Share This Article with a Friend!


100 Days of Trump: Crazed Dems perpetuate myth of the 'consensus' judicial nominee

The ink is barely dry on the official paperwork from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s swearing-in to the Supreme Court yesterday and already people are talking about President Donald Trump’s next nomination and the inevitable fight that will follow it.

Naturally the speculative eye is turned towards the oldest and longest serving Republican-appointed member of the Court as the most likely to step-down willingly. Assuming every justice wants to be replaced by someone with a similar belief system, Justice Anthony Kennedy may be considering leaving early enough in Trump’s Gorsuch swearing interm to ensure a reasonable successor.

Shane Goldmacher of Politico reported last week, “[T]he president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy.

“The likeliest candidate is [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump — whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement.”

Though Goldmacher doesn’t say so explicitly his article heavily insinuates Trump’s team is watching Kennedy’s every move in a deathwatch-like fashion. Trump’s sons apparently know Kennedy’s sons and the Trump administration is even keeping in contact with Kennedy’s former law clerks (like Gorsuch himself), suggesting one of them may be the next black robe in line should the 80-year-old Kennedy decide he prefers fishing lines to deciding cases on phishing.

Goldmacher’s article also indicates Trump’s team is actively mulling filling the most important current Appeals Court level vacancies with state court judges who also happen to appear on his famous list of potential Supreme Court picks, reasoning it would make the process easier in the future if they’ve already been through Senate confirmation once.

With the filibuster “nuked,” Democrats’ power to stop any nomination has been greatly diminished, but they’ll still likely pull out all of the procedural stops to accomplish whatever delays they can to gum up the gears of the judiciary.

With Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and Trump in the White House, the judiciary is all Democrats have left to try and pass their nefarious agenda. Whatever they can’t legislate into law a judge would need to do. Significant Republican advantages in the number of governors and state legislative majorities aren’t making the situation any easier for them.

If it wasn’t apparent before it certainly is now that Democrats committed a huge tactical error in making such a huge stink over a relatively controversy-free nominee like Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch’s background and homespun folksy demeanor made him a lock to gain public approval. When the Democrat leadership continued their assaults on him for over two months it only exposed them for what they really are: politically motivated aggressors who only care about protecting their pet issues.

There could easily be other repercussions for the loss of the filibuster as well.

Ryan Lovelace of the Washington Examiner reports, “Court watchers expect the change to affect the calculus of who President Trump, or future presidents, pick next to fill high court vacancies.

“’As a result of the filibuster, presidents can now pick judges further from the median — that is more conservative or more liberal,’ said Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law professor and conservative, in an email. ‘There is no longer the need to assuage moderates in either party.’”

In other words, experts say the absence of the filibuster will politicize the process even further and lead to more ideologically polarized Supreme Court nominees.

This is only partially true because the appointment process is inherently ideological to begin with and presidents will always be inclined to choose judges who agree with their point-of-view.

Even the 1803 landmark case of Marbury v. Madison -- the one that birthed the concept of “judicial review” -- was a controversy over the execution and fulfillment of political appointments. Chief Justice John Marshall, a highly political member of the Federalist Party, was appointed by John Adams in 1801 as the second president was on his way out of office.

Presiding over a case that involved nominations from the same president who appointed him, Marshall ruled that then Secretary of State James Madison was not required to physically deliver the papers of officials selected by Adams because the action was not provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, the concept of “unconstitutional laws” was created.

In other words, a politician decided a case between two feuding politicians over a matter involving politics. Is it so different today?

The larger point here is simplified by a common cliché – you can take the politician out of the swamp but you can’t take the swamp out of the politician. Anywhere there is power for the current governing authority to make appointments you are going to have patronage, favoritism and ideology. Otherwise the system just wouldn’t make sense.

Should Trump have heeded the Democrats’ advice and withdrawn Gorsuch’s nomination in search of a “consensus” nominee who was part of the “mainstream”? Does such a person exist?

Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary Clinton, if she’d won the presidency, would have worked harder to find a “centrist” nominee to elevate to the Supreme Court? Further, if Clinton had won in the landslide that many were forecasting the Democrats likely would have recaptured the majority in the senate and the shoe would truly be on the other foot, wouldn’t it?

Lastly, assuming Justice Kennedy would be the model for a “swing-vote” centrist on the Court, where do you find such a person to satisfy the definition and replace him?

By nature any judge should weigh the facts of each case, apply the law and come up with a conclusion. How could you possibly find someone who will side with liberals and conservatives about half the time each?

Elections have consequences (thanks, Barack Obama). Americans chose Trump specifically because they wanted him to appoint originalist deferential Supreme Court justices. Democrats are completely off base by insisting there’s such a thing as a “consensus” nominee out there, because once that person even hinted that he or she supports religious freedom over federal power to require submission to the Democrats’ social agenda, they’d automatically become “extreme.”

The filibuster is dead. Long live the Constitution.

By dismantling the regulatory state, Trump is pulling out Obama’s legacy by the roots

Everyone knows conservatives endured a number of very public humiliations during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office. From his bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia to ordering the White House to be adorned in rainbow colors (to celebrate the Supreme Court’s upholding of national legalized same-sex marriage), Obama excelled at rubbing traditional Americans’ noses in the dirt with each successful liberal triumph.

But it goes without saying there was at least an equal amount of damage being done behind the scenes by federal bureaucrats carrying out the dictates of the liberal ideologues making policy. There was only one Obama and a handful of White House staffers. There are millions of federal employees. You do the math.

It’s at the regulatory level that President Donald Trump is perhaps making the most headway in unravelling Obama’s disastrous legacy.

Michael Grunwald of Politico Magazine wrote, “The Congressional Review Act, a 21-year-old law that created a fast track for wiping out ‘midnight rules’ finalized late in a presidential administration, had only been used once before this year. But Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have already deployed it 11 times to strike down Obama-era regulations. In fact, those 11 CRA resolutions are the only substantive bills Trump has signed so far; it’s quite possible that the CRA will produce the entire legislative legacy of his first 100 days.

“And just about all the resolutions Trump has approved—as well as two others that await his signature—represent victories for traditional Republican lobbying interests like the NRA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and fossil-fuel industries, muscled through Congress on strict party-line votes.”

Well, other Trump accomplishments include having Justice Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and Attorney General Jeff Sessions now enforcing all those inconvenient (to Democrats) immigration laws. But let the liberals think Trump hasn’t achieved anything.

You can sense the bitterness in Grunwald’s reporting. He suggested the NRA-inspired regulatory purge rolled back “common sense” gun restrictions that would make it easier for mentally disturbed people to get guns.

Yeah, that’s what conservatives crave – crazy nutcases to be armed while Obama just wants everyone to be safe. The liberal nonsense campaign never ceases.

This passage from Grunwald was particularly instructive: “Every regulation creates at least some cost and hassle for the interests being regulated, and Republicans have argued that the regulatory state spiraled out of control in the Obama era, strangling businesses in red tape. But even defenders of the CRA crusade acknowledge that these specific bills have the potential to create awkward political optics, making Trump and GOP lawmakers look like they oppose internet privacy and baby bears while supporting dangerous workplaces, overseas bribery, and the right of unhinged Americans to purchase firearms.”

True enough, that’s what Democrats will assert and the media will report, though we’re all used to Democrats claiming the sky is falling in every other sentence and the media echoing their sentiments on numerous talk shows most people don’t watch or in newspapers that lost credibility – and readership -- long ago.

Politico is certainly one of those discredited sources but they do offer some hard news tucked in between the liberal condescension and predictions of Armageddon to come.

Democrats are apparently hooting with glee over the Republicans’ efforts to blow up the Obama regulatory state, thinking they’ll have additional campaign fodder to use against the GOP in the next election. Just like they miscalculated in predicting Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in because she was running against Trump last year, they’re wrong on this one, too.

Most people – at least the productive ones who have jobs and try to keep up with current events and politics – don’t care in the slightest that some Obama-era regulations have gone by the wayside. To people who were paying attention, the government grew exponentially at the hands of motivated federal bureaucrats who expanded their reach into areas where they weren’t needed or welcome.

Obamacare is probably the most recognizable federal overreach; but at the local level there were also tons of examples where top-down “leadership” from Washington drew the ire of business owners, parents of school children and people trying to make a living but being prevented from doing so because of some excessive EPA rule or dictate.

Let the Democrats run on a platform of rescuing the regulatory state from the grasp of the evil Republicans. How many of their minions are going to be motivated to go out and vote for more federal power?

Here we are! Tell us what to do!” That may fly in Europe but not here in the good ‘ol U.S.A.

The Americans who truly pay attention to what’s going on around them aren’t stupid and unfortunately for the Democrats, there are only so many ignorant people to frighten with horror stories of the ill effects of deregulation. It’s yet another difference between the parties that should be exploited by the Republicans if they can manage to highlight it.

Is Juan Williams qualified to talk about black conservatives?

Last week liberal Fox News commentator Juan Williams wrote about the growing Democrat movement towards impeachment and how it was gaining momentum because of all the Russia hype and the Trump administration’s incompetence and missteps since taking office a little less than three months ago.

Williams was way off base in making the claim. What does he know about the prospects for impeachment?

This week Williams is spouting off again, only this time he’s weighing-in on black conservatives.

Williams wrote in The Hill, “In this moment of tense relations between President Trump and black America, it is important to separate Trump’s racial politics from the conservative principles that still attract black Americans.

“Last week, one of history’s great black Republicans and conservatives, William T. Coleman Jr., passed away at age 96.

“He was one of the seven percent of black people who are Republicans, the lowest percentage of any racial group in America. Far more black people are conservatives, though. A 2009 Pew poll reported that about 32 percent self-described as on the ‘conservative’ end of the ideological spectrum.”

The balance of Williams’ piece was on the life of Coleman and how he helped the Civil Rights Act get through Congress with mostly Republican votes.

It was a good and fitting tribute to Coleman, though I didn’t know anything about him personally.

But hidden within Williams’ praise for the late black Republican was contempt for black conservatives today who happen to call themselves Republicans. Williams chided Ben Carson as the token black member of Trump’s cabinet, Senator Tim Scott as the lone black GOP member of the Senate (there are a whopping two black Democrat senators) and of course, Justice Clarence Thomas.

If Williams is to be believed, these distinguished gentlemen must be off their rocker to be black, conservative and Republican at the same time.

Democrats are the ones who have long held blacks down by giving credence to thinly disguised radical leftist causes like Black Lives Matter and elevating men like Jesse “Shakedown” Jackson and Al Sharpton to positions of prominence in the party. These men and many black Democrats in Congress use race as a crutch and a weapon at the same time.

I don’t group Williams in with them, necessarily. As I said last week, he’s paid to be unreasonable.

But commentating about black conservatism is best left to those black conservatives who’ve dared to expose their beliefs and have been called all sorts of vile names because of it. If you don’t believe it, just as Senator Tim Scott.

Share this