Democrat Senator Unwittingly Sums up Why Obama SCOTUS Nominee Must Never Be Confirmed

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin this week may have crystallized for conservatives why Senate Republicans are digging in their heels on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination.

“One only has to look at the Court’s docket this year in particular to see the gravity of the issues that they are grappling with. We know that a Supreme Court justice who’s able to serve 10, 20, 30, 40 years is someone who’ll shape the interpretation of policy for a generation or more,” the Madison Democrat told Politico after leaving a protest on the steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.

No wonder conservatives want nothing to do with an Obama nominee, even a so-called “consensus candidate” in appeals court Judge Merrick B. Garland.

Twenty years of another liberal like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on a left-led court would be disastrous for core conservative and constitutional principles, conservatives assert.

Baldwin, an openly gay senator from one of the most liberal cities in the nation, was part of the Obama Supreme Court dog and pony show Thursday. It’s the highly politicized shame game to make intransigent GOP senators change their minds on a hearing for Garland. Republicans remain mostly united in their stance that the next president – be that chief executive a Republican or Democrat – nominate a replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.

In short, no Obama nominees in this election year.

“We absolutely will not allow the Supreme Court to flip,” U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin’s senior senator, said last month at a political forum hosted by Milwaukee conservative talk-radio host Charlie Sykes. Johnson made his comments to thunderous applause, according to the New York Times.

That enthusiasm from the base shows why Obama and his left-wing, politically driven shame game may fail to move the Republican position.

While a CNN/ORC poll late last month showed a slight majority of respondents, 52 percent, said Garland should be confirmed, the conservative base has a profound distrust of this president and his ultra-liberal leanings.

“Yeah, I am hearing the drumbeat, ‘Do your job! Do your job!’ ” Johnson said, playing off the Dems’ meme in their pressure campaign to get Garland a hearing. “We’re doing our job,” Johnson declared, to shouts of “yes,” according to the Times.

“President Obama job is to nominate and he chose to do that,” the Oshkosh Republican told Wisconsin Watchdog last month. “Our job is to advise and consent.”

The Senate’s advice, Johnson said, was the same as Vice President Joe Biden‘s, who in 1992 as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman urged President George H.W. Bush not to send a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate during that election year.

Should there be a vacancy on the court, Biden said, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the general election is completed,” and if he did, the “Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” Biden said. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Funny how the times change. Biden was on the political PR trail this week explaining why the “full Supreme Court Matters to You.”

On Thursday, Johnson said he was open to meeting with anyone, including Garland. But his view has not changed.

“Wisconsinites’ Second Amendment right to bear arms and other fundamental liberties are at stake, so I will continue doing my job as a constitutional check on the president’s power, and we will continue to withhold our consent until the American people have a voice through their votes this fall,” the senator said.

Johnson’s Democrat opponent, former Sen. Russ Feingold, whom Johnson beat in 2010, has tried to fire up his troops with the Supreme Court issue. He says the incumbent and his Republican colleagues are “playing” to their base, failing to note the partisan impact from the left.

“They protect those at the very top, and they are not even willing to do their job when it comes to a clear issue on the Supreme Court because everything is about being partisan and keeping control on the Supreme Court,” Feingold told the New York Times. “So people smell a rat. They smell that something is not honest about this.”

Liberals see the issue as a big winner come November, with voters taking out their frustrations over the Supreme Court battle on Republicans at the polls – delivering the Senate back to Democrats and retaining control of the White House. Ultimately, the nominee will be the left’s anyway, and his confirmation will follow, or so the left-wing vision goes.

Feingold and his friends, however, fail to see that Johnson, his fellow Republican senators, and many millions of Americans see the fight on constitutional principles.

“The left wants the Supreme Court flipped. They want an activist court,” Johnson told Wisconsin Watchdog. “They want to have President Obama appoint another super legislator to join the liberal block and what would be put at risk are your Second Amendment rights to bear arms, your First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty. That’s what is at stake here.” (For more from the author of “Democrat Senator Unwittingly Sums up Why Obama SCOTUS Nominee Must Never Be Confirmed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President

An anonymous group of conservative billionaires is ready to place their bets on a man dubbed “Mad Dog,” hoping to draft him into the presidential race to confront Donald Trump.

Think of it as a Plan B should Trump be nominated by the Republican Party in Cleveland: swing behind retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis and press him into service yet again as a third-party candidate.

Mattis is the former commander of Central Command, which includes the strife-afflicted conflict zones of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, and has developed a reputation among troops as a general officer who cares about the little guy. This reputation blossomed into the political realm during the 2012 presidential contest, when a Marine Corps veteran started an online campaign to write-in Mattis on presidential ballots—it ultimately lacked the backing to take off.

But this situation involves far bigger players: Close to a dozen influential donors—involving politically-involved billionaires with deep pockets and conservative leanings—are ready to put their resources behind Mattis. At their request, a small group of political operatives have taken the first steps in the strategic legwork needed for a bid: a package of six strategic memos outlining how Mattis could win the race, in hopes of coaxing him in. (Read more from “The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama on Clinton’s Emails: ‘There’s Classified, and Then There’s Classified’

President Barack Obama is guaranteeing that evidence, not politics, will dictate the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails as secretary of state.

Obama’s comments came during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, his first as president. Obama said he continues to believe Clinton didn’t jeopardize America’s national security with her private email server, but he added that “there’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails” that she has recognized.

“What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified,” Obama told Fox News. “There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source.”

Obama said no one has suggested that Clinton’s handling of government emails detracted in any way “from her excellent ability to carry out her duties.” When asked specifically whether he can guarantee that Clinton will “not be in any way protected” during the course of the investigation, Obama said he maintains a strict line about not talking to FBI directors about pending investigations.

“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,” Obama said during an interview that was taped during his visit to the University of Chicago School of Law, where he taught. (Read more from “Obama on Clinton’s Emails: ‘There’s Classified, and Then There’s Classified'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

IRS Sued for Refusing to Release Secret Church Investigations Procedures

Government watchdog groups have filed a motion in federal court to compel the IRS to reveal how it determines when to initiate “church investigations” after accusing the tax-collecting agency of “stonewalling” efforts to bring to light its procedures.

The motion, filed jointly Friday by the Alliance Defending Freedom and Judicial Watch, came in response to a legal settlement struck in 2014 with an atheist organization, which said the IRS had “resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations.”

“The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations,” the Freedom From Religion Foundation said in a press release.

But nobody knows what those “procedures” are for conducting “church investigations,” the watchdog groups said.

“The IRS is not above the law, and Americans deserve to know the truth about the agency’s secret deals with activists,” ADF Legal Counsel Christina Holcomb said in a press release. “The IRS has a legal obligation to explain why it is hiding things or else produce documents. Its ongoing refusal to follow the law is absurd, particularly since much of [what] we are asking for is information that the IRS has already provided voluntarily to Freedom From Religion Foundation.” (Read more from “IRS Sued for Refusing to Release Secret Church Investigations Procedures” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These 200 People Could Decide Whether Donald Trump Gets the GOP Nomination

West Virginia looks perfect for Donald Trump: a struggling working-class state filled with the types of voters who have backed him elsewhere and could deliver one of his biggest victories.

But a sweep there might not matter. That’s because as many as 34 delegates — the entire contingent — may be free to back whomever they want at the Republican National Convention.

Much the same is true in Pennsylvania, home to a hotly contested April 26 primary, where there are 54 uncommitted delegates. Other states and territories, from Colorado to Wyoming to Guam, will also send squads of unbound representatives.

These are the swing voters of the GOP nominating contest, nearly 200 activists and elected leaders beholden to nothing except their personal judgment and empowered to make or break candidacies. (Read more from “These 200 People Could Decide Whether Donald Trump Gets the GOP Nomination” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shadow Battle for Delegates Turns to Colorado, Cruz Holds Edge

The shadow battle for Republican convention delegates turns next to Colorado, where a days-long selection process will culminate this weekend — and once again, it seems Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has the edge.

While Donald Trump still holds a wide delegate lead in the GOP presidential primary race, his Achilles heel has been a perceived weakness in his ground game. Seeking to capitalize on this, Cruz has outmaneuvered Trump lately in the behind-the-scenes battle for delegates in places that don’t assign them through traditional primaries or caucuses.

Enter states like North Dakota, and now Colorado.

Both eschewed traditional primary elections and instead held conventions — where delegates not necessarily bound to any candidate are selected. Cruz saw this as an opportunity anyway to get allies elected to the slate, banking on their support in the event of an open convention . . .

Thirty-four delegates are at stake in the convention process, and the Cruz campaign told Fox News on Friday afternoon it has picked up 15 delegates so far in a series of local GOP meetings. The process culminates Saturday at the state convention where a final 13 delegates will be selected. (Read more from “Shadow Battle for Delegates Turns to Colorado, Cruz Holds Edge” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Judiciary Chairman: We Won’t Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on the Senate floor Thursday that he will not bow to pressure from Democrats to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland.

Grassley argued that the American people should decide the direction of the high court when they vote for the next president.

“It is no secret that the White House strategy is to put pressure on this chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other Republicans in the hopes that we can be worn down and ultimately agree to hold hearings on the nominee,” said Grassley.

“This pressure campaign, which is targeted at me and a handful of my colleagues, is based on the supposition that I and they will crack and move forward on the consideration of President Obama’s pick. This strategy has failed to recognize that I am no stranger to political pressure and to strong-arm tactics – not necessarily from more Democratic presidents, probably from more Republican presidents,” he said.

Grassley said the American people should weigh on the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court through their vote for the next president. (Read more from “Senate Judiciary Chairman: We Won’t Consider Obama Supreme Court Nominee” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Geraldo Makes Stunning Accusation Against Ted Cruz

More than three months after Republican presidential candidate Sen. Sen. Cruz criticized “New York values” as lived out by liberal government leaders, two media personalities have claimed that the remarks were anti-Semitic in nature.

The leap of logic eluded Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who laughed off the comments from Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera during Rivera’s appearance Thursday night on The O’Reilly Factor.

As the pundits made their proclamations, Cruz himself enjoyed a warm welcome from orthodox Jewish supporters in Brooklyn . . .

“Aside from the stinking anti-Semitic implications that I see in that whole ‘New York values’ money- and media-coated message that he put out there pandering to those Iowa voters, he also voted against Hurricane Sandy relief. He also voted against compensation for 9/11 victims. This is a man whose interests are absolutely antithetical to New York,” Rivera said . . .

“If he says ‘New York Values’ to a bunch of Evangelicals, it’s not anti-Semitic,” O’Reilly said, noting that Cruz has made it clear he was referring to liberal New York Democrats.

“He could have very easily said that,” Rivera insisted. “There’s a million ways he could have said that that he did not.” (Read more from “Geraldo Makes Stunning Accusation Against Ted Cruz” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Erick Erickson Website “Resurgent” Paid by Pro-Cruz/Anti-Trump “Our Principles PAC”…

Thanks to the candidacy of Donald Trump the financial intersection of money and political opinion, as guided by the monetary motives therein, has brought some amazing revelations to the surface.

These financial/media relationships have largely, and historically, remained hidden. They have damned sure never been publicly, clearly, and regularly stated so the consuming audience would know the presentation was fraught with financial conflict.

♦ The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Conveniently Hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created.

Then again, Levin never informed his audience of his family working within the Staff of Senator Ted Cruz either. Does Levin’s endorsement, when contrast against the crony-constitutional advocacy, clarify with a little sunlight? You decide.

♦ Or how about the Breitbart Media enterprise being run via an $11 million purchase from Billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Ted Cruz’s Super-PAC “Keep The Promise 1”, to the tune of $10 million. Little overlooked facts, never openly shared for news consumers to determine source motive. Pesky Sunlight

♦ Maybe the Ben Shapiro website “The Daily Wire“, being funded by the billionaire Wilks Brothers, Levi and Farris, in Texas. Who also fund Ted Cruz and his Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”. Shapiro never publicly disclosed the financial/content conflict, or the extent therein. Could Shapiro support any other candidate other than who his content owners approved of? Again, you decide. (Yep, Pesky Sunlight)

♦ The Chairman of Glenn Beck’s Mercury One charity, David Barton, jointly running the Pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”; also never put into the sunlight by Glenn Beck or his various media enterprises so the consuming audience could filter presented political opinion through the filter of fiduciary connections.

These are just a few of the politically motivated – financially dependent – revelations we probably would never have known about were it not for Donald Trump presenting a genuinely conservative America-First platform; and as a direct consequence, the faux-constitutionalists having to reverse opinion simply to retain income.

♦ So it perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise to find out that Erick Erickson’s media venture “The Resurgent“, is taking Super-PAC money from the (formerly Scott Walker advocates and financial backers) Ricketts family of Wisconsin who fund OUR PRINCIPLES PAC to the tune of $3,000,000 in February alone.

Yes, it appears there’s another conservative voice who can be added to the list of those whose opinions are conveniently tied to a financial incentive therein.

In addition to all of those in the Salem Media Communications network, along with Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson and anyone who is hosted upon the various media enterprises they front for…. all paid shrills dependent upon political graft.

Interesting indeed how the intersection of financial dependency drives the political ideology of these modern “conservative voices”. However, this does increasingly explain how those same voices will stand and cheer for Mr. No-Budget/Omnibus, House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“Smaller government”? Yeah, sure. (For more from the author of “Erick Erickson Website “Resurgent” Paid by Pro-Cruz/Anti-Trump “Our Principles PAC”…” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Unreal: Obama Admin Takes BOTH Sides on Driver’s Licenses for Illegals

Just when you thought Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has hit rock bottom, it surprises with novel ways to break the barriers of unprecedented politicization of our nation’s law enforcement.

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with illegal aliens amnestied by Obama and forced the state of Arizona to offer them driver’s licenses. But the illegal aliens and the corrupt legal profession weren’t alone in the war against Arizona’s sovereignty and security. Early on in this case, the Obama Administration filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Arizona is obligated to provide the illegal aliens with driving privileges, even though the entire issue is within the purview of “core police powers” of the state.

However, as my friend Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute has told me, this is the complete opposite position they take in Texas v. US, the multi-state case against Obama’s second executive amnesty which will be appearing before the Supreme Court this very month. DOJ is arguing that Texas has no standing to challenge the DAPA amnesty because they have no legitimate grievance or state interest. In order to arrive at that conclusion, DOJ explicitly argued that a state does NOT have to issue driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s executive amnesty.

DOJ argued before the district court that “[F]ederal law establishes a presumption that certain categories of aliens, including the recipients of deferred action, are ‘not eligible for any State or local public benefits.” It further admitted that “[S]tates have a choice to issue driver’s licenses to deferred action beneficiaries, so the costs of doing so are “self-inflicted injuries”.

Hence, when it helps the Obama Administration’s argument to assert that states are free to choose (in order to deny Texas standing), the DOJ admits that states have full power over driver’s licenses. At the same time, when it helps Obama’s cause to assert that states must issue driver’s licenses (in order to screw over Arizona), the DOJ has no shame in countermanding its original argument.

And guess what? The same DOJ lawyer listed on the amicus brief in the Arizona case, Acting Assistance AG Joyce Branda, is also listed as an attorney-of-record in the Texas case.

In a little over a week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Texas case on Obama’s executive amnesty. In a rational world governed by the rule of law, all eight justices would laugh this case out of court and uphold the 5th Circuit’s inunction on the illegal power grab. Yet, there are at least four justices who share the view of Obama’s inJustice Department: choose a desired outcome first, select the jurisprudence later – even if they contradict each other to get the desired political result. (For more from the author of “Unreal: Obama Admin Takes BOTH Sides on Driver’s Licenses for Illegals” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.