FLASHBACK February 1, 2017: Does Harry Reid’s ‘Nuclear Option’ Precedent Guarantees ‘Trump Justice’ Before January to Replace RBG?
SCHUMER FIGHTING SUPREME COURT NOMINEE NO MATTER WHO IT IS…..!
On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an “obstructionist” for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.”When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.””They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we, have to prove that they are not,” Schumer said at the time.
Schumer along with his Democratic/Socialist buddies continue to betray the ‘Will’ of the American people and stall Trump’s ability to live up to the promises in a Trump like time frame that he made to the American people.Democrats ‘boycotted’ a Senate committee scheduled to take two votes, one on Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s nominee for secretary of health and human services, and the other on Steve Mnuchin, his choice to lead the treasury. Then, they blocked a vote on Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s nominee for attorney general.
I hope that all old-school Democrats are watching how their elected officials that they pay to do their bidding in congress, are not showing up for work and betraying the oath they took when you sent them to congress! There has never been a more qualified candidate for the Supreme Court in the history of modern times, and there has never been such disdain for the constitution and the rule of law by the politicians who are sworn to uphold the laws of the land and come to work!
If you forgot what that oath was; The current oath was enacted in 1884:“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office ‘and go to work’ on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
HOW SOON CHUCK-E FORGETS ABOUT 2007: ‘DON’T’ CONFIRM ANY BUSH SUPREME COURT NOMINEE!
Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.”We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.
Schumer cited unconstitutional ideological reasons for the delay. ~~Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday night he has “serious doubts” about whether President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will administer justice equally to the rich and poor alike, and joined other Democrats who were left asking if Gorsuch can show he’s a mainstream nominee.
“Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard,” Schumer said of Trump’s nominee, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch. “Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the court.” I think you should know that the Supreme Court backed his argument, and upheld his findings, soooooo?
Now that Trump announced his pick, Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland, but like always, the left thinks everybody, but themselves, have no clue about what’s going on, and can be fooled to believe anything, even that Judge Garland is a true Centrist!
JUDGE GARLAND AND THE LEFT’S DISDAIN FOR TRUTH!
By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears!The mainstream media — that is, the liberal media, that is the ‘Paid to Report’ Media — share all the views and characteristics of the left. Among these is the left’s view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views, and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth: social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above these, destroying its conservative opposition.
The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.
The first sentence of The New York Times front page read:
“WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”Similarly, the Los Angeles Times front-page headline said: “Obama’s choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP to the test.”Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”
Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that: Garland may be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.
Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes: “If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”
By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist. And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears!In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business wrote that: Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that: “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote that they can’t think of a single issue on which Garland would vote differently from the four liberal Justices that already sit on the bench.Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies: “In a dozen, close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”
In other words, the very same author who describes Garland as a centrist believes that Garland votes left on essentially every major issue confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.
Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that: “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”In reviewing Garland’s decisions, this Times piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to the left of Justice Stephen Breyer and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
Another source reads that: “Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on these legal issues.”Those are all the fundamental issues that divide the left from the right.So, the entire left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans is far more important than truth.And believe it or not, there is an even worse lesson here, namely the media’s effectiveness in saturating society with its mendacious version of reality.
Unless an American makes the effort to study the issue — and most do not — they take the news media’s version as truth. The terrible lesson, which has been affirmed time and time again since the 1960s, is that a free society can experience brainwashing as effectively as a totalitarian state. ~~By Dennis Prager, a Friend of America!
I’m beginning to think what’s going on is a eyes wide open nightmare, and that if I just click my heals together three times I will wake up in a different America where all people got along and strives to making America great again, but then I turn on the TV to see what has to be the biggest Sci-Fi movie of all time, and with commercials to boot. I get that old feeling, and like in the words of Yogi Berra, ‘It’s Deja Vu All Over Again.’ Back in the late 1960’s I watched American astronauts land on the moon, and then heard disbeliever’s say that it had to have been filmed in a sound studio because it’s not possible to land on the moon! I feel the same disbelief that those naysayers said about landing on the moon, and believe what I’m seeing today in America is being filmed on a sound stage somewhere on a back lot in Hollywood where no one can see.
I feel like all Americans are sitting in the audience after paying for a ringside seat and watching a title fight between to fighters. No matter the outcome they both get paid handsomely for making the effort and just showing up and putting on a good show. What’s missing in this analogy is that these fighters could care less about the fans who paid big bucks to be there, but for their own egos and pot of gold at the end of the tunnel!
We as Americans are paying a very high price to sit ringside for the biggest title fight in the history of America, and the future of America will be the ‘belt’ that America will wear for years to come! Expect low-blows, expect a little head butting, and expect a little dirty play by the fighter’s corner who pick the fighter up between rounds.With the afterglow barely lit since Obama’s left office, we all need to move on, but first extinguish what’s left of Obama’s embers, and come together as one to protect our sovereignty, our borders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our respect and tolerance for all ‘legal’ Americans! All of our past generations worked hard to get here, fought hard to stay here, and earned a reputation in the world that has been threatened, and almost eliminated over the last 8 years under the Obama administration.
It’s not about being against immigration or refugees, but about following the laws that have taken centuries to produce, and being established through the guidelines set forth in our Constitution by the trial and errors that our founding fathers worked on for over two centuries!The World changes on a daily basis, but as long as America is grounded by the original game plan that got us here, we will survive. There is, except for a tweak once in a while, no reason to not keep dancing with the one’s that brung us, our founding fathers! Within 30 seconds of Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court the battle began, and the rest, will be history!
April 2017.
DID HARRY REID’S ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ HELP THE PARTY OF ‘NO’ RESHAPE THE COURTS FOR A GENERATION?
Or did the party of ‘NO’ self-destruct and abandon the old ‘traditional’ Democratic Party to become the new partisan opposition to constitutionalism, and the party of Socialism, Globalism, and Progressive ideologies?
Harry Reid jumped the gun when he changed the rules of the Senate to only require a simple majority of 51 votes, the ‘Nuclear Option.’ instead of the time tested 60 votes that had been needed before. He needed it to pass Obamacare after Ted Kennedy, the 60th vote died and the voters of Massachusetts elected a Republican instead of a Democrat, and again after the Dems lost the Majority in the Senate to stuff progressive judges in lower courts to block anyone who dare mess with Obama’s ‘Open Borders’ Legacy! Which was proven by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocking President Trump’s travel ban using his campaign rhetoric as the reason!
This new cabinet appointee will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.
Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly if he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.
Merkley’s party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight “tooth and nail” any nominee that isn’t “mainstream.
Trump wants Senate Republicans to nuke the filibuster rules for Supreme Court nominees should the Democrats try to block his nominee. Right now, the nuclear option only applies to presidential appointments that are not related to the Court. McConnell has vowed to confirm whomever Trump picks, despite the rancor from his Democratic colleagues.
Unlike Republicans who had the ‘Biden rule’ which is no ‘rule’ at all, to fall back on, which explicitly stated that no judicial nominee should be confirmed during an election year, Democrats don’t have that option. They do have the eight-vote obstacle that Republicans have to overcome to reach the 60-vote threshold for cloture. This is where the Democrats could make their stand, despite, in Hardiman’s case, all of them voting for his confirmation (96-0). Gorsuch was confirmed through a voice vote.
So, it appears that Democrats think Gorsuch is not mainstream enough, despite his conservative judicial philosophy for the appellate courts, but not the Supreme Court? That’s odd. Then again, this is the Democratic Party, which has entered an evolutionary stage in which they go indiscriminately insane over anything President Trump does. If Trump said he likes drinking Dunkin’ Donuts coffee, I’m sure there would be a freak-out and boycotts for progressives.Note to Senate Democrats: You don’t get to dictate who gets nominated, and you need to come out of this fever dream that you won.
This new twist to the 2020 elections, and with just 45 days before the elections, has put the nomination of the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court the number one priority above all else, and that’s because this next election will only give the MAGA President another 4 years, but the Justice who is nominated, a life time!
