her idea probably believe that their right to free speech would not be affected by overturning Citizens United. Of course, the language of the amendment would be determinative, but let’s assume it is as simple as adding new language at the end of the First Amendment as it now reads. Read the rest of this entry »


Obama: Rule of Law, Due Process, Constitutional Fidelity, and Separation of Powers ‘Sets Our Country Back’

obama-reax

President Obama said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision that will block his 2014 executive actions on immigration “sets our country back,” and is “heartbreaking” for the millions of illegal immigrants still in the country.

“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows,” he said at the White House.

[Read the full story here, at Washington Examiner]

The 4-4 tie left in place a lower court ruling that found against Obama’s actions. But Obama cast the ruling as one that showed the Supreme Court was “unable to reach a decision,” and argued that it’s more evidence that the Senate needs to consider his nominee for the high court, Merrick Garland, so that the court cannot deadlock again.

“This is part of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland,” Obama said.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Read the rest of this entry »


IT’S UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court Ruling Throttles Obama Environmental Agenda

supremecourt-998x697

 reports: The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that landowners can appeal to a federal court when the government subjects their property to wetlandsclimate-freakout
regulations requiring additional permits.

“For more than 40 years, millions of landowners nationwide have had no meaningful way to challenge wrongful application of the federal Clean Water Act to their land.”

The unanimous ruling determined that the Clean Water Act “imposes substantial criminal and civil penalties for discharging any pollutant into waters” covered by federal regulations without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

bn-lu165_1epa_g_20151218180030

They have been put at the mercy of the government because land covered by the Act is subject to complete federal control. This victory guarantees the rights of millions of property owners.”obama-incandescent

— Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper

The decision could weaken the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.

The Corps is in charge of assessing whether a landowner’s property contains “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters,” which are protected under the Clean Water Act. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Our National Obamacare Nightmare 


Taking a Look Back: The Highlight Reel from Obergefell v. Hodges


Cara L. Gallagher, Weekend Contributor, and Elliot Louthen write: This is a beautiful but restless time of year for SCOTUS junkies. The gorgeous, late summer sun sinks faster out of the sky signaling not only the end of the (best) season but also the nearness of the next Supreme Court term. While this reality thrills….(read more)

Source: jonathanturley.org


Seen on Facebook: Justice Thomas & George Taki

thomastakei-532x600

Instapundit » Blog Archive


Williamson in Wonderland: ‘The Supreme Court Has Firmly Established That It Does Not Matter What The Law Says Or Does Not Say’

Illustration: Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, Alice in Wonderland original vintage engraving. Tea party with the Mad Hatter, Dormouse and the White Rabbit. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Illustration from John Tenniel, published in 1865. TEXT: Kevin D. Williamson, National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420406/john-roberts-decision-kevin-d-williamson

Opening paragraph of “Ayatollah Roberts and His Sharia Council” by Kevin D. Williamson
Read Kevin D. Williamson‘s article about the SCOTUS rulings here, at National Review 

 


Elena Kagan: ‘That Was Then, This Is Now’

kagan-2009

Via  at Legal Insurrection Read more here…


Now That Our False ‘Love, Mutual Respect, Equality’ Argument Has Achieved its Purpose, Let’s Dump it and Unveil Our True Agenda

ex-religion-agenda

[TIME]


The SCOTUS Marriage Decision, in Haiku

haiku
Adam White ‏@adamjwhitedc, via Twitter
Sheer genius, from @McSweeneys (via @DouthatNYT)

Dissent Is Now The Highest Form Of Bigotry

shutterstock_249836911-405x270

 Read on… from Brandon McGinley at The Federalist

Also, from Daily Caller‘s Betsy Rothstein writes:

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

0803_freespeech_630x420-e1435340962205

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] REWIND: Barack Obama Describes His Christian Definition of Marriage

 


‘The Mystical Aphorisms of the Fortune Cookie’

Justice Scalia testifies on Capitol Hill in WashingtonFortune-Cookiescookie

‏@Taniel, via Twitter


Friday Document Dump: Read the Ruling!

SUPREME-courtG-ruling

[Read Gay Marriage Ruling – 103 pages]

Featured Image -- 70325


Supreme Court Resigns Duties, Tortures English Language to Save Obamacare

ObamaOrwell

“If only there was some branch of government designed to review legislative actions, thwarting the intentions of Congress if they conflict with the law… oh, wait, that branch does exist…”

 writes: In his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell observed that “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” Today is Orwell’s birthday; it’s also the day the Supreme Court released its 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, which preserves the Affordable Care Act at the expense of plain English.

SupremesOshrug

“The majority opinion explains away this blatant contradiction by expressing confidence that architects of the law intended something other than what they wrote—the opposite of it, in fact.”

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the provision of the law mandating an “Exchange established by the State” should be interpreted to include an Exchange not established by any state, but instead by an agency of the federal government, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

[More – In Upholding Obamacare’s Subsidies, Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law—Again]

In his spot-on dissent, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explains why this is an “impossible possibility”:

Justice Scalia testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal
Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.…

[Read the full text here, at Reason.com]

Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation. None of its tries comes close to establishing the implausible conclusion that Congress used “by the State” to mean “by the State or not by the State.”

torture-obamacare-popularity-contest

The majority opinion explains away this blatant contradiction by expressing confidence that architects of the law intended something other than what they wrote—the opposite of it, in fact. Intent should trump plain English—even when the two directly oppose each other—writes Roberts, because the Court’s job is to defer to the will of lawmakers, and even contort logic to assist them, “if at all possible”: Read the rest of this entry »


Supreme Court Guide: Six Big Decisions Remain

OG-AE878_Scotus_G_20150617193126

The Supreme Court is scheduled to issue decisions Thursday, with six major cases remaining on the docket, and is expected to release opinions again on Friday and perhaps next week. Still to be decided are the health-law subsidies and gay-marriage cases, along with closely watched rulings involving congressional redistricting and power plant emissions. Here’s a list of the remaining cases….(read more)

WSJ


[VIDEO] ‘Confiscation without Compensation’: Laura & Marvin Horne’s Supreme Court Victory in the Federal Government Raisin Fight

 


Recommended Weekend Listening: MZ Hemingway on The Federalist Radio Hour

mz-radio-hour-fdrlst

…Later the Texas policy expert explained the competing liberal and conservative visions implicit in the King v. Burwell Supreme Court Case.audio-button

Senior Federalist Writer, Rich Cromwell also joined the program to highlight his and Mollie’s new sex column.

You can listen here

The Federalist Radio Hour


[VIDEO] Amanda Knox Murder Conviction Overturned by Italy’s Highest Court

Los Angeles (AFP) – American Amanda Knox expressed “tremendous” relief Friday after Italy’s top court cleared her of the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher, drawing a line under the eight-year legal saga.

“I am tremendously relieved and grateful for the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy,” Knox said in a statement shortly after Italy’s Court of Cassation cleared her and Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Amanda Knox waves to supporters as she makes her first appearance at SeaTac Airport after arriving in Seattle following her release from prison in Italy on October 4, 2011 (AFP Photo/Kevin Casey)

Amanda Knox waves to supporters as she makes her first appearance at SeaTac Airport after arriving in Seattle following her release from prison in Italy on October 4, 2011 (AFP Photo/Kevin Casey)

“I am tremendously relieved and grateful for the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy.”

Knox, convicted with Sollecito for a second time last year for taking part in the brutal knife slaying of Kercher, has always vehemently maintained her innocence.

“The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal.”

“The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal,” Knox said.

CBI7KENWwAAsg6M

“And throughout this ordeal, I have received invaluable support from family, friends and strangers. To them, I say: Thank you from the bottom of my heart.”

“And throughout this ordeal, I have received invaluable support from family, friends and strangers. To them, I say: Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

“Your kindness has sustained me. I only wish that I could thank each and every one of you in person.”

“Your kindness has sustained me. I only wish that I could thank each and every one of you in person.”

A separate statement from Knox’s family expressed “profound gratitude” to those who had championed the former student’s innocence. Read the rest of this entry »


BREAKING: ITALIAN COURT RULES NOT GUILTY, AMANDA KNOX ACQUITTED

amanda-conviction-overturned

Amanda Knox’s conviction overturned by Italian court. She will not be sent back to prison

Amanda-Knox-not-guilty

Italy’s top court orders acquittal of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher murder case

ROME — Italy’s highest court overturned the murder conviction against Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Friday, bringing to a definitive end the high-profile case that captivated people on both sides of the Atlantic.

‘‘Finished!’’ Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out. ‘‘It couldn’t be better than this.’’

knox-ng

The decision by the supreme Court of Cassation is the final ruling in the case, ending the long legal battle waged by Knox and Italian co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito. Both Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in her hometown of Seattle, and Sollecito have long maintained their innocence in the death of British student Meredith Kercher.

The supreme Court of Cassation overturned last year’s convictions by a Florence appeals court, and declined to order another trial. The decision means the judges, after thoroughly examining the case, concluded that a conviction could not be supported by the evidence.

Their reasoning will be released within 90 days.

The case has aroused strong interest in three countries for its explosive mix of young love, murder and flip-flop decisions by Italian courts…(read more)

Boston Globe

TIME reports: The Italian Supreme Court overturned Amanda Knox’s conviction Friday for the 2007 murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher.

Knox and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted as co-conspirators in Kercher’s murder in the apartment they shared as exchange students in Perugia in 2009. But that conviction was overturned in 2011 and in 2014, after prosecutors argued that evidence had been omitted in the appeal, the original guilty verdict was reinstated.

But Italy’s Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon to finally acquit the American of the long-hanging charges over her. She had faced extradition to Italy if the conviction had been upheld. Read the rest of this entry »


Still Waiting for Ruling in Amanda Knox Case

knox-watch

ROME – Italy’s highest court was expected to decide Friday whether to uphold the murder convictions of Seattle resident Amanda Knox and her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. But by noon Seattle time — 8 p.m. in Italy — nothing had been heard from the justices.

While Knox is watching what is happening from Seattle, Sollecito is in Italy. His lawyer made a last-ditch appeal to overturn the pair’s convictions for the 2007 slaying Meredith Kercher, Knox’s British roommate.

Attorney Giulia Bongiorno began her defense of Sollecito by offering what she called a “little sampling” of the errors and contradictions of “colossal proportions” in the 2014 Florence appeals court verdict that convicted her client and Knox.

Bongiorno noted, for example, that trial documents indicate that there were “no traces of Sollecito in the room” where Kercher, 21, was sexually assaulted and fatally stabbed.

A one-hour warning will be given before the verdict is read. Read the rest of this entry »


Good News: Americans No Longer Required to Obey Laws, Regulations, or Court Decisions

rise-up-disobey-obama

White House Signals Greater Flexibility and Autonomy, Encourages Non-Compliance for All Americans, All U.S. Laws and Regulations Subject to Individual Discretion

For The Daily CallerSarah Hurtubise reports: The Obama administration will continue handing out Obamacare subsidies to federal exchange customers despite a federal court’s ruling Tuesday that the subsidies are illegal.

A D.C. Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday morning that customers in the 36 states that didn’t establish their own exchange and use HealthCare.gov instead cannot be given premium tax credits, according to the text of the Affordable Care Act itself.

[White House on Obamacare Ruling: Letter of the Law Doesn’t Matter]

[RELATED: Federal Court Takes Down Obamacare: Subsidies In Federal Exchange Are Illegal]

[‘Court Upholds Obamacare; Liberals Hit Hardest’]

But the White House said in response that it will continue handing out the billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies.  Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Nancy Pelosi’s Hysterical Court Ruling Demagoguery vs. Megyn Kelly

This week’s shameless bucket of foul Democratic campaign slop from Nancy Pelosi gave Hot Air‘s ALLAHPUNDIT  fits, like any sane person who had the misfortune of hearing even 15 seconds of Pelosi’s vile comments. In fact, some of us are still recovering from kaleidoscopic room-spinning nausea. Visit Hot Air‘s medicine cabinet.

In the meantime, here’s Megyn Kelly to the rescue:

“We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. Pelosi said last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the birth control mandate under President Obama’s healthcare reform law is a violation of religious freedom was particularly egregious.

[Also see: Megyn Kelly: Nancy Pelosi guilty of sexism – Politico]

“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It’s not her boss’s business. His business is whatever his business is. But it’s not what contraception she uses.”

(read more) Hot Air


Obstructionism is Patriotic

Screen-Shot-2014-06-27-at-1.46.28-AM-246x300Michelle Malkin writes: Three cheers for right-wing obstructionism. Can we have more, please, and louder?

This week’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s illegal recess appointments is a double smackdown. First, it’s a rebuke against arrogant White House power-grabbers who thought they could act with absolute impunity and interminable immunity. Second, the ruling is a reproach of all the establishment pushovers on Capitol Hill who put comity above constitutional principle.

In a nutshell: The high court determined that Obama lawlessly exceeded his executive authority when he foisted three members onto the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, during what Democrats declared was a phony-baloney Senate “recess.” In reality, the Senate was holding pro forma sessions over winter break precisely to prevent such circumvention. The ability to convene pro forma sessions is a power retained in both the House and Senate. It’s a time-honored, constitutionally protected tradition.

No matter. Our imperial president and his crafty lawyers declared that the Senate wasn’t in business despite the Senate’s declaration that it was, and the White House rammed through the appointments of Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block while the Senate took a brief weekend break in between the pro forma sessions. The steamrolling gave the NLRB a quorum — and a green light to issue hundreds and hundreds of legally suspect decisions. Read the rest of this entry »


The Supreme Court’s Biggest Loser

obama-frown

For Breitbart.com, Charles Hurt writes a caustically funny, deadly accurate takedown of failing Law-sSudent-in Chief, in the wake of the Obama Administration’s epic court losses. Read the whole thing here. In the meantime, enjoy this excerpt:

Summer is hot upon us, another Supreme Court term is ending, and now it is time to evaluate America’s most tutored — and tortured — constitutional law student.

“Indeed, this is no ordinary student. This is a very special student with very special needs. Nine patient teachers. Limitless free school supplies. And a class size of one.”

It is unusual for a pupil of the Constitution to have such exhaustive continuing education courses, with such arduous nine-on-one tutoring from the foremost experts in the entire world. It is especially unusual since the pupil in question has actually had a constitutional law degree conferred upon him by an esteemed Ivy League institution and lectured on constitutional law at an equally esteemed institution of higher learning.

Indeed, this is no ordinary student. This is a very special student with very special needs. Nine patient teachers. Limitless free school supplies. And a class size of one.

Yet still, he cannot seem to grasp the most elementary concepts of constitutional law. Read the rest of this entry »