Today, Tuesday, July 17th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political
Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS
Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss everything SCOTUS... 'Shifting the
Supreme Court Decidedly to the Right'; Kavanaugh...Because Elections
Have Consequences'; and
important news of the day.
Welcome to FOX News First. Not signed up yet? Click here.
Developing now, Tuesday, July 17, 2018
In exclusive interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity, President
Trump defends his controversial comments at his post-summit news
conference with Vladimir Putin, saying Special Counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation has driven a 'phony wedge' between the U.S. and Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin denies having dirt on
Trump, calls charges of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential
election 'utterly ridiculous' in exclusive interview with FOX News'
Chris Wallace.
Anti-Trump FBI lovebird Lisa Page was grilled by House Republican lawmakers for a second day behind closed doors on Monday
Alabama voters will decide a primary runoff election Tuesday between former Trump critic GOP Rep. Martha Roby and former Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat-turned-Trump Republican
Showtime is denying accusations of 'stolen valor' from Sarah
Palin and other critics who say satirist Sasha Baron Cohen posed a
disabled military veteran to trick them in his new cable series
Check out FOX News Update, our new Facebook-exclusive news program hosted by Shepard Smith, Carley Shimkus and Abby Huntsman
Shifting the Supreme Court Decidedly to the Right By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political
“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...”
- Article II Sec.2 of the U.S. Constitution
Last Monday night President Donald Trump nominated “originalist” Brett Michael Kavanaugh to
fill the seat on the Supreme Court after Justice Anthony Kennedy
announced his retirement after having served 30 years on the bench.
Now having the chance to shift the High Court decidedly to the right for
many generations to come no matter which political party holds the presidency in the
intervening years, it's important to remember that it is the Senate alone who
will approve or disapprove Trump's newest nominee. And while
our side was able to get Neil Gorsuch approved thanks to some crossover
Democrats, the question is can we do it again what with undeniable partisan
politics seeming to have overtaken not only common sense but moral sense
and decency as well.
And with moral sense and decency surely not being the calling the
card of the left, it really came as no surprise when Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer's top deputy, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin,
said on 'Meet the Press' the weekend before President Trump even
announced his nominee that Senate Democrats need to put “party” over
their constitutes wishes when the vote for whomever is taken. In other
words, Durban said Democrats should prioritize partisan opposition over
their own re-election considerations. And this was immediately followed
up with House Minority Leader Nancy Polosi sending out a fundraising
letter saying she will “avenge” Barack Obama by opposing “Mr. Trump’s”
then unannounced nominee “if it’s the last thing I do.”
Avenge Obama for what...he served two terms as president per the time
limits set by the Constitution... he nominated and got his people
appointed to the Supreme Court...so what is she really avenging but
Hillary Clinton's loss thus proving herself to be but an aged snowflake
still in need of a therapy puppy and bubbles...albeit this aged
snowflake is an elected official of the most politically dangerous kind
because her very words convey as truth what some of us have suspected
all along...that Hillary Clinton was indeed to be Barack Hussein Obama's
third term in office.
And with that third term surely would have come even more activist judges
appointed to both the lower and the higher courts...hard to the left
activist judges who would relish in legislating from the bench and who
slowly but surely would be working hard to remove the 'as-written'
Constitution...the very law of our land...by changing and amending it to
such an extreme degree that it would have absolutely no relevancy at all in their eventually
legislated socialist utopia.
No longer relevant is truly what the Democrats want the Constitution
to be for the simple fact is that with the decades long liberal leaning
court now shifting hard to the right the Democrats simply cannot digest
let alone accept both the economic and the political shocks they on the
left received with the election of Donald J. Trump as America's 45th
president.
So with the wise old adage that “elections do have consequences” not being
the adage the Democrats wanted to hear but instead being the reality
they must now face, the age of liberalism on the Supreme Court has now
come to a rightful end for it's liberalism that is America's greatest
enemy from within...with said liberalism having been adjudicated from
the bench.
And while the Supreme Count's job is solely to interpret the law as
laid down in the Constitution, unfortunately time itself has shown that
what a justice holds as his or her personal ideology and politics does
more times than not sway said justice's vote. And in today's political
climate of the left hating any and everything Donald Trump, the overt political ideology and now agenda of some justices has proven to be a
very dangerous thing indeed.
Take for instance the Supreme Court's recent 5-to-4 vote to uphold
President Trump's temporary travel ban. In their decision the court’s
five conservative justices rightfully stated that Trump's power as
president to secure our country’s borders “had been delegated by
Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking”...which in fact it has
always been...and that said delegation was not being undermined by what
was then-candidate Trump’s “incendiary statements” concerning the
dangers he claimed muslims posed to our country...which was the basis
for the liberal justices ruling against the travel ban.
In fact, during oral arguments before the bench, Obama appointee
Justice Elena Kagan personally tired to “swing” now retiring Justice
Kennedy to vote against Trump's now for the third time amended travel ban
by depicting the case as a “watershed moment” in the High Court’s
jurisprudence about bias by laying out the possibilities of 'what if' an
overtly anti-Semitic person became president and banned all immigration
from Israel. Ignoring the fact that 'what ifs' are not now nor have
they ever been constitutional law...and really why pick Jews who have
contributed much to the fabric of our American society when she could
have picked any number of minority groups...saw Kagan in her argument
trying to play what in reality was the Obama anti-Israel, anti-Jew
card...perhaps even allowing a glimpse into her own possible
anti-Semetic and anti-Israel bias to show through.
Talk about an activist judge of the first degree.
Thankfully though this 'what if' scenario backfired on her leaving
Chief Justice John Roberts to write for the majority that President
Trump had “ample statutory authority to make national security judgments
in the realm of immigration.”
So one can see by Justice Kagan's actions that having activist
justices sitting on the Supreme Court... activist justices who have
actually broken their promise of “fidelity to the law”...affects each
and every American to some degree and is more dangerous than most people
think for it reeks not of what should be “judicial restraint” but of a
justice's partisan desire to both strike down either an existing law or
applying his or her own policy preferences to, as per legal expert Hans A. von
Spakovsky,* “uphold a statute or other government action that the
Constitution clearly forbids.” And this includes their writing their own
political leanings into their legal decisions instead of applying the
Constitution impartially according to its original meaning based upon
its “plain text.”
In fact, the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia...a true
"originalist"...stated time and again that “the text of the law speaks for
itself”...something that all Supreme Court justices need to not only
take to heart but to apply in all their decisions made.
“I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions...what matters is
not a judge’s political views but whether they can set aside those views
to do what the law and the constitution require.” So said President
Trump when queried if he would ask his possible Supreme Court nominees
their personal opinion on abortion.
And that brings us back to now Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh,
and to what the Democrats consider the most critical issue of the
day...their fear that the High Court with Kavanaugh sitting on the bench
would surely overturn Roe v. Wade...the highly contentious 1973 law making a
women's right to choose legal...making abortion legal...in these United
States.
And with Democrats ignorant to the fact that abortion is but only one
of many critical issues facing our nation today, I personally do not
think Roe v. Wade would be overturned.... amended maybe but not
overturned...for the simple fact is that it's a settled opinion with
precedent already having been set. And while a lot of conservatives
would like to see it overturned based upon their religious beliefs
alone, only Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly stated that he would
like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
In fact, Judge Kavanaugh, a true
"originalist" in the mold of Antonin Scalia, himself has stated that he
would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade based upon precedent already
being set.
But now some key Democrats are saying that while Kavanaugh was serving
as a D.C. Circuit Court judge he had to honor the precedent of the
Supreme Court, but that as a sitting High Court justice he actually would not have to. However, during his 2006 confirmation hearing to said
Circuit Court, Kavanough clearly stated that, “if confirmed to the D.C.
Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully,” and no words
that he has spoken or written concerning Roe v. Wade since then has
proved otherwise making the Democrats fear of his flipping nothing but a
Justice Kagan previously stated 'what if' scenario with 'what ifs'
being mere conjecture not fact.
And besides going against widespread public opinion about abortion is
not something that any sitting justice is likely to do...and you can
see where Americans stand by the numbers regarding abortion in my recent
article On Abortion...because sitting justices truly are leery to
overturn settled precedent and disrupting public expectations especially
when doing so might imperil the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
So what do Democrats fear most regarding a Kavanaugh appointment
besides his possibly changing his stance on Roe v. Wade...his past
record voting record, his possible future voting record, and especially
his opinions written coming back to haunt them.
Remember, while on the appeals court Kavanaugh voted to strike down
environmental regulations and said he would have overturned internet
regulations issued while Barack Obama was president. Kavanaugh also
dissented a ruling that let an undocumented immigrant teenager get an
abortion while in federal custody. And Democrats now fear that Kavanaugh
would vote to rescind the protection of pre-existing conditions under ObamaCare, which the Trump administration is no longer
defending in a lawsuit launched by GOP attorneys general. And they
especially fear Kavanaugh’s past opinions on whether a sitting president
can be indicted in a criminal investigation and how that would impact
Mueller’s ongoing Trump/Russia collusion what amounts to a 'witch hunt'
investigation. Translation: Kavanaugh might vote to throw Mueller's
entire investigation out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
“If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case,”
were Judge Brett Kavanaugh's words last Monday night adding that he
would follow the Constitutional rule of law “and precedent.”
So where do we stand right now as we anxiously await the nomination
hearings...Democrats will surely try to put Kavanaugh, a supporter of
broad presidential powers, on the spot regarding how he would vote on
upcoming future cases like of course Roe v. Wade, the always hovering
ObamaCare, and would he side with what the Democrats call corporate
interests against the working people. And we also need to see how
three Democratic Senators... Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp of
North Dakota...all of whom voted to confirm
Neil Gorsuch and who are all running in difficult reelection campaigns in red
states...will vote.
And with Schumer’s goal being to keep his party in partisan lock-step
line it surely will be fun to watch the Democrats squirm as the High
Court shifts decidedly to the right for decades to come for Brett
Kavanaugh will be confirmed when all is said and done leaving the
Democrats to cry that their dream of a legislated from the bench
socialist utopia is forever relegated to the trash heap where it always
belonged.
__________________________________ * Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Copyright @ 2018 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved.
************************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS
partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest
article Kavanaugh...Because Elections Have Consequences.
Today, Tuesday, July 17th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political
Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss everything SCOTUS... 'Shifting the Supreme Court Decidedly to the Right'; Kavanaugh...Because Elections Have Consequences'; and
important news of the day.
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!
Now having the chance to shift the High Court decidedly to the right for
many generations to come no matter which political party holds the presidency in the
intervening years, it's important to remember that it is the Senate alone who
will approve or disapprove Trump's newest nominee. And while
our side was able to get Neil Gorsuch approved thanks to some crossover
Democrats, the question is can we do it again what with undeniable partisan
politics seeming to have overtaken not only common sense but moral sense
and decency as well.
But now some key Democrats are saying that while Kavanaugh was serving
as a D.C. Circuit Court judge he had to honor the precedent of the
Supreme Court, but that as a sitting High Court justice he actually would not have to. However, during his 2006 confirmation hearing to said
Circuit Court, Kavanough clearly stated that, “if confirmed to the D.C.
Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully,” and no words
that he has spoken or written concerning Roe v. Wade since then has
proved otherwise making the Democrats fear of his flipping nothing but a
Justice Kagan previously stated 'what if' scenario with 'what ifs'
being mere conjecture not fact.
So where do we stand right now as we anxiously await the nomination
hearings...Democrats will surely try to put Kavanaugh, a supporter of
broad presidential powers, on the spot regarding how he would vote on
upcoming future cases like of course Roe v. Wade, the always hovering
ObamaCare, and would he side with what the Democrats call corporate
interests against the working people. And we also need to see how
three Democratic Senators... Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp of
North Dakota...all of whom voted to confirm
Neil Gorsuch and who are all running in difficult reelection campaigns in red
states...will vote.
