Posts

Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Monday marks a year since the tragedy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in west Texas, and his legal insight remains as poignant and pertinent as the day he left this world.

The Ninth Circuit court has recently come under fire from all sides for their “absurd,” “dangerous,” and “damningly silly” ruling against President Donald Trump’s travel suspension. And the current dustup between the judiciary and the executive — as well as the impending nomination fight over Scalia’s successor — raises the question on the anniversary of his death: What would Justice Scalia have to say about all this?

While we will never know the answer to that on this side of paradise, the late jurist’s dissent in a previous immigration case might offer some insight.

The case was Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The question before the court was whether or not the executive branch had a right to detain an alien set for deportation indefinitely, or if the 90-day detention period created some sort of “right” to be released back into the general population.

While the 5-4 majority ruled that the detention period was limited to 90 days, Scalia dissented (joined by Clarence Thomas), arguing that the rights of aliens to be deported run along the same lines as those at the border seeking entry.

Here’s what Scalia had to say about both:

“Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned. “An alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.

“We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal – which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed – has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry.”

Scalia makes this point its simplest, by offering: “[A]n inadmissible alien at the border has no right to be in the United States.”

In the case, Scalia also goes back to Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent from in Shaughnessy v. United States in 1953, which Justice Frankfurter joined:

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will. Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.”

This, of course, doesn’t mean that someone’s human rights are contingent upon their citizenship, but that but that there is no such thing as a right for a person to enter the country of which they are not a citizen. “[Another previous immigration case] at least involved aliens under final order of deportation,” explained Scalia in the Zadvydas dissent. “But all it held is that they could not be subjected to the punishment of hard labor without a judicial trial. I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States.”

Yet the Ninth Circuit has ruled that every potential migrant in a terror-infested warzone of a failed state now has constitutional due process rights to come in whenever they want, that government institutions somehow suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” as a result, and that campaign statements are fair game in evaluating a law.

A year since his passing, Scalia’s absence has left an unmistakable void on American jurisprudence, and time will only tell if Trump’s Supreme Court pick will prove up to the task of following such a titanic presence on the bench.

One thing is certain, however: As the federal circuits slip further and further into absolute legal nonsense like that seen last week, Justice Antonin Scalia’s witty, commonsensical clarity will only be missed more and more. (For more from the author of “Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Obama May Not Be Able to Replace Scalia After This Rare Footage Was Just Discovered

/31 Comments/in , /by

By Randy DeSoto. Video which recently surfaced of top Democrats talking about the Senate’s role in judicial appointments appears to hand Republicans game, set and match the debate whether Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced this year.

C-Span tweeted video from 1992 on Monday of then Senator Joe Biden admonishing the Senate not to move forward on any potential nominees to the Supreme Court because it was a presidential election year.

“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,” Biden said in June of 1992. “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”

“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,” the senator stated . . .

In 1992, Sen. Biden argued that not only should the Senate not vote on a nominee, it probably should not even go forward with a hearing in committee. “It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents 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 said. (Read more from “Watch: Obama May Not Be Able to Replace Scalia After This Rare Footage Was Just Discovered” HERE)

_______________________________________

Supreme Court Holds First Session After Justice Scalia’s Death

By Pete Williams. Chief Justice John Roberts began Monday’s Supreme Court session — the first since Antonin Scalia’s death — with a tribute.

Roberts noted that the black drapery on Scalia’s chair and his spot on the bench “signifies a period of mourning the loss of our friend and colleague.” The seat will remain draped for roughly the next month.

It was a somber and emotional return to business for the court which is expected to hear 10 cases over the next two weeks, include a challenge to restrictions on Texas abortion clinics on March 2. Scalia’s unexpected death earlier this month brought the future of the court’s ideological makeup into sharp relief as a partisan showdown over his replacement on the bench looms.

Monday, however, was a day of reflection for the court . . .

Roberts noted — to laughter in the courtroom — that Scalia “argued his first and only case before the Supreme Court in 1976. He prevailed, establishing a perfect record before this court.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Holds First Session After Justice Scalia’s Death” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lisa Murkowski – the Most Liberal GOP Senator Seeking Reelection – Called out for Waffling on Scalia Replacement

/9 Comments/in , /by

As the fight to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heats up, the conservative grassroots are holding potentially waffling Republican senators’ feet to the fire. . .

Fourteen Republicans would have to join with the 46 Democrats in the Senate in order to approve an Obama nominee to the court. So far, 31 of the GOP senators have ruled out voting for a replacement for Scalia this year, leaving 23 who have not ruled out casting the vote, the New York Times reported.

Murkowski, who is the most liberal Republican seeking re-election in 2016, initially told reporters in Alaska last Wednesday that “I do believe that the nominee should get a hearing,” adding, “That doesn’t necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not this individual, based on their record … should be named to the highest court in the land.”

After receiving blowback from Hewitt and others, the senator appeared to walk back her statement the next day, posting on Facebook: “While the President has the Constitutional prerogative to send a nominee to the Senate for consent, it is left to the Senate to determine how to proceed after that. Given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of our Presidential election, the American people will clearly be weighing in on the direction of the Supreme Court.”

She went on to urge President Barack Obama to follow precedent and allow his successor to appoint a replacement for Justice Scalia, and acknowledged the Senate does have the right to deny the nominee an up or down vote.

Hewitt accused Murkowski of waffling, implying she may not be reliable in the effort to block an Obama nominee.

(Read more from “Lisa Murkowski – the Most Liberal GOP Senator Seeking Reelection – Called out for Waffling on Scalia Replacement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Libs Are Losing It Over a Question Trump Asked About Obama Skipping Scalia’s Funeral

/18 Comments/in , /by

By Jack Davis. Donald Trump took to his favorite form of social media Saturday morning and once again lit fires across the Twittersphere.

In his first comment on the fact that President Obama did not attend Saturday’s funeral for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump sided with those who believe Obama should have attended and — as he often does — took the argument a step further.

“I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!,” Trump tweeted . . .

Trump’s comments sent fingers flying across keyboards in response.

“Donald Trump just can’t stop making implications about President Obama’s religion,” scolded Josh Feldman on Mediaite. “Yes, during Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral, Trump finally decided to jump in on the criticism of Obama’s decision not to attend with some Muslim-baiting.”

“Did Trump just say what everyone was thinking…again?,” wrote jason on The Hill. “Not a big Trump fan…but he NAILED IT. Obama not being at the Funeral is disgraceful.” (Read more from “Libs Are Losing It Over a Question Trump Asked About Obama Skipping Scalia’s Funeral” HERE)

____________________________________

Washington Pauses for Justice Antonin Scalia’s Funeral

By Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris. With pageantry, spirituality and a touch of his own trademark humor, Justice Antonin Scalia was honored on Saturday as a capital riven by his death briefly set down its political weapons to mourn what his son called “the country’s good servant.”

The nation’s leaders, including justices, judges, lawmakers, current and former vice presidents and a presidential candidate, gathered for a mostly solemn two-hour funeral Mass. The longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court, Justice Scalia died at age 79 last weekend at a Texas ranch after nearly 30 years on the highest bench.

The funeral, only the second for a sitting justice in more than 60 years, was one of those ritual Washington moments when the perpetual struggle at the intersection of law and politics is briefly suspended to honor one of the capital’s most celebrated and cheerfully controversial gladiators. Justice Scalia, who relished a vigorous debate, would hardly be surprised by the fierce battle that has erupted over his now-vacant seat, but his admirers hoped to focus for a few hours at least on his powerful legacy. (Read more from “Washington Pauses for Justice Antonin Scalia’s Funeral” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wow: Discovered Interview of Antonin Scalia Reveals Who He Wanted to Replace Him

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: The Higgs BosonBy Marisa Schultz. Republicans clamoring for the next Supreme Court justice to follow in the ideological footsteps of Justice Antonin Scalia may have just found their road map.

In a newly unearthed 2012 interview on C-SPAN, Scalia revealed his preferred successor: Judge Frank Easterbrook, of the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If I had to pick somebody to replace me on the Supreme Court, it would be Frank,” Scalia said. (Read more from “Wow: Discovered Interview of Antonin Scalia Reveals Who He Wanted to Replace Him” HERE)

__________________________________

What Wikipedia Says About Judge Easterbrook:

Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born September 3, 1948) is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was Chief Judge from November 2006 to October 2013, and has been a judge on the court since 1985. Easterbrook is noted for his use of economic analysis of law, his legalist approach to judicial interpretation, for his clear writing style, and for being one of the most prolific judges of his generation. Easterbrook is one of the most cited appellate judges in America

__________________________________

Supreme Court Family Pays Respects to Justice Antonin Scalia

By Richard Wolf. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made one final visit Friday to the marble palace he dominated for the past three decades.

His baritone voice silenced and his mighty pen relinquished, Scalia was carried in a flag-draped casket into the court’s Great Hall and placed on the Lincoln Catafalque, which first supported President Abraham Lincoln’s casket across the street in the U.S. Capitol after his assassination in 1865.

There he was honored by the remaining eight justices and 98 of his former law clerks, all of whom stood as one of Scalia’s nine children, Rev. Paul Scalia, recited a brief prayer. The justice’s widow, Maureen and his eight other children sat before the casket, with dozens of grandchildren standing behind them.

“You have called your servant Antonin out of this world,” Rev. Scalia said. “Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord. May he rest in peace.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Family Pays Respects to Justice Antonin Scalia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Visitors Line up to Pay Tribute to Justice Scalia

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daniel Jativa. Thomas Randall braved bitter cold temperatures and a long line Friday to make his way into the gilded lobby of the U.S. Supreme Court and pay his respects to a fellow lawyer with whom he agreed on very little.

Randall was one of hundreds of Americans who stood in a block-long line, waiting to climb the steps and pass between towering marble columns into the building where Justice Antonin Scalia lay in repose. The flag-draped casket containing the body of the 79-year-old justice rested atop the Lincoln Catafalque in the Great Hall, just outside the venerable courtroom where Scalia forged his sometimes controversial reputation as one of the most influential conservatives in the history of the high court.

“I’m a staunch liberal and I disagreed with Scalia on virtually everything, but it does not detract from his impact on the court,” Randall told FoxNews.com. “It is a shame people are trying to politicize his death on the day of his ceremony. Civil disagreement should never equate to hatred.”

By 10 a.m., the line to file past Scalia’s body wrapped around the block of First Street and East Capitol Street. As Randall spoke, and noted that Scalia himself had never allowed his conservative beliefs to affect personal friendships with the court’s liberal justices, others in line nodded in agreement. The sentiment provided a respite from a polarizing presidential campaign, the political gridlock just across the street in the United States Capitol and the debate over filling Scalia’s seat that flared as soon as word got out on Saturday that he had been found dead in his bed at a Texas ranch where he was vacationing. (Read more from “Visitors Line up to Pay Tribute to Justice Scalia” HERE)

__________________________________

Eight Is Enough (for Now)

By Jeffrey H. Anderson. To hear some on the left tell it, the Supreme Court would be hamstrung if it had to function for a year or more without a ninth justice. What to do in the event of a 4-4 tie? This would not have been viewed as a problem, however, by America’s Founders, who created a Court with an even number of justices—six. In fact, Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in the Court’s 226-year history, was decided by a six-justice Court.

The Constitution, of course, leaves it up to Congress to decide how many justices will serve on the Supreme Court. In 1789, Congress passed, and President Washington signed, the Judiciary Act. That law determined that the number of Supreme Court justices should be six. The Congress of that day was full of men who had been at Independence Hall two years earlier and had participated in the writing of the Constitution, so they presumably knew what they were doing.

With a six-justice Court, a 3-3 opinion simply meant the Court wouldn’t overturn a lower federal court ruling but instead would let it stand (or wouldn’t alter the status quo in a case taken up by the Court as a matter of original jurisdiction). One effect of a six-person Court was that it took two-thirds of the Court (4 votes to 2) to declare unconstitutional a law duly passed by Congress or a state legislature. With a nine-person Court, 5-4 rulings are commonplace: In modern times, the trajectory of the nation has changed repeatedly on the personal whims of an Anthony Kennedy or a Sandra Day O’Connor. An even-numbered Court seems to be more conducive to judicial restraint. (Read more from “Eight Is Enough (for Now)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Glenn Beck: God Killed Justice Scalia to Make America Vote for Ted Cruz…

/12 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: The Conservative Treehouse Radio and Media personality Glenn Beck has been campaigning heavily in support of Senator Ted Cruz for president. Previously, Beck stated Ted Cruz’s birth was driven by divinity comparable to the birth of Christ; that’s creepy. Beck increased the creepy quotient last week when he proclaimed Senator Cruz as the guiding hand, the resurrection, to take us through the rapture.

However, the latest Glenn Beck point of advocacy takes the creepy factor even higher than previous divine proclamations, if that’s possible:

(Via Daily Caller) […] On Tuesday, conservative radio host and vocal Cruz backer Glenn Beck asserted on his talk show that God brought about the death of Scalia so America would “wake up” and vote for Cruz.

Speaking in the voice of the heavenly father, Beck told his audience, “You’re welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost.”

Reverting back to his own voice, the radio host added, “You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you’ve lost your liberty so you’d better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the Supreme Court]… The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist.”

In 2013, Rafael Cruz, who’s an ordained pastor, said in a sermon at a church in Irvin, Texas, that his son is “anointed” from high above to serve as a “king” to bring about the “great transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous.

The sermon given by the elder Cruz is in line with the fundamentalist sect of evangelical Christianity known as dominionism. Dominionists preach that America should be governed by their interpretation of biblical law and be ruled exclusively by devout fundamentalists. (For more from the author of “Glenn Beck: God Killed Justice Scalia to Make America Vote for Ted Cruz…” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Antonin Scalia’s Son Just Revealed What He Thinks Caused His Father’s Death

/14 Comments/in , /by

By Randy DeSoto. The oldest son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes his father died of natural causes.

“Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes,” Eugene Scalia, 52, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Wednesday. “We accept that. We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him.”

Scalia, who is an attorney, understands why people would have a hard time wrapping their minds around his father’s sudden passing.

Scalia is one of nine children the late justice had with his wife of fifty-five years, Maureen. “Everybody loses their dad at some point,” the oldest son observed. “And I feel blessed that it’s not just the family who feels that he was great, but that there are millions of people who feel that and so many, like you, who are honoring it.”

Eugene told Laura Ingraham that his mother is a strong woman who is holding up well. “I don’t know that the Lord could design a better support network,” he said. That includes “a built-in priest,” the justice’s son, Paul.

Justice Scalia, who was a devout Catholic, joked during an interview that Eugene and his other sons were relieved when Paul decided to “take one for the team” and become a priest. (Read more from “Antonin Scalia’s Son Just Revealed What He Thinks Caused His Father’s Death” HERE)

_____________________________________

Scalia’s Son Calls the Conspiracy Theories About His Dad’s Death a ‘Hurtful Distraction’

By Allan Smith. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s eldest son is slamming the wild conspiracy theories about his father’s death on Saturday at the age of 79.

“It’s, I think, a distraction from a great man and his legacy at a time when there’s so much to be said about that and to help people even more fully appreciate that,” Eugene Scalia said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Wednesday. “And, on a personal level, I think it’s a bit of a hurtful distraction for a family that’s mourning.”

He added that his father “would have been the first to tell you … that we’re from dust, we return to dust, your life could be taken from you at any instant.”

“He lived this incredibly full and active life,” he continued. “But I knew, and he knew, that he was at a place in life where he could be taken from this world at any time.” (Read more from “Scalia’s Son Calls the Conspiracy Theories About His Dad’s Death a ‘Hurtful Distraction'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Golfing Rather Than Attending Justice Scalia’s Funeral?

/20 Comments/in , /by

By Halimah Abdullah. President Barack Obama will not attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral Saturday, the White House confirmed.

Instead, the president will pay his respects on Friday, when Scalia’s body lies in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building. Vice President Joe Biden will attend Scalia’s funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the White House said Wednesday during a press briefing.

When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that “the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he’ll be joined with the first lady when he does that.”

When asked whether Obama’s Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia’s life and service . . .

Despite push back from Republicans who say Obama shouldn’t nominate a replacement in an election year, the White House made it clear Wednesday that the Constitution gives the president the right to select a “well qualified candidate” to the Supreme Court. (Read more from “Obama Golfing, Will Not Attend Justice Scalia’s Funeral?” HERE)

________________________________

UPDATE: Obama Holed Up in White House for Scalia’s Funeral, Would Normally Have Been Golfing

By Richard Wolf. President Obama stayed at the White House on a day he ordinarily might have played golf, leaving the limelight to a justice with whom he disagreed on just about everything. That prompted GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump to tweet, “I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque?”

…Into the breach stepped Father Paul Scalia, one of the justice’s nine children, who presided over his father’s 90-minute funeral Mass at the soaring Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. In his 16-minute homily, the younger Scalia hailed “a man loved by many, scorned by others … known for great controversy and for great compassion,” before clarifying that he meant Jesus of Nazareth.

“God blessed dad with a deep Catholic faith,” he said, and a love of country — a blessing that’s lost “when faith is banned from the public square.” That was the closest he came to a political statement in a homily intended to bring mourners together rather than fan the flames of political division.

Throughout the service, Scalia spoke more often of his father’s faith and belief in God, Jesus Christ and the Hereafter, and his hope he would be deemed worthy of it. Like the majestic church inhabited by messy construction scaffolding, he said Justice Scalia was a work in progress. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Antonin Scalia Foresaw

/4 Comments/in , /by

In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia argued that under the Constitution, as correctly understood, the people could decide through their state governments to approve or not approve same-sex marriage. But the court had usurped that power and more.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” said Scalia.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty,” he said, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

A majority of the court has said that individuals have a right to kill unborn babies, but that the majority of a state does not have a right to prohibit two people of the same sex from “marrying.” The court is now poised to decide whether Catholic nuns — despite their First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of religion — can be forced to act against their religion in providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs.

What will be next from what Antonin Scalia rightly called the “unelected committee of nine” that now revises our Constitution? (Read more from “What Antonin Scalia Foresaw” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.