Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Fits the Times, wot



Was perusing comments to Media ‘Underplayed’ How Hated Hillary Clinton Was in the Heartland and willhen50's stood out for content and concisenesses.  Scanning down, I found another comment thatonly now, as I'm constructing this, do I notice it's the same guy.  So,what the hell, I'm buying him a round.

    • The problems in the Middle East would never have happened if Obama didn't instigate the toppling of governments where stability was achieved. Egypt, Libya, and Syria seemed to have been his objective to put in the Muslim Brotherhood. He used American aircraft to attack a sovereign country who was no threat to America or American's. He even tried to influence an election in a country who was an ally. 
      What is worse, this Middle East turmoil made countries unstable and under the influence of Islamic Extremists who killed an American Ambassador and 3 other Americans and Obama uses the excuse of a video created by an American in America protected by the 1st Amendment and throws him in jail for a year. The truth is the "rebels" that were armed by the US turned on us and became TERRORISTS, ISLAMIC-EXTREMISTS, and ISIS.

    • 3  
    • Reply

The problem with welcoming people who have a belief system that is contradictory to the Constitution, eventually these people will get into power and change or eliminate it completely. Obama showed a bias to the Constitution and American ideals and he created executive orders that proved it. His actions where he seemed repulsed at the longtime American influence with our allies and toppling Muslim governments where stability in the region was already achieved by American influence. Going around the world and apologizing for the nonexistent American Colonialism, bowing to a king displaying weakness, and playing golf while American's are being beheaded is inexcusable.

Who Wins? Tuck or Buzzard Feed?

Who Wins? Tuck or Buzzard Feed?

"A Windy Day" Pixels on Paper

art is everywhere                                                   

Ein windiger Tag


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.