Professor John Eastman Discusses the SCOTUS Cases and More

Larry Elder interviews Professor John Eastman in regards to the recent Supreme Court decisions and the nomination process for Justice Kennedy’s replacement. Discussion about the Courts purpose and how States should have more say, and audio of Kennedy attacking Bork is added (the start of this whole politicization of the nomination process BTW). Enjoy.

The #BlueWave Turns To Drowning (Rush Limbaugh)

Rush Limbaugh discusses how the Dems thought they were sitting pretty just a couple months ago, and then… their world came crashing down. While he lightly passes over the possible future actions of the Dems (riots), Democrat leaders and Leftist orgs are actually calling for violence. (I added a scene from Matrix on my VIMEO version)

A comment at my LIVELEAK noted this:

It has been a crushing week for the poor demokkkrats. If you see one, be humane and offer water to them, they are probably dehydrated from tear loss.

  1. Their hopeful for the replacement of Pelosi got beat by a 28 yr old Socialist
  2. Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump travel restrictions
  3. Supremes rule unions cannot force workers to pay union dues
  4. Justice Kennedy announces retirement
  5. CNN viewership takes another nose dive

Larry Elder discusses Chief Justice Roberts excoriation of non-sequiturs… here is LAW & CRIME’S partial comment:

Chief Justice Roberts took no small measure of offense. The majority decision notes:

  • Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.

The chief justice wasn’t quite finished and almost took the opportunity to overrule the Korematsu decision–but stopped just short of doing so. He wrote, “The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—’has no place in law under the Constitution.’

Is Fred Phelps (a Democrat) Hatred any different from other Democrats?

(The above is via GAY PATRIOT [3-16-2018], the below was posted March of 2011)

The other day I was listening to the Michael Medved and I heard something I didn’t know that I think is very important for the general public to be aware of as they stand around the water cooler and discuss current events. A recent event one being the 8-to-1 decision in favor of the hate group/cult Fred Phelps is leader of, the Westboro Baptists. The information I was unaware of was that he ran for office five times – each time as a Democrat. Below are some photos of the Phelps clan with Al and Tipper Gore:


Phelps 3 Phelps 2 Phelps 1

 


I never knew that. Some sites were way ahead of the curve, I will link the here: USS Neverdock, and Nice Deb.

Now, however, it all makes sense! (What does? You ask.) All the hate signs hoisted by Democrats over the years match the insanity by the ones by the Westboro Baptists. I will post one that we are all familiar with from the Phelps:

We of course have seen these and this:

But what about leftists and Democrats at recent anti-war,anti-Bush,anti-military marches? Is there a common thred between the hate the Westboro Baptists (Democrats) spread and the majority of these whackoes over the year at these “peace” rallies (Democrats)? Lets see:

(A Leftist organization — Code Pink — wants our soldiers murdered) SIDE NOTE:

(Howard Dean, head of the DNC holding up moon-bat shirts!)

(A “peace” rally where leftists and Democrats and Green Party members burn our military and flag in effigy)

(A liberal at a “peace” rally wanting our President at the time hung/dead)

(from an “art” show in San Francisco)

(from a “peace” rally)

(from a “peace” rally in Oregon in 2008)

Thanks, but my family will keep our gun.

Dennis Prager Interviews David Savage of the LA Times

h

Dennis Prager interviews David Savage, washington bureau writer for the L.A. TIMES, about his article seemingly making last years Supreme Court pick by Obama, Merrick Garland, a centrist. While this isn’t the entire interview, it is the first two segments of this March 2016 interview.

In a thoughtful challenge on my FaceBook, the following conversation took place:

  • S.S. From what I’ve seen/heard of his testimony, they will never find a more objective one. He was outstanding.
  • B.M. I agree that Gorsuch is more then qualified. Unfortunately they’re hung up on Merrick Garland. And so it goes.

I respond a bit:

  • This is not the same B.M. Since FDR tried packing the court, both parties have not put forward a nominee to the court in the last year[-] of an outgoing President. Obama broke this tradition and so was rebuffed.

A great question by B.M. followed:

  • Was this a tradition or a rule?

Here are my more in-depth responses to the above…

It was not official, but was well known to both sides, and pushed most by Democrats — shown by Sen Biden in 1992 (called thereafter, the Biden Rule):

…..Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.

  • “Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

In the case of Obama’s nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.

Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people “may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

(POLITIFACT)

So, by the breaking of this decorum, Republicans declined to move Obama’s nominee through the Senate, AGAIN, most recently based on the principle articulated by Sen. Joe Biden: that a Supreme Court Justice should not be confirmed in the last year of a lame duck administration.

…OH YEAH…

He [Biden] also called on the Senate not to schedule any confirmation hearings until after the election that year between incumbent President George H. W. Bush, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot.

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

(DAILY CALLER)

B.M. kindly noted:

  • Thanks for the education. Not being snarky, honestly didn’t know the origin of this.

Hillary Wants to Pervert Justice

  • “You must not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.” (Leviticus 19:15)
  • “Do not show favoritism to a poor person in his lawsuit.” (Exodus 23:3)

Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan;
Front row (left to right): John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
Associate Justice Lycurgus of Sparta, and Associate Justice Margaret Sanger.

Via NATIONAL REVIEW and Jonah Goldberg:

In her first answer of the night, Hillary Clinton was asked about the Supreme Court. She said justices should stand up to the rich and side with the people or some such treacle. It should support the usual favored groups, etc. It should fight big money and the powerful. And so on. Only problem: That’s not what justices are supposed to do. The Judicial Oath goes like this:

  • “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

Sometimes they say:

  • “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 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 on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

The relevant point is the same. Standing up to the rich is not the Supreme Court’s job. Standing up for the law is. And, sometimes, the law is on the side of the rich and powerful. You could look it up.

Mark Levin and Carrie Severino Discuss Trump’s SCOTUS Picks

Mark Levin speaks with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network about Donald Trumps “telegraphing” of his Supreme Court [possible] judicial nominees.

I am somewhat ambivalent to his dedication to and for such picks… but in speaking to the Heritage Foundation as well as the Federalist Society he is showing some commitment to get conservative to vote for him.

In my post at The Constitutional Federalist of America, I note really three criteria that will get people like myself to vote for him…

  • He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
  • He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
  • He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.

…and this was one of them.

An informative segment to say the least.


For more wise counsel like this from Mark “the Great One” Levin… I invite you to visit: http://www.marklevinshow.com/

Concepts: “The Loss of Secular Society” (Distortions from the Left)

I am amused to see a guy — John Van Huizum — mention his two-decades of writing articles, and then, follow this resume reference with this:

I think that when you put God on a U.S. issued coin or banknote, you obviously ignore what should be a separation of church and state, as many of our founders intended.

Please, besides writing crap for two decades backed by nothing more than opinion, tell me what the Founders thought of “separation of church and state” John. Tell me what books you have read to come to such a conclusion, please. And I imagine you would have read a few from each viewpoint to come to such a FIRM conclusion, like: “you OBVIOUSLY ignore what should be a separation of church and state, as many of our founders intended” (emphasis added). In a paper I did on this topic, I note that the same persons that wrote and ratified the 1st Amendment, did something that according to John they shouldn’t have done if how he views the topic is true. For instance, as soon as they finished with Constitutional issues (its creation and passage), they immediately went to their prospective states and wrote their state constitution. Here are some excerpts from them:

State Constitutions

On the day the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they underwent an immediate transformation.  The day before, each of them had been a British citizen, living in a British colony, with thirteen crown-appointed British state governments.  However, when they signed that document and separated from Great Britain, they lost all of their State governments.

Consequently, they returned home from Philadelphia to their own States and began to create new State constitutions.  Samuel Adams and John Adams helped write the Massachusetts constitution; Benjamin Rush and James Wilson helped write Pennsylvania’s constitution; George Read and Thomas McKean helped write Delaware’s constitution; the same is true in other States as well.  The Supreme Court in Church of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) pointed to these State constitutions as precedents to demonstrate the Founders’ intent. 

Notice, for example, what Thomas McKean and George Read placed in the Delaware constitution:

“Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: ‘I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forever more, and I acknowledge the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.’”

Take note of some other State constitutions.  The Pennsylvania constitution authored by Benjamin Rush and James Wilson declared:

“And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ‘I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarded of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”

The Massachusetts constitution, authored by Samuel Adams – the Father of the American Revolution – and John Adams, stated:

 “All persons elected must make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. ‘I do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasions of its truth.’”

North Carolina’s constitution required that:

“No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the [Christian] religion, or the Divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit in the civil department, within this State.”

You had to apply God’s principles to public service, otherwise you were not allowed to be a part of the civil government.  In 1892, the Supreme Court (Church of Holy Trinity v. United States) pointed out that of the forty-four States that were then in the Union, each had some type of God-centered declaration in its constitution.  Not just any God, or a general God, say a “higher power,” but thee Christian God as understood in the Judeo-Christian principles and Scriptures.  This same Supreme Court was driven to explain the following:

“This is a religious people.  This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation….  These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people….  These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

…read more…

In other words, for two decades John has been writing hearsay and not doing the hard work a knowing what the “F” he is talking about. Unfortunately, due to time, I am not able to critique other issues in this short article I found wanting. That being said, I am sure the reader gets the point from this single critique (as well as my previous) that John is your typical secular liberal. I think I agree with Milton Berle’s assessment of John (*wink*), “with him, ignorance is a religion.”

The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare A Tax!! Obama Lied, Freedom Dies (Updated with RushBo)

“In the Dissenting Opinion of Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia: “YOU’VE EXTENDED FEDERAL POWER TO VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING. …IT EXCEEDS ALL FEDERAL POWER.” ObamaCare allows the Federal government to tell us when and what we will buy.” ~ Gateway Pundit

Obama said it wasn’t a tax…

Obama promised to cut taxes for the Middle Class:

Key: Obama now owns one of the largest tax increase ever! In US History!

I am predicting a 6-to-3 opinion* ~Plus, largest health provider keepinig some of the common sense aspects of the bill

* but if it is strictly along party lines (originalists [4+swing] versus legal positivists), then it will be a 5-4

Via Gateway:

In as soon as ten days from now, the Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare.  During the week of June 25th, America will learn whether Obama’s attempt, using his draconian health care law and an unprecedented individual mandate, to take over 1/6th of our nation’s economy will fail to pass through the branch of government designed to protect our citizens from overreach and tyranny.

While we wait, Forbes has some good news.

So much for a national health care law.

Based on Intrade, there is a 69.9% chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate in the national healthcare reform act, known in the political soap opera world as “ObamaCare”.

…read more…

 

Some GREAT[!] Audio from Todays Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy & Roberts (Updated with Sotomayor and Scalia)

Keep in mind that Kennedy is the “swing” vote, and it seems he is leaning towards the conservative side.

Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli’s claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. I would be hopeful that she would apply the law/Constitution properly. She could have been trying to allow the Obama admin lawyer a forum to restate his case, better than when questioned by the other Justices. We will see.