Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

Judge tosses cold water on Obama's "sex" obsession


Bob Unruh (WND) is reporting that a Texas court has dented Barack Obama's legacy of promoting alternative sexual lifestyles, including transgenderism, blocking a rule that would force doctors to do sex-change operations even if it would violate their religious beliefs or if they believe it would harm the patient.

This case was brought by the Becket Fund on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Franciscan Alliance and the states of Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

Several other cases have challenged the mandate, including one brought on behalf of the Religious Sisters of Mercy, Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center in Jackson, Minnesota; Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center in Alma, Mississippi; SMP Health System; the University of Mary; and North Dakota.

The change, imposed by Obama through the redefinition of "sex" in administrative rules, violates the Administrative Procedure Act by contradicting existing law and probably violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, according to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor's weekend ruling.

He issued an injunction ordering the government not to enforce the rule.

The rule, which had been issued under the Obama's Affordable Care Act, manipulated the definition of "sex" as it has been used in federal law for decades to include whatever gender a person believes himself to be, creating a ripple effect of cataclysmic changes throughout health care's standards for operating.

The judge said the plaintiff's claim that "the rule's interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violate their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans."

He noted the government was insisting that "prohibited sex discrimination" included refusing to provide abortions and refusing to do surgery to "transition" a male to a female or vice versa.

"This is a common-sense ruling: The government has no business forcing private doctors to perform procedures that the government itself recognizes can be harmful, particularly to children, and that the government exempts its own doctors from performing," said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket Law.

"Today's ruling ensures that doctors' best medical judgment will not be replaced with political agendas and bureaucratic interference."

The decision protects more than 900,000 doctors – "nearly every doctor in the U.S," according to Becket – from being required to "perform gender transition procedures on children."

Obama's plan also would have cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $1 billion, the group said.

While the government's doctors in the military are not required to follow such a rule, other doctors would have been, Becket said, and would have faced "potential lawsuits or job loss" for their opinion that "gender reassignment surgery" might not improve health outcomes.

"This court ruling is an across-the-board victory that will ensure that deeply personal medical decisions, such as gender transition procedures, remain between families and their doctor," said Windham.

The judge found: "Prior to the passage of [Obamacare] in 2010 and for more than forty years after the passage of Title IX in 1972, no federal court or agency had concluded 'sex' should be defined to include gender identity."

Martin Nussbaum of the Catholic Benefits Association, which is involved in one of the additional lawsuits, said Trump will be able to help in the fight.

"Just as [Obama's rule] was promulgated by HHS, a new regulation can be proposed, and it can even have an effective date on the day it's proposed that would undo that particular regulation," he told the Washington Times.

He said there have been some court rulings from Obama-appointed judges that will need more than just a rule change to alter.

The Obama administration also deliberately left out a provision, common in health care regulations, that exempts health-care providers whose religious beliefs would be violated by the requirements.

The government admitted at a hearing it would be "'very difficult to imag[in]e' any medical justification for a categorical exclusion of health services or coverage of all transition-related procedures," the judge said.

He pointed out that Texas "would risk losing more than $42.4 billion in federal funds" under the rule change.

He found that a preliminary injunction halting the rule was the best answer, since the plaintiffs are likely to succeed.

WND reported that Beckett cites a transgender information website that reports "up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy lives without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens."

The case is the result of Obama's change in the historical meaning of the word "sex."

"For decades, across multiple federal statutes, Congress has consistently used the term 'sex' to refer to an individual's status as male or female, as determined by a person's biological sex at birth. But in the regulation, HHS redefines 'sex' to include 'an individual's internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female, and which may be different from an individual's sex assigned at birth,'" the plaintiffs argued.

The Obama administration has done this "despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly rejected similar attempts to redefine 'sex' through legislation."

Federal courts mostly also have rejected such efforts, the complaint notes.

Separately, a federal court also has refused to allow Obama's orders that schools allow boys who think they're girls to use girls' locker rooms and restrooms, and vice versa.

WND also reported just last month dozens of prominent Christian leaders have signed onto a campaign protesting the Obama administration's special protections for alternative sexual lifestyles.

The new letter, online at the Colson Center, warns that the laws are a "serious threat" to the "fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every person."

"We affirm that every individual is created in the image of God and as such should be treated with love, compassion, and respect. We also affirm that people are created male and female, that this complementarity is the basis for the family centered on the marital union of a man and a woman, and that the family is the wellspring of human flourishing. We believe that it is imperative that our nation preserve the freedoms to speak, teach, and live out these truths in public life without fear of lawsuits or government censorship," said the letter, signed by leaders from Daniel Akin, president of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary to Louisiana College President Rick Brewer.

"In recent years, there have been efforts to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications in the law – either legislatively or through executive action. These unnecessary proposals, often referred to as SOGI policies, threaten basic freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association; violate privacy rights; and expose citizens to significant legal and financial liability for practicing their beliefs in the public square. In recent years, we have seen in particular how these laws are used by the government in an attempt to compel citizens to sacrifice their deepest convictions on marriage and what it means to be male and female—people who serve everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, but who cannot promote messages, engage in expression, or participate in events that contradict their beliefs or their organization's guiding values."

Others among the dozens of key leaders who have signed "Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion" are Robert Benne of the Institute of Lutheran Theology, Thomas Buchanan of Touchstone Magazine, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, National Religious Broadcasters chief Jerry A. Johnson, The Master's University leader John MacArthur, best-selling author Eric Metaxas, John Stonestreet of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and Care Net CEO Roland Warren.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

The Democrats keep losing -- Harry Reid's "nuclear option" backfire -- Trump will appoint 100 judges immediately


Remember in 2013 when Harry Reid used the "nuclear option" to confirm judges?

Aleister (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Harry Reid's new rule was that no filibusters could be used to stop judges below the Supreme Court. All it took was a simple majority to confirm them.

Harry Reid changed a long-standing tradition in service of Democrat partisanship.

Fast forward to 2017. Republicans will have a simple majority in the Senate. And there are over 100 empty judge spots below the Supreme Court.

Professor Jacobson reports: 

There currently are over 100 vacancies in the federal appeals and trial courts.

As Philip Rucker and Robert Barnes at WaPo write, that will allow Donald Trump to reshape the federal judiciary rather decisively and quickly, Trump to inherit more than 100 court vacancies, plans to reshape judiciary:

"Donald Trump is set to inherit an uncommon number of vacancies in the federal courts in addition to the open Supreme Court seat, giving the president-elect a monumental opportunity to reshape the judiciary after taking office. The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the Jan. 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W. Bush's presidency."

That's over 100 judges to be replaced by a Republican President.

The Democrats keep losing . . . and Trump keeps winning!

What's best about these circumstances is when Trump starts appointing conservative judges, the Democrats will be wailing like their children are being stolen.

Payback is a bitch!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #28 

Obama halts amnesty push in court -- bows to incoming Trump administration


Stephen Dinan (WashingtonTimes) is reporting that The administration has already taken the first step to accommodate President-elect Trump’s positions, agreeing Friday to take a timeout on Barack Obama’s push to kick-start his 2014 deportation amnesty.

In documents filed with a federal judge in Texas the Justice Department said that in light of the new management that will take over next year, the case should be suspended.

"Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits of this case, including the submission of a schedule for resolving the merits, should be stayed until February 20, 2017," the Justice Department and lawyers for Texas said in a joint request of Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

Judge Hanen had halted Obama’s expanded amnesty in February 2015, just two days before it was to go into effect, ruling that the administration broke administrative law. An appeals court twice upheld his injunction, as did the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 deadlock decision this summer.

The injunction remains in place while Judge Hanen was to hear full arguments -- but both sides now say President-elect Trump should have the chance to weigh in.

"Given the change in Administration, the parties jointly submit that a brief stay of any further litigation in this Court

Judge Hanen would still have to consent to staying the proceedings.

The amnesty would apply to more than 4 million illegal immigrants who were either brought to the U.S. as children, or who were parents of American citizens or legal immigrants.

Under the Obama program, they were to be granted tentative legal status for three years, preventing them from being deported and entitling them to work permits, which would in turn earn them driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.

Obama had for years said he lacked the power to issue such a blanket amnesty, but discovered the power after his party suffered massive losses in the 2014 election.

The amnesty was declared not be executive order, but rather by a series of memos from the Homeland Security secretary.

Judge Hanen ruled the amnesty violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was a major policy change that should have been put out for public review and comment. The appeals court went further, ruling Obama broke immigration law, which never envisioned so broad a use of "deferred action" powers.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Birther Deluxe

Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #29 
I guess repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would be too much to hope for. Oh well.

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #30 
Also, the Republicans have a majority of State Governorship and State Legislatures.  I would not be surprised that a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT will be passed to allow Marriage to be defined as between a Man and Woman.  Also, to enact constitutional term limits on Congress in the Senate and House that was repealed by the Progressives.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Liberal group will "fight a conservative takeover of the courts"


Ryan Lovelace (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that a major progressive judicial advocacy group is urging its supporters to "fight a conservative takeover of the courts," one day after a Republican wave election.

The Alliance for Justice warned about the future of federal courts under the administration of President-elect Donald Trump in a statement from the liberal group's president. Said Nan Aron, Alliance for Justice president, in a statement:

"At this critical moment in history for our federal courts, it is essential that we fight with all the resources at our disposal against a takeover of our courts by the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-worker, anti-minority forces of the far-right. Rarely has there been a time when the fairness and impartiality of our courts have been more at stake. We and our allies at Alliance for Justice will oppose, with every ounce of our strength, an ultraconservative takeover of our nation's courts."

The call to arms signals progressives' willingness to form a blockade against Trump as he looks to appoint judges and fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Whether liberal-leaning members of Congress echo the Alliance for Justice's marching orders in coming days will reveal just how contentious the battle over the judiciary will become.

The Left doesn't have a prayer (no pun intended).

The Republicans have the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives -- and soon the Supreme Court will be packed with constitutionalists.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

Seven big judicial setbacks to Obama's executive overreach


Fred Lucas (DailySignal) says much of Barack Obama's executive action legacy will be decided by the courts after he leaves office, but he had a rough judicial record while serving.

Though Obama has frequently touted his pen and phone policymaking, these actions on immigration, environmental policy, and presidential appointees have often been swatted away by the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued a July 2014 report that found 20 instances in which a unanimous high court ruled against the administration. Not all of these cases were executive actions, but legal interpretations by an agency.

The Obama administration has fared worse before the Supreme Court than any other modern president's administration, with a 45 percent win rate, according to an analysis by Ilya Shapiro, a fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, and editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Obama's last five predecessors had a win rate of between 60-75 percent before the high court, according to Shapiro.

"Every president ratchets up executive power, it's what Congress and the courts have allowed to happen over the years," Shapiro told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. "President Obama has pushed beyond that in pushing administratively what he failed to do legislatively."

"This reflects an Obama administration pattern of ignoring the rule of law and usurping the role of Congress," @AldenAbbott1 says.

The overreach has less to do with Obama -- or for that matter any other individual president -- but the expansion of government, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University.

"I would not be hugely surprised if he had the most actions overturned because as government gets larger, there are more targets for the courts to shoot at," Somin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. "In a sense, each president builds on the precedent of the last president. Presidents are incentivized to take actions like this."

District and appellate level courts halted many of Obama's executive actions. Some of Obama's actions still await a ruling in court, such as his gun control initiative.

"The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have overturned Obama administration actions that went beyond constitutional and statutory limits at an unprecedented rate, as documented by statistical studies," Alden Abbott, deputy director of legal and judicial studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email.

Abbott noted the unanimous rebukes by the high court came at a much higher rate than for previous presidents.

"This reflects an Obama administration pattern of ignoring the rule of law and usurping the role of Congress -- as illustrated, for example, in its unauthorized efforts to rewrite the immigration laws and the Obamacare statute without congressional authorization," Abbott said.

Here are some of Obama's executive actions knocked down by the judiciary.

1.  Executive Amnesty

In June, the Supreme Court had a tie vote on Obama's executive actions on immigration. The 4-4 ruling resulted in upholding an appellate court ruling to strike down Obama's executive amnesty.

Obama's actions would have shielded 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. The president took the action in December 2014, shortly after Republicans won control of the Senate.

The move expanded on a previous executive action in 2012 to shield childhood arrivals from deportation. The new edict would extend to the parents of those children.

Texas and 25 other states filed the lawsuit to halt it.

2. School Gender Identity Restrooms Mandate

In August, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled that schools may keep restrooms, locker rooms, and showers separated based on biological gender.

The judge blocked the mandate one day before the first day of school in Texas. The preliminary injunction is in place while the lawsuit proceeds.

The judge determined the Obama administration overreached on its authority by mandating in May that public schools allow people to use restrooms based on their gender identity instead of biological gender. If the schools did not adhere to the rules, they would risk losing their federal education funding.

Texas filed the suit and was joined by 12 other states. This is only the first court hearing and the case will ultimately be decided after Obama leaves office.

3. Appointing Without Confirmation

In a stinging legal defeat for Obama, the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot make recess appointments when the Senate is still in session. The liberal wing, including Obama nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, joined the majority for a 9-0 rebuke in June 2014.

Obama made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board at a time when the Senate was in pro forma session every three days for the express purpose of preventing recess appointments. The appointments were challenged in a labor dispute, in the case of NLRB v. Noel Canning.

4. Delayed Carbon Regulations

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in February to halt the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan from taking effect until the legal challenge is complete. But it's a setback rather than a death blow to the regulation.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case, and will likely have the final say when it does rule, at least until the ninth slot on the court is filled.

Numerous industry groups, 25 states, and four state agencies sued the EPA over the rules.

The EPA finalized the plan in October 2015, requiring states to meet individual carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for power plants by 2022, and again in 2030.

Under the rules, the EPA would offer incentives to states. The incentives include extra credits to meet carbon reduction if a state used more renewable energy sources. It would also offer states the option of imposing a carbon tax or a regional cap-and-trade.

5. Searching Cellphones

The Supreme Court ruled in another unanimous decision that the Obama administration could not search cellphone data without cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In the case of Riley v. California in June 2014, the high court held that government must get a warrant before searching the contents. The Obama Justice Department contended that an arrest gives authorities the right to search the phone.

The majority opinion said:

Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life.' The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.

6. Obamacare Judicial Setback

The Supreme Court has twice upheld Obamacare, either in whole or in part.

However, in a lawsuit brought by the House of Representatives, the law hit a snag in May when U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in the District of Columbia ruled the administration has been improperly funding the Obamacare subsidy program.

Though Congress authorized the program, it didn't appropriate funding for it, Collyer said in her opinion. Former House Speaker John Boehner launched the lawsuit. The House v. Burwell case was filed at a time of growing concerns about the Obama administration's executive overreach on various matters.

The funding program was set up to reimburse insurance companies and provide cost-sharing for low-income patients.

In October 2015, an appeals court similarly ruled on a stay for the EPA's water rules. The case is on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which again, could have the final say if the Supreme Court remains divided 4-4.

7. Regulating Water

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, ruled that the Obama administration's Waters of the United States rule wasn't legal, asserting that it clashed with Supreme Court precedent. The EPA unsuccessfully argued that bodies of water could be under federal control because of their connection to larger bodies of water.

The court determined:

A stay allows for a more deliberate determination whether this exercise of executive power, enabled by Congress and explicated by the Supreme Court, is proper under the dictates of federal law …

A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing. A stay honors the policy of cooperative federalism that informs the Clean Water Act and must attend the shared responsibility for safeguarding the nation's waters.

Again, this could also be the final say in the matter in lieu of a ninth justice.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #33 
Need to identify those judges and work to recuse them if they are not impartial.  Basically, we have to systematically undo what Obama has done like what FDR did and Woodrow Wilson with stacking the Court.  Trust me, evil will mess up.  We have to shine a light on these potential corrupt justices and work under a Trump administration to remove them. 

The race is not given to the swift nor the strong, but to the ones who endures.

This has been happening since LBJ and Jimmie Carter.  Law Schools have conservative people, but the liberals have overtaken them and tried to silence conservative and balanced view points.

I have a case I am dealing with right now on a State Level with a recent appointee who is trying to be partial and side with one attorney that is not what the weight of the evidence objectively concludes.  You have to use facts, law and the ability for REVIEW of a record be the way to expose this injustice.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

How Obama took control of 70% of U. S. Courts of Appeals by appointing liberal judges


Philip Wegmann (DailySignal) is reporting that on the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. After nearly eight years, he has delivered on one front by reshaping the federal judiciary.

That revolution has been comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar.

When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.

Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts has gone largely unnoticed, though.

"The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year," Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, "while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000."

More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. "That's a legacy with a capital L."

Obama also has left his mark on the U.S. District Courts, which are the lower federal courts, successfully appointing 268 judges -- seven more than President George W. Bush.

Obama didn't push federal courts to the left by himself, though, since the Senate must confirm a president's judicial appointments. And some conservatives complain that Senate Republicans handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight.

"These nominees can't be characterized as anything but radical liberals, and the senators knew that when they were voting," said Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee.

While there's "no singular explanation" for how the majority of federal appeals judges flipped, Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal, Senate Republicans have adopted a strategy of "knee-jerk surrender" on nominees.

Republican leadership balks at that characterization, arguing that they've spent most of their time engaging in guerilla-style campaigns against an entrenched, determined Democrat majority.

"A Democrat president has been in office for eight years, most of that with a Democrat Senate, including several years of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority," a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Signal.

While Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, has remained consistent in the Senate, the strategy for appeals court nominees has fluctuated. Liberals describe it as aggressive, but conservatives belittle it as reserved.

There's a decent case to be made for both interpretations.

A Republican minority in the Senate filibustered for months in 2013 to keep three of Obama's nominees off the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The GOP's opposition was so stiff that, to overcome it, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid triggered a dramatic rule change known as "the nuclear option."

To overcome Republican opposition at the time, under the Democrats' new rules federal judicial nominees can advance to a confirmation vote with the support of a simple majority of senators and without the threat of a filibuster.

As a result, if a party holds the White House and a Senate majority, the president's nominees are almost guaranteed confirmation.

But Republican antagonism to Obama's nominees has not been constant.

While in the minority, Republicans often mounted little to no opposition to Obama's court of appeals nominees. And since winning the Senate majority in the 2014 elections, Republicans have rubber-stamped two appeals justices -- Kara Stoll for the Federal Circuit and Luis Restrepo for the 3rd Circuit.

As a result, Obama has fleshed out the judicial roster on the U.S. Court of Appeals, successfully appointing 55 of the 179 judges with little opposition.

Seven more of Obama's appeals court nominees await consideration in the Senate. With a compressed congressional calendar and Election Day on Nov. 8, however, more confirmations before Obama leaves office seem unlikely.

The ideological makeup of the appeals court has more to do with justices retiring and dying off -- "the natural process of attrition" -- than politics, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group.

"Obama was just very aggressive in getting those spots filled," Severino told The Daily Signal. "And it's paid off for him, especially on the D.C. Circuit Court [of Appeals], where there have been some really important cases that have come through."

A conservative stronghold under President George W. Bush, Severino said, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit -- which presides over West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina -- "is now on the cutting edge of liberal activism."

In April, that appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of a transgender student's right to use the boys' restrooms and showers in public school. Two Obama appointees, Judges Henry Franklin Floyd and Andre Davis, outvoted Ronald Reagan appointee Paul Niemeyer.

The Senate had confirmed both overwhelmingly and without significant Republican hindrance -- Davis in 2009 by a vote of 72-16 and Floyd in 2011 by a vote of 96-0.

The next president could tip the balance of the four remaining circuit courts of appeals still dominated by conservatives.

"It's hands down the most fateful issue of the election," said Willett, who is on Republicans' short list for the Supreme Court.

"When Americans vote in November, they're choosing not just a president but thousands of presidential appointees, including hundreds of life-tenured judges."

It's the stuff you don't see that will end the great experiment of America.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

Federal judge blocks Obama's gender-confused bathroom policy


William Teach (PiratesCove) says some people think it's a bad idea allowing people who feel that they're the opposite biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers of the opposite biological sex, especially when there is a serious concern that many are just pretending

(Bloomberg) The Obama administration was barred by a judge from enforcing a directive that U.S. public schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their gender identity.

A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Sunday sided with Texas and 12 other states that argued the administration's policy usurps local control and threatens students' safety and privacy. (snip)

In the Texas case, the judge said his ruling was based on the administration failing to follow rule-making procedures and not underlying issues of students' rights.

"This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students' rights and that of personal privacy when using school bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other intimate facilities, while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school," O'Connor said. "The resolution of this difficult policy issue is not, however, the subject of this order."

You have this tiny, tiny, tiny segment of the population which needs some serious psychological guidance, along with restraining orders against wackjob parents who advocate and coddle their little boys and girls into believing that they are really the opposite biological sex at young ages. And none of them will accept a common sense solution like separate showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, so that everyone is afforded their privacy and safety. No, no, they want to force this gender confusion down everyone's throats.

And no, this is not even close to what blacks went through when Democrats were instituting Jim Crow and other segregation laws, an argument liberals like to trot out. No one is kicking TGs out of school, saying they can't participate in gym class, nor cannot use the bathroom. They just need to use the either use the bathroom etc that corresponds to their biological sex or accept a reasonable accommodation that allows for other people's privacy.

What Obama has wrought!


CBS/Boston is reporting that a man was arrested Friday after he allegedly exposed himself inside a women's bathroom and urinated in the sink.

A Transit Police officer was patrolling the Back Bay station in Boston, when he was informed a man had just entered the women's room.

As the officer walked toward the bathroom, Taha Hamid of Dorchester was seen leaving the facility.

The officer was told by a woman that while inside the bathroom, Hamid pulled down his pants and urinated in the sink, saying "This is a man's bathroom now."

Hamid was arrested and charged with open and gross lewdness.

I guess we have to thank Obama twice for this one!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #36 
Well, when we had a Supreme Court Justice (Scalia) who fought against the tyranny of the Left, Obama & Clinton had him killed.  These sodomites and leftist judges don't respect God or the rule of law and our U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.

They have to be recused and rooted out. Period.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Stunning claim -- U.S. at point where "elections don't matter"


Paul Bremmer (WND) wants to know -- could our republic be on its last legs?

If the judicial system continues to usurp power it doesn't rightfully possess, then America's current system can't last much longer, according to Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz.

"We will not survive another few years as a republic, irrespective of who wins this election, if the courts are not stripped of their power," Horowitz declared during a recent appearance on the Mark Levin Show.

Indeed, the nation is reaching a "cathartic moment in our history where elections won't matter," according to Horowitz.

This is because unelected judges are deciding most major social and political questions with finality. Horowitz details the danger posed by the courts in his new book "Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America."

Levin praised the book, calling it "a must-read" and "a terrific book" and deeming Horowitz "one of the smartest young men in the conservative movement today."

Horowitz said he was inspired to write the book by two distinct events that happened Sept. 3, 2015. That was the day Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her Christian faith by issuing "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples. This came after the Supreme Court in June created the constitutional "right" to homosexual marriage.

Then also on Sept. 3, according to Horowitz, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel invalidated the deportation of a criminal alien because the individual was transgender.

The judge applied international law to rule the alien could not be returned to Mexico because he might face persecution because of his gender identity. The judge then castigated the immigration officials in court for not using the proper pronoun to refer to the defendant.

So on the same day a federal judge threw a peaceful clerk in jail for following her Christian faith, another federal judge ordered the ICE to release a dangerous criminal illegal alien. This dichotomy was emblematic of a major problem Horowitz sees drawing near.

"I believe that we are reaching the final frontier of judicial tyranny," Horowitz warned. "For years they've been codifying special privileges for protected classes, flipping unalienable rights on its head for protected classes of Americans. They're now copying and pasting those rights to foreign nationals."

This manifests itself, according to Horowitz, when judges rule in favor of birthright citizenship and counting illegal aliens in the census while ruling against common sense state voter ID laws.

"They are not only deciding every political and social question of our time that should be left to a legislature, they are preventing conservatives from even winning elections and having fair elections in the first place," Horowitz said. "This is why I see this problem as pretty much the most imminent constitutional crisis we have to confront at this moment."

Some conservatives believe all they need to do is elect a Republican president who will then appoint more conservative judges, but Horowitz views this as a fool's errand.

For one thing, he said, it would take many years to replace enough liberal judges to make a serious difference, and Republican presidents do not have a great record anyway when it comes to appointing judges who turn out to be conservative.

Horowitz believes America has reached a point of no return and the only answer now is to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain issues. This requires no new law or constitutional amendment because Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to exempt and regulate the jurisdiction of the courts.

If Congress would only stand up and exercise this power, it would change everything, according to Horowitz.

"So the notion that the courts could say, 'A man is a woman now for purposes of state law; a marriage is not a marriage; you have to fund Planned Parenthood; you can't regulate abortion clinics' -- they do not have the power to do that if Congress protects the states and simply says no, they do not have the power to adjudicate," Horowitz declared.

Indeed, the notion that one district or circuit judge can redefine marriage or throw out an immigration law is silly, according to Horowitz, because Congress created those courts and has power over their jurisdiction. He acknowledged his book has opened many eyes to the way the judiciary is supposed to work.

"A lot of people actually thought the courts are the final arbiter of everything," Horowitz said. "That's what even conservatives are trained to think, and this is something that is so dangerous because … there's got to be some sort of limit to it."

He pointed out early voting was a concept that didn't exist in most states until about a decade ago, yet federal judges are now ruling that states violate the Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act if they reduce their early voting periods.

"How do we allow this to stand for even one day when we have the authority to simply say the courts do not have jurisdiction over this issue?" Horowitz asked.

Horowitz lamented conservatives' unwillingness to embrace drastic but necessary measures to save the American republic. Just as many rejected Levin's suggestions in "The Liberty Amendments," some have already rejected Horowitz's suggestions in "Stolen Sovereignty."

"This is not something foreign," Horowitz reasoned. "We're talking about pursuing constitutional remedies to combat unconstitutional coups throughout our government that the left has perpetrated for a hundred years, and our side says no to everything."

Again, Horowitz warned simply appointing more conservative judges has been tried before, and it has failed to fix the systemic problems in the court system. In fact, he said having Congress restrict the courts' jurisdiction is the one variable Americans have not yet explored. He recommends Congress at minimum strip the courts of jurisdiction over issues of sovereignty, most notably immigration.

Such a move would do far more than 10 to 12 years of Republican governance, Horowitz assured Levin's audience.

"We need to do something now, and this notion that we're going to continue banging our heads against the wall and just say, 'Appoint better judges,' this system is so flawed," Horowitz insisted. "When we have this erroneous notion and we give in to the premise that the courts are not just a coequal branch to engage in judicial review, but they are above, they are the sole and final arbiter of every single important question of our time, we've lost our system of governance. It doesn't matter; it doesn't matter who wins the elections. I guarantee you -- pick your favorite policy, why you want a Republican governor or president -- that policy will be thrown out."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

Federal judge issues huge defeat to Obama that could change the 2016 election


Brian Hayes (TopRightNews) is reporting that a Federal judge has unleashed a crushing defeat to Barack Obama and Democrats by ruling that states can stop voter fraud by requiring voters to show identification to prove citizenship.

The leftist League of Women Voters joined the Obama Administration's lawsuit to block voter ID laws in three states: Kansas, Alabama and Georgia. Their argument was that federal laws do not require ID and thus the states were imposing an "extra burden" on people who wanted to vote.

However, Judge Richard J. Leon sided with the states and ruled against the administration -- and his ruling is likely to be used by at least 12 additional states to keep fraudulent and illegal aliens from voting in the critical 2016 elections.

And Judge Leon has liberals furious after making a tongue-in-cheek take down of ObamaCare in the process.

From The Washington Times (via Federalist Papers):

D.C. Circuit Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that while it may be "inconvenient" to require proof of citizenship -- and it may be a bit harder to get people to register to vote -- it's not "insurmountable" and it's certainly harder than explaining ObamaCare.

"The organizational plaintiffs and their members will undoubtedly have to expend some additional time and effort to help individuals," Judge Leon wrote. "But let's be candid: doing so pales in comparison to explaining to the average citizen how the [Affordable Care Act] or tax code works!"

The case is about three states specifically -- Kansas, Alabama and Georgia – but the ruling is expected to have a wide impact as many states have been trying to clamp down on voter fraud.

Checkmate. This is the last thing Hillary Clinton wanted to see now that the race is tightening with GOP presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump. The latest Rasmussen Poll shows Trump leading Clinton by 4 points, and the latest Quinnipiac Poll shows Clinton's lead shrinking by 9 to just a two point lead for Clinton, 42%-40%.

Democrats need all the voter fraudsters and illegal aliens at the polls they can get…and Judge Leon just made that a whole lot harder.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #39 

Supreme Court sinks Obama immigration order


Keith Koffler (WhiteHouseDossier) is reporting that the Supreme Court by a 4-4 tie let stand lower courts' decisions saying Barack Obama lacked the authority to grant legal status to the parents of so-called "Dreamers," who were brought to the United States as children.

Obama's order could have given status to as many as five million people who came here illegally. Turns out Obama was also acting illegally. It was an obvious attempt to create legislation by fiat, though remarkably, four members of the Supreme Court don't seem to get it.

From the Associated Press:

A tie vote by the Supreme Court is blocking Barack Obama's immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.

A tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit.

"Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. "The Supreme Court's ruling makes the president's executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws -- only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers."

But Hillary wasn't happy.

"Today's deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," she said. "Today's decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority."

Obama's reaction? He says he's still going to do what he wants to do despite court's decision.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Team Obama tells the Supreme Court that "lawfully" doesn't mean "legally



Terence P. Jeffrey (CNSNews) says welcome to what Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court on Monday is the "immigration world." Or, more accurately, welcome to the new world Barack Obama -- through his solicitor -- is asking the Supreme Court to join him in declaring.

It is a world that contradicts the law of noncontradiction. It is a place where something can be and not be at the same time. It is a place of illogic -- and lawlessness.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in U.S. v. Texas. This case pits 26 states against the Obama administration on the question of whether the Executive Branch -- n.b. Obama, through a bureaucratic subordinate -- can unilaterally declare that more than four million foreign nationals who are illegally in the United States may stay here, work here and acquire eligibility for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

In a final brief presented to the court this month, Verrilli explained the administration's "guidance" on this policy, which it calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.

The states suing the administration, Verrilli told the court, "are fundamentally wrong to claim the Guidance confers on aliens whose presence Congress has deemed unlawful the right to remain lawfully in the United States."

"Aliens covered by the Guidance, like all aliens afforded deferred action, are violating the law by remaining in the United States, are subject to removal proceedings at the government's discretion, and gain no defense to removal," Verrilli said.

The solicitor general then argued that the administration was not granting foreign nationals illegally in the United States "lawful status." It was instead granting them "lawful presence."

"Aliens with lawful status under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] are here lawfully; their presence therefore is not a basis for removal," said Obama's solicitor in his brief. "By contrast, mere 'lawful presence' occurs when the Executive 'openly tolerate[s] an undocumented alien's continued presence in the United States for a fixed period (subject to revocation at the agency's discretion),' notwithstanding that the alien lacks lawful status and is present in violation of the law."

So in the words of Obama's own solicitor: An "undocumented alien" whom the administration grants "lawful presence" remains "present in violation of the law."

In Monday's oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito challenged the solicitor's language.

"On Page 16, you quote the Guidance that says, 'The individuals covered are lawfully present in the United States,'" Roberts told Verrilli, according to the court's official transcript. "And less than a page later, you say, 'Aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law.'

'Now that must have been a hard sentence to write," said Roberts. "I mean ... they're lawfully present, and yet, they're present in violation of the law."

Verrilli responded: "I actually had no trouble writing it, Mr. Chief Justice."

At this, according to the transcript, laughter arose in the Supreme Court chamber.

This is when Verrilli explained that these words have a different meaning in the "immigration world."

"The reason I had no problem writing it is because that phrase, 'lawful presence,' has caused a terrible amount of confusion in this case; I realize it," said Verrilli. "But the reality is ... it means something different to people in the immigration world. What it means in the immigration world is not that you have a legal right to be in the United States, that your status has changed in any way. That you have any defense to removal. It doesn't mean any of those things, and it never has ... and so at that fundamental level, we are not trying to change anybody's legal status on the immigration--"

Roberts interrupted: "Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present in the United States."

"Right," said Verrilli. "Tolerated--"

Roberts interrupted again: "I'm sorry ... just so I get that right ... Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present."

"Correct," said the solicitor general.

Justice Alito then asked if it was true that those granted this unique status "may lawfully work in the United States."

"That's right," said the solicitor.

"And how is it possible," asked Alito, "to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?"

Millions are doing it, the solicitor general assured the justice.

"There are millions of people, millions of people other than DAPA recipients about who this is true right now," said Verrilli. "And this gets to the point of why their [the complaining states] reading of Section 1324 is completely wrong."

But Alito focused on the plain English.

"I'm just talking about the English language," Alito said. "I just don't understand it. ... [H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?"

That is a good question. But the only way the court itself can answer it correctly is if five justices agree on the truth.

Welcome to the world of liberal-progressives where the grass is blue and the sky is green.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #41 

Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Obama's "DAPA Amnesty" today

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that D.A.P.A or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program -- is the executive action Obama attempted in November of 2014 which was shut down by Federal Judge Andrew Hanen in February '15 with the issuance of an emergency injunction.

  • The DoJ appealed the Hanen injunction, on merit, to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost.
  • The DoJ then appealed the Hanen injunction, on standing, to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and lost again. (Full Backstory<– Absolutely critical read to understand the scope of what will be argued today -- includes prior court rulings.

The Supremes 2012

The DoJ filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court.  On January 19th, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.  The Court will hear oral arguments in the case tomorrow with a decision expected in late June/July -- just as the 2016 presidential campaign, in which immigration has already played a major role, really starts to heat up.

(Via Amy Howe) […] The first issue that the Justices agreed to decide is a threshold question: whether Texas and the other states have a right to file the lawsuit at all -- a legal doctrine known as "standing." The idea behind standing is that federal courts should only decide actual disputes, between parties who have a concrete interest in the conflict. You can't bring a lawsuit, for example, simply because you don't like one of the government's policies; you generally have to show that you have been directly affected or injured by that policy.

The lower court in this case ruled that, at the very least, Texas has a right to challenge the administration's immigration policy.

[…] The next question that the Justices agreed to decide goes to the merits of the state's challenge: assuming the states do have a right to bring the case, does the Obama administration have the authority to issue the new immigration policy?

[…] A third question before the Court is whether a federal law that governs how federal agencies issue regulations required the Department of Homeland Security (the section of the government that actually issued the policy) to notify the public about the proposed policy and provide an opportunity for members of the public to weigh in on it.

[…] In granting review, the Justices also instructed the states and the Obama administration to address a fourth question: whether the immigration policy violates the Constitution's "Take Care Clause," which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The states had raised this question briefly in the Supreme Court, while emphasizing it heavily below.

In many cases, the fact that the lower court did not decide a legal question will often prompt the Justices to decline to do so as well -- but that did not happen here. This could mean that the Justices just want to make sure that all of the bases are covered in the case, or it could mean that there are at least four Justices who believe that the argument has some merit; it is impossible to know right now. (read full)

The underlying case has never been argued at the lower court level. As soon as Judge Hanen delivered the initial injunction, the DoJ began the appeals process against the injunction without ever arguing the merits of the underlying case.

The decision of SCOTUS to take up the full aspects of the underlying case is remarkable; however, it could be they felt it impossible to rule on the injunction appeal without just directly getting to the heart of the case.

Regardless, their willingness to go deep, makes it seem like at least four justices are willing to jump into the politics of the executive action. The underlying reasoning of Judge Hanen was well constructed and eloquently outlined.

The President granting work authorization to illegal aliens is certain to become part of the larger argument showcasing executive overreach; however, it will also likely be an aspect the media will not cover.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #42 

Obama immigration actions face critical day at high court


Jordan Fabian (TheHill) is reporting that a group of 26 states, led by Texas, will argue the injunction should be kept in place because Barack Obama overstepped his authority and the programs would pose high costs on their governments.

The court is expected to hand down a ruling in June. But Obama and his allies are facing the possibility of a deadlock that would hand a victory to Texas and the states. 

If the short-handed court splits 4-4, the lower court's ruling would be left in place, which would virtually guarantee the programs will not go into place before Obama leaves office. 

"The 500-pound gorilla is the empty chair of Justice [Antonin] Scalia," said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, who helped file a legal brief backing the lawsuit against Obama's programs.  

"It has a significant impact on the outcome of the case. Because we're down to only eight justices, there is a distinct possibility of a tie."

Supporters of the program argue the eight-member Supreme Court might not have the final say on the programs. 

If the justices cannot reach a majority decision, they say states, cities and activist groups could launch a new round of legal challenges in other courts to try to fight the injunction, imposed by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the most conservative appeals court in the country. 

"What happens then is what we call judicial chaos," said David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "It would open the door to a floodgate of cases trying to challenge the injunction."

The states could argue that they would be deprived of economic benefits of the programs. 

A coalition of 118 cities and counties, including New York City, filed a legal brief last month arguing they could miss out on around $800 million in economic benefits to state and local governments if millions of large numbers of immigrants remain subject to deportation.

Other legal experts call that scenario farfetched, saying cities and states lack legal standing to bring such a suit based on potential lost benefits.

"It has no legal merit," said Blackman. 

Immigrant rights groups are hopeful it won't come to that and are confident of a victory at the Supreme Court. They see Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy as likely votes in favor of the Obama administration. 

They are confident the justices, and Roberts in particular, will find that the states do not have the right to sue the federal government to block the immigration actions. 

If the justices agree the states do not have standing, the case could be thrown out and the administration could start putting the programs in place.

Texas and its counterparts argue they would suffer high costs from issuing driver's licenses and providing other benefits to undocumented immigrants if that occurs.

"If any budgetary impact, no matter how speculative, on a state provides the opportunity to go to court and challenge any federal policy, then we would see the courts flooded with such cases," Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), told reporters this week. 

"It could shut down the government and it is not an exaggeration to suggest that," added Saenz, who is arguing before the court on behalf of a group of undocumented immigrants who could be affected by Obama's actions.

Advocates cite Roberts' dissenting opinion in a 2007 case, arguing that Massachusetts and other states did not have standing to bring a lawsuit demanding the Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

Kennedy sided with the Obama administration in 2012, when he wrote the majority opinion that struck down the core of Arizona's controversial immigration law. He wrote that the federal government, and not the states, has the sole authority to write and enforce immigration laws. 

At stake is Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, which would allow undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children to apply for a temporary reprieve from deportation. 

The states also challenged an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, which has allowed more than 700,000 people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to remain. 

Obama announced the programs after the 2014 midterm elections. But Hanen, the Texas federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, blocked them from taking effect in February 2015. A split panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld his ruling last November, arguing Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. 

The legal fight has generated intense interest. The court expanded oral arguments to 90 minutes to allow lawyers representing MALDEF and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to join the administration and the states in making their case. 

In addition to the costs associated with the programs, Texas and the other states argue Obama does not have the legal authority to shield large groups of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

"This case is about an unprecedented, sweeping assertion of executive power," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in brief filed with the Supreme Court last month. "When Congress has established certain conduct as unlawful, the separation of powers does not permit the executive to unilaterally declare that conduct lawful."

Opponents of the plan say legal standing will be a major threshold issue but are confident they will offer a persuasive case on the merits if they can clear that hurdle.

While Kennedy ruled favorably for Obama in the Arizona case, they are hopeful he will reprise his role in the 2012 Obamacare challenge, when he scolded the 5-4 majority that upheld the law for "a vast judicial overreaching."

But they have also been scarred by the experience of seeing the Roberts court deliver victories for the president on his healthcare law and same-sex marriage in recent years.

"John Roberts breaks my heart every single June," said Blackman. "Maybe this will be the way he breaks my heart this year. But I don't know."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

A sad commentary on America's electorate

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) says democracy only works with an informed electorate, but there is one thing even worse for democracy than an uninformed electorate -- a totally clueless electorate that pretends to know what it is talking about.

Jimmy Kimmel brings us up to date regarding what the voter on the street thinks of recent developments regarding the Supreme Court:

Just wow!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #44 

Obama nominates anti-gun activist to Supreme Court


District of Columbia v. Heller is considered by gun rights activists to be the most important Second Amendment case in history.

The Heller case is not the only time Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, he ruled against the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit challenging the Justice Department's handling of gun purchaser's information. Garland ruled that is was permissible for the department to retain up to six months of records from the National Instant Background Check System, over the NRA's argument that this practice effectively created an illegal national registry.

Conservatives and gun rights activists reacted negatively to Garland's nomination, saying he should not be confirmed because of his rulings on guns.

"This is not a good nomination and should not be confirmed," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon

"Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia's gun ban law," Gottlieb said. "The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. That (Garland's vote) was hostile to gun rights."

The NRA, the nation's largest gun rights organization, said it would lobby against Garland's appointment.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #45 
He can try, but unfortunately his cockiness in having Justice Scalia murdered and lack of respect to attend his funeral and the jokes hurt his chances.

If he wanted it, he needed to be more humble.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

Barack Obama is employing political extortion in Supreme Court nomination process


Matthew Clark (RedState) says Barack Obama is bringing the "Chicago Way" to the Supreme Court nomination process.  Simply put, he is engaging in political extortion to force his will on the American people.

First, he floated the name of a Republican governor in hopes that it would cause a rift in the Senate majority's principled stand against a rushed confirmation process in an election year.

Now, Obama is vetting (read: intentionally leaking his potential nominee) one of his law school classmates in order to politically extort the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee into bowing to his will.

He is attempting to use a judge from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's home state of Iowa, as the Senator faces a tough reelection fight, as leverage to force him cave on confirmation hearings.

It's a shameless shakedown.  It's the Chicago way.

But it's not the American way.  It's not how the Constitution works.

Despite Obama's best/worst attempts, the looming Supreme Court battle is not about individual judges; it's about principle.  The American people -- in an election year -- deserve to have a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.

It is the same principled position espoused by then-Senator Joe Biden (and many others on the Left) when he said, "[The president] should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Senator Grassley has stood firm on his conviction and taken then-Senator Biden's advice -- "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over" -- to heart.

And he's exactly right. Historical precedent stands firmly on the side of waiting to replace a Supreme Court justice in an election year until after the next president takes office -- to ensure that the people have a voice in what is a lifetime appointment.  As I've explained before, "It has not been since 1880 that a president of one party has successfully had a Supreme Court nominee confirmed by a Senate controlled by another party in a presidential election year."

Despite Obama's contention otherwise, the constitutionally prescribed "advice and consent" of the Senate is not a rubber stamp.  Obama doesn't have to like it, but the Senate has a role to play.

The American people (over 170,000 of whom have already signed our petition demanding no confirmation before the election) deserve a voice.

Extortion, shakedowns, and Chicago style politics is no way to select a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #47 

The most unlikely person just undermined Obama's attempt to replace Scalia

Randy DeSoto (WesternJournalism) is reporting that Republicans found an unlikely ally in their argument that there is no pressing need to replace Justice Antonin Scalia during an election year. That support came Thursday in the form of remarks made by liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer..

NBC News correspondent Pete Williams questioned Breyer, 77, at an event at the Newseum in Washington about Scalia's passing and how that impacts the Supreme Court, which reconvened Monday for the first time in his absence.

The justice described Scalia as a "good friend" and the Supreme Court will be a "grayer place" without the conservative icon there

"He was fun. He was absolute fun. Underlying a very, very sharp wit, a very strong intellect and an ability to see the humorousness in different situations, underlying that was an absolute seriousness of purpose," Breyer said. "He was absolutely serious about the Constitution [and] about the need for the courts…."

"We'll miss him, but we'll do our work," the Bill Clinton appointee added. "The cases come along. Contrary to what a lot of people think, half of our cases are unanimous. The number of 5-4 cases in a typical year is around 20 percent."

"For the most part, [the work among the justices] will not change," Breyer stated.

"It looks like you will be at eight for a while, though," Williams said, referring to the Republicans' plan not to consider a nominee during presidential election season.

"That's your determination," Breyer replied, apparently referring to the American people, which drew laughter from the audience.

As reported by Western Journalism, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday, "Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent. In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid made clear in May 2005 it is fully within the Senate's prerogative not to schedule a vote on presidential nominees. "The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has the duty to give a presidential nominee a vote," he contended from the Senate floor.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Chuck Schumer voted to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito's nomination in 2005, and Schumer called on the Senate not to approve any of President George W. Bush's possible nominees to the high court during his last 18 months in office, except under "extraordinary circumstances."

In 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president, then-Sen. Joe Biden argued the Senate should not move forward on Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year. "That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process," Biden said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #48 

That was then. This is now -- 1992 video of Joe Biden on Supreme Court nominations

Gina Cassini (TopRightNews) is reporting that After the stunning death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the battle over whether Barack Obama should get to nominate his successor has embroiled Washington.

Republicans have insisted that a lame-duck president should not decide a lifetime appointment so close to an election. But Democrats have angrily demanded Obama get the pick before his term ends. But the liberals have been caught in their own hypocrisy. First we found Chuck Schumer arguing against George W. Bush being able to do the same, and it was recalled that a Democrat-controlled Senate once even passed a resolution to preventing a recess appointment.

And now, in the biggest argument yet against Obama's nomination of Scalia's replacement has just surfaced. Courtesy of none other than Obama's own vice president, Joe Biden.

Ouch…you can't make this stuff up!

Via The Blaze:

Before he was vice president, Sen. Joe Biden argued in 1992 against a Republican president nominating someone to the U.S. Supreme Court during an election year.

In a clip unearthed by C-SPAN Monday, the Delaware Democrat argued on the Senate floor that President George H.W. Bush should not nominate a new Supreme Court justice "in the full throes of an election year."

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the November election is completed," Biden said in the clip, which C-SPAN posted on Twitter.

Now, Biden is the vice president of the in-power party, and Barack Obama has promised to fulfill his "constitutional responsibilities" to nominate a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia before his term ends. But many Republicans have called for Obama's successor to make the nomination to fill the vacancy. And in 1992, Biden made the same argument:

It is my view that if Obama goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson, and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

He added that a lame duck president making the pick would be unfair.

It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Bush didn't end up making an appointment to the court during the election year. Justice Byron White delayed his retirement until March 19, 1993. President Bill Clinton, Bush's successor, nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg in June 1993 and she was confirmed by the Senate that August.

I'm guessing Obama won't be too happy about this surfacing.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #49 
Mr. Soetoro had all Christian symbols covered when visiting a Catholic University.
No symbols were covered when Mr Soetoro visited a mosque of murky ties.
It is impossible to ask a Catholic Cathedral to cover up crosses and other symbols of Christianity because Mr. Soetoro is attending.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 

Unbelievable photo released of Obama after spending less than 2 min at Scalia’s wake

Tom Tillison (BizPacReview) says that for a man “not interested in photo ops,” Barack Obama sure finds himself in plenty.

Raising more than a few eyebrows for not planning to attend Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral today -- an unprecedented act -- Obama is seen carrying a "huge binder of materials on possible SCOTUS nominees," as noted by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.



To be fair, Obama did carve out two minutes from his busy schedule on Friday to pay his respects to Scalia, who was lying in repose inside the Supreme Court.


Based on the reaction on social media, it’s a safe bet that most Americans aren’t buying what Obama’s media allies are selling … and think he should attend the funeral.

Here’ a sampling of responses from Twittter:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved