Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
"OK, you are not going to answer thequestion. How about being in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?"
My response: I could only aspire to be as dedicated to the law; the Constitution; and oyr country, as they are. They are genuine keepers of the very spirit, or original intent of, our Framers."
What makes my skin crawl is that the cherry-picking of questions is/was never exclusive to the left. The elected officials, as well as the voters, do it as well.
The key difference between the two sides in DC is that the "right" is much HARDER on the pro-Constitutional members of Congress than they ever were on anyone on the left. Example:
WHY hasn't Trey Gowdy or the other GOP members of Congress put Rosenstein in Contempt Of Congress for committing Obstruction over the Mueller probe? WHY didn't "our side" of the Hill ever even tried to challenge BO's Exec Orders thru the circuit courts - like democrats ALWAYS do? WHY have the GOP members that were deadset AGAINST the ACA bill back in 2009-2010 so resistent about full repeal of it? And WHY is it that the party that has claimed to be fiscally "responsible" still manages to RAISE our Deficit and Debt in leaps and bounds decade after decade after decade...?
Finally, WHY is it that the very GOP sorts that despise DT (i.e. McCain; Flake; Romney and the Bush family) as much as the liberal media seem to have locked arms w/ far leftist Justice Elaina Kagan where Kavanaugh is concerned?
These are rhetorical questions. I did say, prior to DT having officially nominated "K", that he'd be accepted and that he may just be the swing-voter-replacement for Kennedy. And, if not, there's always good ole John Roberts, right? I wish that it was he that would retire next instead of the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.
(Go away Ginsberg. Go away.)
D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Brooding Spirits, Judge Kavanaugh Edition
by Aaron Nielson — Monday, July 9, 2018 — @Aaron_L_Nielson
When President Obama nominated Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, I put together a list of his dissents and concurrences. As I explained then:
President Trump has just nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the help of two hard-working research assistants* I’ve put together a similar list for him.
Note that there are lot of separate opinions. Note further that a number of these opinions were eventually adopted by the Supreme Court, at least once unanimously. It is safe to say that when Judge Kavanaugh dissents, the Supreme Court pays attention. (Indeed, it is not by accident that Judge Kavanaugh “feeds” the most clerks to the Supreme Court — and that both “conservative” and “liberal” Justices regularly hire from him.)
So without further ado, here is a list of Judge Kavanaugh’s dissents, including opinions dissenting in part: continue reading at ...
As soon as Trump makes pick, conservative Judicial Crisis Network says it will launch $1.4 million ad buy in Alabama, Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia with introductory bio spot. There's going to be a lot of money spent on this one
Conservative and Liberal Groups Gird for Battle Over Kavanaugh
Judicial Crisis Network
YouTube Fox Business https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Judicial+Crisis+Network&vi...
A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh
By Akhil Reed Amar
Mr. Amar is a professor at Yale Law School.
July 9, 2018
Levin: ‘We are constitutionalists and we get to ask questions too’
Jordan Schachtel · July 10, 2018
LevinTV host Mark Levin started his radio show Tuesday evening discussing Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to become the next Supreme Court justice.
He reminded the audience that Kavanaugh would be only the 114th Supreme Court justice since the Constitution was ratified.
“I am not interested in sabotaging Mr. Kavanaugh. I am interested in knowing more about Mr. Kavanaugh,” Levin said in evaluating the nominee, discussing the media and political pundits rushing to pro- and anti-Kavanaugh stances.
“The Left is insane. They want their politburo. I get all that, but we are constitutionalists and we get to ask questions too,” he explained. Listen:
The one court precedent that matters in the SCOTUS debate
Daniel Horowitz · July 9, 2018
In the 1780s, our Founders feared many things about the tenuous future of the republic they were creating, but a tyrannical judiciary that acts as supreme to the other branches wasn’t one of them. They would have laughed at the spectacle of two parties at each other’s throats not over the balance of power in the Senate, but over how that balance of power will determine the tilt of the Supreme Court, where the true power resides these days.
Regardless of whom Trump nominates to fill the latest Supreme Court vacancy, both sides will vociferously question the nominee over his or her views of certain court precedents. But we could go a long way toward cooling some of this political acrimony (and fixing our republic to boot) if we focused on just one court precedent: The Supreme Court’s own declaration, during the Warren era, that its decisions over the Constitution are exclusive, final, and universally binding over the other branches of government. It’s this legal fiction that is fueling the high-stakes fights over every other precedent. If we all agreed to end judicial supremacy, control over the other two branches of government – with their more robust powers to affect their respective interpretations of the Constitution – would matter much more than control over the Supreme Court. Read more at Conservative Review ...