Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Well, my pick (Barrett) didn't make it last night, but good Lord! Is there another Justice (to be) so silver-tongued? With such a story book family? He blew me away.  I think, however, that Laura Ingram had the best take on the whole thing last night. She noted that, while the retiring Justice Kennedy was a swing vote, since Trump's election he had sided with the conservatives on every important vote, so a Justice Brett Kavanaugh will not have impact that the out-of-their-minds loony left (Scarborough: Trump Picked Kavanaugh “to Protect Himself” from Prosecution, and more) are screeching about.  Even John McCain has tweeted his support.  AND. Since Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who must be carried in for group photos, and who can't stay awake longer 10 minutes, has one foot in the grave--the kill shot will be her replacement, Amy Barrett. Thank You God.

Please, sir, may I have some more?

Democrats Despair over Neil Gorsuch: ‘We’ve Got Another Scalia’

Hilarity ensues

The Left’s Best Freak Outs to SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Travel EO Ninth Circuit Court hardest hit? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, said today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a limited version of the Trump administration’s “Muslim ban” executive orders to take effect ignores the Islamophobic origins of the policy and emboldens Islamophobes in the Trump administration More hilarity ensues.  Here's my favorite Christians who celebrate the Supreme Court decision to allow part of the "Muslim Ban" forget that Jesus himself was a refugee/migrant. SMH. (Dr. Craig Considine )

SCOTUS; GOOD v. EVIL

In a Supreme Court dissent written on April 20, 2017, Justice Breyer whined, “Why now?” "The state is rushing to put him to death," complained Nina Morrison of the badly misnamed Innocence Project.  [FULL]

Ideological SCOTUS Makeup

Hillsdale Law Course!

FIGHT BACK SMARTLY!

Learn how the Supreme Court has shaped our politics and our society Understand the history and significance of the highest court in the land in Hillsdale College’s free online course. You’ll also learn how the role of the Supreme Court has moved away from its intended role and how these changes have undermined our Constitution and our freedom. The course is delivered via email, with one lesson per week for 10 weeks. Each lesson features lively teaching and discussion boards, suggested readings, weekly quizzes, and more. Activate your free Supreme Court course now. ASIDE I don't think there is much argument here  about the desperate need to turn progressive judges upside down (ahem).  Here's a way to make sure our arguments are constitutionally rock solid.  I'm thinking maybe we participants can have a weekly jam session here, where we can discuss the hard parts and confidentially gossip about what happened at the weekend keg party.

Scalia Hearts Gorsuch

The only downside to Neil Gorsuch's SCOTUS nomination is he can't become Chief Justice.  Yet. SNIPS from "Chris Matthews: Dems who vote for Gorsuch “will have to answer” for it for 30 years." On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews cautioned Democratic Senators that if they vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, they will have to answer for it for the rest of their political career. His reasoning was a supremely political one: that at age 49, Gorsuch is likely to be on the Court for 30 years. And that any Dem voting to confirm him would have to answer, over all those years, for his decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gun rights: “it will be on you,” warned Matthews. Note: Earlier, Matthews predicted that the Gorsuch nomination will fail because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not invoke the “nuclear option.” And since, according to Matthews, no Dems will vote to confirm, the nomination will fall short of the required 60 votes. This Insurrectionist disagrees. No matter how much McConnell reveres Senate tradition, he will not let such a qualified jurist, and Trump’s first Court nominee, go down to ignominious defeat. If push comes to shove, I predict that McConnell will invoke the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed on a simple-majority vote. For a lawyer's view on Gorsuch, read this SCOTUSblog profile on Gorsuch. Some of his key legal positions are below * Second Amendment: He wrote in United States v. Games-Perez these rights "may not be infringed lightly." * Roe v. Wade: Gorsuch has never had the opportunity to write on Roe v. Wade. But, for any indication on how he would vote on abortions, the "right to privacy" defense from the dormant commerce clause is relevant, and he isn't buying it. This clause, known as "dormant" since it is not explicitly written out in the Constitution, indicates that since Congress regulates interstate commerce, states cannot pass legislation that unduly burdens or discriminates against other states and interstate commerce. * Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius: He distrusts efforts to remove religious expression from public spaces generally, but watch out for cases citing RFRA and RLUIPA — he ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius that the contraception mandate in Obamacare placed an undue burden on the company's religious exercise and violated RFRA. * Capital punishment: Gorsuch is not friendly to requests for relief from death sentences through federal habeas corpus. * Criminal law: Gorsuch believes there is an overwhelming amount of legislation about criminal law, and believes that cases can be interpreted in favor of defendants even if it hurts the government. On mens rea — which means "guilty mind," or essentially the intent to commit a crime — Gorsuch is willing to read narrowly even if it means it doesn't favor the prosecution. * Checks and balances: Gorsuch does not like deferring to federal agencies when they interpret laws, so watch out for use of the Chevron rule, which allows federal agents to enforce laws in any way that is not expressly prohibited. Gorsuch may push back.

Justice Napolitano? Has my Okay

Judge Andrew Napolitano was spotted for a second time at Trump Tower Tuesday morning, leading to speculation that President-elect Donald Trump may be considering the judge for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court. Hey There!

Ginny Ginsburg see the light

The Left's Smirking Troll Sees the Light and shudders Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes "everything" will be up for grabs if Donald Trump is elected president and has the opportunity to appoint several justices to the high Court. "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs," Ginsburg said of the presumptive Republican nominee succeeding in his bid for the White House in an interview published Friday by The Associated Press. The 83-year-old justice, who belongs to the court's liberal wing, said it's "likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make." Ginsburg is the oldest of the eight justices currently on the bench, while two of her colleagues – Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer – are closing in on 80. [Full] Automaton Justice Ginsburg, the erstwhile ACLU crusader who was appointed by Bill (or maybe Hillary) after her husband made a few million dollar contribution to some Clinton "project."  Replacing dead justices will not be fix enough.  The entire liberal court culture must be righted before that can happen. PS. Trump released a list in May of 11 conservative judges that he would likely nominate to the Supreme Court if elected president. The list was praised by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, but drew outrage from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

2nd Amendment applies to Stun Guns

The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much First case without Scalia

Justice Thomas Bon Mot

Channeling Scalia Thomas' questions came in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law "suspends a constitutional right.''

"So, What's New," he asked discourteously?

SCOTUS, lies, and videotape

Puh-leeeeze

If we thought they could, Donald Trump the candidate would not exist.

When Chuck Speaks ...

The Chucks Have It.

Consensus Candidate?

Rancid Culture

GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama SCOTUS pick Sen. Grassley,Sen. Thom Tillis   Charles E. Schumer of New York, said he expects Mr. Obama to select a consensus candidate who could get bipartisan support and predicted that a “huge public outcry” would force Mr. McConnell to back down. A free parking place to anyone who can identify a "consensus"  candidate.

" judge in bed, a pillow over his head"

Cibolo Creek Ranch owner recalls Scalia’s last hours in Texas "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. "   MARFA — A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner. Just hours later, he would be found dead of apparent natural causes, which media outlets were reporting Sunday was a heart attack. "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter. "He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, 'it's been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep," recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch. When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.  Inside the West Texas ranch where Antonin Scalia was found dead "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter. [FULL] I'll wait to see how believable Poindexter's inevitable recantation is. Of course the Democrat praetorian guard media who sold us Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Warren Report, TWA 800, Jerry Parks, et al,  are still very much operative.

SCOTUS EKES OUT GOODNESS

Supreme Court Halts Obama’s Aggressive Climate Agenda

In a major setback to the Obama administration’s climate agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan from taking effect until the legal challenges from states and industry groups fully play out. Twenty-five states, four state agencies and dozens of industry groups challenged the Clean Power Plan, which would require aggressive carbon dioxide cuts from America’s existing power plants. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses a lower court’s decision two weeks ago not to stay the regulation. The decision is important for states refusing to submit state implementation plans and opposing the Clean Power Plan. If states had to submit plans to meet their respective carbon cut targets, the rule could have taken effect prior to a final court decision. Without the Supreme Court blocking the regulation, the wheels could have already been set in motion to close many of the existing fleet of power plants with little to no hope of re-opening no matter how the legal battle played out. More… Another 5-4 decision. Which gets us to thinking.  Suppose a SCOTUS lefty dies tomorrow?  Will the GOP have the balls to keep any Obama nomination off the floor until he's gone?

SCOTUS-OGARKY

'GARKYS When five largely unrepresentative and unaccountable people can decide to impose their moral values on a nation of 320 million, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When clerks in Washington, D.C. can deny citizens access to guns, despite there being an individual, constitutional right, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When Barack Obama can ignore court rulings and bypass Congress on a whim and be cheered for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When mayors and other leaders can be cheered for ignoring the marriage laws of the nation and issue same sex marriage licenses at a time doing so is prohibited by state law, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When jurors lie to get on death penalty cases to ensure the death penalty cannot be issues and they are heroes for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. So when Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses, she’s just behaving as all the others have done. Only she’s the bad guy because the secular loud voices of the country disagree with her ignoring the law. But again, we are nation of men, not a nation of laws. Anthony Kennedy decided to insert his will and morality into the discussion and shut up everyone else. He thought he could shut down the conversation. He only made it angrier. We are not a democracy, but an oligarchy. And we are not a nation of laws. The republic may continue, but without the moral leadership necessary to bind the leaders and citizens to the same laws. [RED STATE] The Roman Empire lasted  approximately 500 years.  You would think that had Roman citizens had  an internet with 24/7 news about how corrupt the system had become that they'd ... nah.  They'd be just like us; erm, were just like us.

KKK v SCOTUS

Do you know ...

Help, my scotus is infected.

..... failed to protect SCOTUS Passes on Chance to Set 2A Ruling Right “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.” Justice Clarence Thomas Not exactly profiles in courage, but the Supreme Court declined to review two lower court rulings upholding San Francisco's draconian gun control laws. The Associated Press reports, "The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks. A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets." Of course, in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a requirement about locking down a firearm in the home, saying the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." So by declining to hear this case, the justices are allowing a patchwork of wrong interpretations of its ruling to stand. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it." Furthermore, they're passing on an opportunity to clarify the most important point of all: The Second Amendment is not "for sporting purposes." The ban on hollow-point ammunition is beyond asinine, but the justices can't be bothered to fire anything but blanks. This post was in my queue when life so rudely interrupted on June 8.  It seemed important.  Now it seems like blah-blah-blah.  What else is new?  Sigh.