It was the 9th Circuit, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion. I’m too irritated to blog, because this is the kind of crap “so-called judges,” who are interested in activism not law, pull. But if you have something you’d like to say, here’s your spot.
Trump’s nominating Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court has left me happy, happy, happy. Trump fulfilled his campaign promise and did it with panache. Moreover, he’s doing everything with panache, so much so that I had to make this poster to ridicule the Progressives whose heads have been exploding for the last ten days:
Yeah, Trump is so good, and has started turning the ship of state around with such speed and vim that the same Lefties who thought Obama was a success already contend Trump is a failure. Woo-Hoo!!!
Oh, and Gorsuch: young, handsome (like a 1940s Hollywood typecast for up and coming honest judge), brilliant, a friend to Scalia, an originalist, a good writer (honest lawyers everywhere heave a sigh of relief) — yes! yes! yes!!!
Anyway, open thread here and a silly poster to go with it (click on image to enlarge):
Between the Islamic terror attack on Nice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to go full Bulworth, and Hillary’s semi-pass from Comey (a scathing indictment followed by a “get out of jail free” card), there’s been a bumper crop of stupidity in the Facebook feeds of my Lefty friends. I have to go to work soon but before I do I wanted to share three emblematic examples with you. The first is from The World Post which is, as best as I can tell, an arm of the Huffington Post:
That’s it from the Left — not angry, not defiant, not determined, not militant, just “tired.” And of course, still unable to name the ideology that sends out its brainwashed troops to engage in myriad individual acts of war directed at civilian populations. If you’re a Lefty, you can name all the locations where Islamists have hit, and you can make vapid claims that you’re the living embodiment of those places, but you can’t make yourself name the poisonous ideology behind all these massacres, nor are you willing to fight against it.
Domestic drudgery is over and blogging
beings begins. Yay!
The establishment is very afraid of Donald Trump. Thomas Lifson is correct that it is outrageous for U.S. “Intelligence” officials to try to sabotage Trump’s campaign by saying they’re afraid to give him intelligence briefings. This would be despicable under any circumstances, but it’s especially grotesque considering that the only reason Hillary is not rotting in prison for treasonous high crimes and misdemeanors is because the President is protecting her (probably because she knows his secrets, just as he knows hers).
What’s really disgraceful about this already disgraceful spectacle is that these establishment types seem to have forgiven Hillary the whole Benghazi debacle, from the mismanagement before; to the vanishing act during, which almost certainly cost four lives; to the cover-up after. Others have not forgotten:
Ann Coulter takes on those accusing Trump of racism. Ann is in fine, sarcastic fettle as she flushes out the cowards (on the Right) and race hustlers (on the Left) who are attacking Trump:
I wasn’t an empty nester to begin with, but now I am a super full nester — hence my difficulties blogging this week. Here it is, 9:30 on a Friday night, and I finally have a minute to sit down and write:
A unified theory of Obama. David Hazony has written a masterpiece. Using statements from Samuels’s interview with Ben Rhodes and Goldberg’s interview with Obama himself, Hazony comes up with a unified theory of everything Obama when it comes to foreign policy. It is a terrifying tale of a president who kept carefully hidden from view his dangerously utopian view of the world, one that sees his calm, Spockian reason preside over the withdrawal of the Pax Americana to force the world to join him in reason and peace. It’s a story of lies, manipulation, duplicity, and an insanity that promises to escalate before he leaves office.
Neither Trump nor Hillary shares Obama’s world view. The question for voters is, given the chaos into which Obama has pitched the entire world, which of these two candidates is best suited to lead the America and her allies to some semblance of safety.
Oh, and one other thing: While it’s clear from the article that Obama has an absolute horror of exercising American power abroad, except when it comes to pushing global warming, he sadly has no problem whatsoever exercising government power against his own people. A deadly pacifist abroad; a monstrous tyrant at home.
One other little aside. when I read Goldberg’s interview with Obama after it originally came out, I passed without thinking over a specific phrase that Obama used in that interview. Here’s the quotation, with that specific phrase bolded:
[The purpose of Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo, he told Goldberg, was to] trigger a discussion, [to] create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity. My thought was, I would communicate that the U.S. is not standing in the way of this progress, that we would help, in whatever way possible, to advance the goals of a practical, successful Arab agenda that provided a better life for ordinary people.
Just today, Jonah Goldberg published a piece noting how Progressives love to “trigger a discussion” or “start a conversation,” something that, as often as not, they do using hoaxes or other crude deceptions (e.g., Katie Couric’s deceptively edited gun video). Here’s what Goldberg says those triggered discussions are really about:
Donald Trump went into full attack mode against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over the case against Trump University. You can find here a video, with transcript, of Trump defending his contention that a “Mexican” judge is a problem for him because of Trump’s outspoken opposition to illegal immigration from Latin America. I have a few comments to make.
First, if I were Trump’s attorney and was dealing with a judge or seemed unduly hostile to me or my client, I would definitely think about making a motion saying that the judge’s hostility derives from my attacks against a special interest group of which the judge is a member ( in this case, “Hispanic Americans”) and that he should recuse himself if for no other reason than “the appearance of impropriety.”
The basis for my motion would be the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which states explicitly that “Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.” (Emphasis added.)
This is a good, long post. Mix a martini or make yourself some hot chocolate, find a quiet place, settle back, and read away!
Trump woos conservatives. The big news today is Donald Trump’s list of proposed Supreme Court nominees, all of whom of are, in John Yoo’s words “outstanding conservatives.” As regular readers know, this list means a lot to me. I have four hot-button issues which drive my candidate choices and Supreme Court nominees are my top concern.
Although I was a Ted Cruz gal, and truly believed I was a #NeverTrump voter, once Trump became the presumptive nominee, I rediscovered my motto that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” That notion forced me to look at Hillary and conclude that, on the issues nearest to my heart, she will cause lasting, possibly irreparable damage.
These key issues are: (1) The Supreme Court, which Hillary will pack with Leftists; (2) our Second Amendment rights, which she has vowed to destroy (with the help of a Leftist Supreme Court); (3) Israel, which mirrors our own security situation and which Hillary will destroy; and (4) Islamic terrorism, something that Hillary will probably treat in the same way Obama does, given her history of making nice to people with terrorist connections (e.g., Huma, her Muslim Brotherhood gal pal; Yassir and Suha Arafat; and the Saudis).
On each of those issues, Trump promises the possibility of something better. And no, I’m not a fool. I know that Trump promises everything to everybody but, as I said, he still had the possibility of doing better than Hillary.
With today’s list of Supreme Court nominees, Trump assuaged my concerns on both Issue 1 (Supreme Court makeup) and Issue 2 (Second Amendment). I recognize that Trump can still do a bait-and-switch (something that the pundits to whom I’ve linked also fear), but he might not — unlike Hillary, who will definitely seek more Sotomayors, Ginsburgs, and Kagans.
Anyway, in addition to the Yoo reaction to Donald’s list, linked above, here are more reactions:
I’ll be away all day tomorrow, first doing an activity with the kids, and then listening to this year’s best a cappella groups (although this wonderful group from Israel won’t be there). I therefore hope that this post gives you lots of interesting stuff to read on Saturday.
Pro-Trump? Anti-Trump? Pro-GOP? Anti-GOP? Pro-Conservative? Anti-Conservative? Who the heck knows anymore? Trump’s ascendancy has caused normally staid, solid, and scholarly conservatives to become wildly partisan for or against Trump.
I was listening to someone explain a seizure yesterday, and he described it as all the neurons firing simultaneously and randomly. American conservatives are having a seizure.
Anyway, I thought I’d consolidate in one place some of the differing viewpoints about Trump and about how best to serve America over the long haul. As you know, my hot buttons are the Supreme Court; the Second Amendment; Israel’s security, because it’s the right thing to do and because Israel is the world’s “canary in a coal mine”; and naming and then fighting the evil that is fundamentalist, radical Islam. With those hot buttons front and center, I’ve switched from #NeverTrump, which was my position when the primaries were contested, to #NeverHillary.
My dream candidate is, and has been since 2013, Ted Cruz, but that dream is dashed. Here, in reality-land, I believe that the Republican party is dead whether or not Trump wins, and that conservativism needs to be re-taught to Americans from the ground up, just as they were taught Leftism from the ground up over the past 40 years, with the Leftist takeover of American education, news, and entertainment. If Hillary gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, destroy the Second Amendment, abandon Israel, and take policy advice from the Muslim Brotherhood figures who surround her (and even sleep with her for alleged health reasons) I think America will be too destroyed ever to rebuild.
I’ve assembled here a good collection of pro and con posts about Trump’s candidacy. I have no idea if reading all of them will clarify things for you or further confuse you, but they are all interesting:
I found this poster on the Facebook page of a hardcore Progressive. The Leftists know what’s really at stake in this election. So should we:
While I don’t necessarily expect Trump to nominate conservative or even good judges, I know that Hillary or Bernie will pick hardcore Leftist judges who view the Constitution as an enemy that must be destroyed. My goal in November 2016 is to save as much as possible of the American fabric until a true constitutional conservative candidate – Ted Cruz! – comes along in 2020 or 2024 and begins the slow process of rebuilding a free America.
Bush didn’t, Obama wouldn’t, but the next president should: Call into the Oval Office the leaders of Muslim communities throughout America to say, “Because of the First Amendment, the fact that you and the people in your community practice Islam is irrelevant to us in America. Your faith is your business. What is relevant to me as leader of this nation is whether you support America or not. When all of you leave this office, you need to carry a single message to your communities: ‘You are either supportive of America or working to undermine America. If you’re in the latter category, you are on notice here and now that my administration will use every constitutional means available to track you, capture you, prosecute you, and imprison or deport you.’ End of story. Thank you for coming. Goodbye.”
Having got that off my chest, I’m about to engage in a speed round-up, because I’ve got about 40 articles — really good articles — to share with you.
A Cruz convert explains why. The most interesting point is that Trump started with something no other Republican has had since Reagan — vast name recognition.
Slowly catching on to the fact that Trump is the Republican Obama. I’ve been saying from Day 1 that Trump is a white Obama. He promises hope and change by using government power to shape America to his will. And let me say, that is my sole problem with Trump: That he’s all about big government, precisely as Obama is. I find that unacceptable. Jonathan Tobin is another one who’s finally figured out the whole Obama Doppelgänger thing.
Trump is a special interest candidate. And that special interest is Donald Trump.
Is the media sitting on big Trump stories? Ted Cruz thinks that there are some horrible stories to be told about Trump, which wouldn’t surprise me given his sordid personal life and . . . ah . . . colorful business life. Once Trump is the candidate, says Cruz, the media will “suddenly” discover stories that make Trump unelectable. I think Cruz is right because we all know the media, don’t we?
Trump’s enemy list makes me like him. George Soros has given money to 187 different special interest groups that are attacking Trump. (To be honest, a lot of them are attacking Cruz too. Indeed, on Sunday, I heard a New Yorker news hour on NPR during which the speakers agreed that Cruz is the more dangerous of the two leading Republican candidates because he actually believes in the Constitution.) In other words, here’s a list of 187 Soros-funded organizations that try to destroy anything conservative.
Will Trump win the nomination? Scott Elliott, an extremely astute election watcher and a man with a history of accurate election predictions, is not a Trump fan. He’s therefore created the “Stop-Trump-O-Meter,” which tracks the outcomes of state primaries and projects the outcome at the convention. Even if you’re a Trump fan, you’ll like Scott’s meter, because, if you ignore the name, it tells in a clear way where the candidates stand in the Republican primary.
If you destroy the polite people, you create room for the impolite ones. Glenn Reynolds points out that the GOP, RINOS, and the Leftist media establishment did everything possible to destroy the happy, tidy, law-abiding Tea Party. Now they’re horrified that destroying the Tea Party left rage in its place.
USA Today editors question Hillary’s fitness for office. USA Today, in its quest to be “America’s newspaper,” the one read in more hotel lobbies than any other paper, is careful about taking strong partisan stands. That’s why it’s impressive that the editors see Hillary’s penchant for secrecy, and the security-evading steps she took in pursuit of her paranoia, as a serious impediment to the presidency.
In response to the Left’s claim that Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, is a moderate, Kevin Williamson hones in on the central problem with our Supreme Court:
It is a testament to the corruption of the Supreme Court that there is never any question about how any of the so-called liberals on the Court — who are anything but liberal — will vote on any given question. Elena Kagan swore up and down during her confirmation hearings that there was no constitutional right to gay marriage — it was the usual exercise in Democratic taqiyya. But no serious person ever doubted for a second that she would discover one lurking in the penumbras the second she had a lifetime appointment and the power to substitute her own will for the content of the Constitution.
A judge isn’t a little bit of an activist any more than a person suffers from a little bit of cancer. Activism is activism, and cancer is cancer. There are better and worse cancers to have, to be sure, but you either have cancer or you don’t. Which is not to say that there will not be honest disagreements among justices about the meaning of a particular constitutional provision or how a statute should be construed. But the party-line character of the Supreme Court shows us the institution’s true nature: It is, effectively, a super-legislature, not a court. That the party-line character is lopsided, with a few conservatives still using Scalia’s Stupid But Constitutional stamp while the so-called liberals operate as a unit, is of course relevant; but the attention that is paid to the ratio of progressives to conservatives on the Court fails to account for the fact that this should not matter.
It should not matter — if the law were the law. If the law is whatever our black-robed secular clerics say it is, then it does matter what sort of political views justices hold. And if it matters what sort of political views justices hold, then the Supreme Court is not a court, but something else.
Or as a friend said, it’s dangerous leaving nine people believing that they can act as a politburo. My friend would have Congress pass a law saying that judges are completely bound by the Constitution’s written words, as seen (if necessary) through the filter of original intent. And if the Constitution doesn’t address a situation at all — such as gay marriage — it’s a matter for the states, not the federal government and the Supreme Court, and retrofitting the Second Amendment doesn’t make it so. It just means that the judges are engaged in constitutional legislation, which ought to be done away with forever.
All systems can be abused, says my friend, but the situation we have now is completely out of control.