OYEZ OYEZ OYES MOFARKERS

Republicans steamrolling Dems to confirm Trump judicial nominees This may be the least covered major story of the Trump era, so far at least. While the media and Democrats are obsessed with increasingly bizarre Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, and failed attempts to flip Special Election congressional seats, an enormous change to the federal judiciary is well underway. FULL DEAL I was on the Trump bandwagon from day one; for 3 reasons. He wasn't a politician He had the resources to fight what we now call "the Deep State." And, most importantly, he could stop the federal courts from turning us into a unicameral dictatorship. I am well pleased

Bypass the courts ..

bypass courts on travel ban But there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Trump is acting within his legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants him the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” for as long as he thinks it’s necessary. Obama made use of this power to temporarily halt Iraqi migration. So have other presidents in the past. Forget all the nervous gasps. When President Trump tweeted that his measure to protect Americans from Islamic terror was a “travel ban” and that it should never have been watered down, he was right. Calling it a pause hasn’t appeased a single of the radical judges abusing their authority. It doesn’t matter what the lawyers call it, when courts insist on referencing President Trump’s campaign rhetoric instead. Watering down the ban achieved nothing. The judicial coup can’t be appeased with a “moderate” ban. Stripping Iraq from the list of countries undermined the effectiveness of the measure considering that the vast majority of refugees being investigated for terror links in this country are Iraqis. Most of the rest are from the other countries listed on the travel ban. If this judicial coup is allowed to stand, anything that any White House official or member of Congress says at any time in the past, can and will be used by Federal courts to seize control over any policy. And the failure to protect Middle Eastern Christians by prioritizing them as refugees is a left-wing war crime. The lawyers, activists, media bosses and judges responsible for it have blood on their hands. Even as they mouth hollow platitudes about compassion, they have become complicit in Islamic genocide. Maybe the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution. Maybe it won’t. The track record has been decidedly mixed. And this is an area where the courts had no actual right to intervene. There are legitimate debates about the limits of presidential authority in every administration. It’s fair to question whether any president, of any party, should be able to engage in military action without Congress because the Constitution grants the legislative branch the authority to declare war. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Trump is acting within his legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants him the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” for as long as he thinks it’s necessary. Obama made use of this power to temporarily halt Iraqi migration. So have other presidents in the past. Immigration is in the hands of Congress and the White House. It is not up to judges to decide who can come to America. Our entire system of immigration “discriminates” based on religion and national origin. It allots visas and refugee status based on national origin and membership in persecuted religious groups. If the judicial coup succeeds, elected officials will lose their authority over immigration. And that means that the American people will lose all control over immigration. The implications go far beyond the travel ban.  Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama pal, didn’t just go after the ban, but asserted that he had the authority to decide how many refugees should be allowed in. It’s a short hop and a skip from there to judges deciding that they have the constitutional authority to set the annual number of refugees and immigrants to prevent “discrimination” by the elected branches. If you want to imagine the end of America, that’s a good place to start. Federal courts have been unconstitutionally treating states like this for far too long, intervening in everything from elections to prison populations, but now they’re using the general anti-Trump hysteria to assert judicial supremacy over the elected branches of government. If this judicial coup is allowed to stand, anything that any White House official or member of Congress says at any time in the past, can and will be used by Federal courts to seize control over any policy. And then we will be living under a permanent reign of judicial terror. This was the nightmare loophole that opened up when we declared that preventing discrimination was such a compelling interest that it could be used to override nearly everything else. Now the legal butcher’s bill might be coming due. And when it arrives, the Bill of Rights will cease to exist and the elected branches of government will wither under the shadow of black robes and falling gavels. That is what is at stake here. President Trump isn’t just defending us against Islamic terror. It’s up to him to defend government of the people against two political coups; one that seeks to reverse the results of the election with a manufactured scandal based on a Hillary conspiracy theory and the other that aspires to make elections irrelevant through a judicial ruling class. A civil war is underway. Trump, like Lincoln, isn’t just fighting an elitist Democrat ruling class embedded in secessionist enclaves of gated communities surrounded by political plantations of minority poor. Both Republican presidents had to face off in a civil war against judicial supremacy. [SOURCE] Like, isn't this plain common sense  for chrisake? (Thomas Paine)

USA UAS USA

Dun't worry Lucy

THE GOOD NEWS IS  ... She'll never have the opportunity

Roberts Deriliction

vichyssoise gummint

I'm avoiding the news for the next few days or weeks. Can't take it anymore. BUT here's an excellent summary that pretty well sums it all up. Mark Miller Since the New Deal, courts have permitted almost any legislative infringement of economic liberty that can be said to have a "rational basis." Applying this extremely permissive test, courts usually approve any purpose that a legislature asserts.   Courts even concoct purposes that legislatures neglect to articulate. This fulfills the Roberts Doctrine that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress. Thursday's decision demonstrates how easily, indeed inevitably, judicial deference becomes judicial dereliction, with anti-constitutional consequences. We are, says William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice, becoming "a country in which all the branches of government work in tandem to achieve policy outcomes, instead of checking one another to protect individual rights. Besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution." The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism's central objective, which is the overthrow of the Constitution's architecture. [ObamaCare Ruling Is Judicial Dereliction] *snip* *snip* I began to grow up after being introduced to George Will, lo these many years ago.  But Mr. Will is, alas, too gentlemanly for my taste.  After years of Sunday morning watching, I finally tired of  waiting for him to punch Sam Donaldson in the face and, while still wondering if he was banging Cokie Roberts, I stopped watching Brinkey Sunday and moved on to Ann Coulter. But the man is  smart.  And he has punched Judge Roberts in the puss.

Stupid is as .....

This is a Test. For the Next 30 Days We’ll See How Stupid the Republicans Are. This is Only a Test.

The United States Supreme Court will soon hand down its opinion in King v. Burwell and we will get to see just how stupid the GOP is. To recap, the case centers on whether states that do not set up state based exchanges can get subsidies from the federal government to subsidize healthcare costs. The law, as drafted, had a section on state based exchanges. That section gave federal subsidies. The law had a separate section on states that did not create state based exchanges. The law allowed federal exchanges, but did not have language giving a federal subsidy in the federal exchanges. That language was there, but was removed before final passage. The healthcare expert Democrats relied on to help draft Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, was recorded saying this was done to incentivize the establishment of state based exchanges. The Democrats now pretend none of this happened and it was a “drafting error” the Supreme Court should fix for them. I have no idea how King v. Burwell will be decided, but given how much pressure the Democrats are trying to put on the Court, the odds are they think it will be decided against them. Who knows. If it is decided against them though, they will scramble quickly to make Republicans own it. Republicans, of course, lack any and all testicular fortitude — it having been drained by the yellow stripe down their backs. Here’s the great test for the GOP. If King v. Burwell is decided against the Democrats, Republicans need advertisements ready to go across the fifty states with a very simple message. “They never read it, they rushed it through, and now you’re paying the price. Tell Barack Obama we need to repeal Obamacare and start over.” Use Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 18%‘s clip that they had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Democrats passed this law over Republican objections. They drafted it. They screwed it up. Make them own it. If Republicans do not do this we can be assured that (1) they are interested in fixing Obamacare, not repealing it and (2) are political and moral cowards. - : Erick Erickson  I had to post the whole thing ... sorry.  Bets, anyone?