Posts

Judges Continue to Steal Our Sovereignty

/1 Comment/in , /by

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAAs the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Obama’s executive amnesty today, it’s important to remember that even if there is enough remaining sanity on that bench to uphold the 5th Circuit Court’s injunction against the illegal action, in the long run the courts are a much bigger liability than asset. And the 5th Circuit also happens to be the only remaining originalist panel on the federal appeals level.

Our states, and even the federal government, have been rendered impotent in defending against illegal immigration and violent drug cartels. The legal profession across the board has crowned itself king of our sovereignty and has been empowered to litigate every single deportation. Whether it’s ICE or state law enforcement, they have to spend endless hours and resources defending every last deportation in court. Even in the best case scenario (for conservatives), law enforcement gets a hearing before a judge that still upholds the law, but are deterred from further pursuing enforcement because of the endless judicial trench warfare. In the worst case scenario, the judges “overturn” the laws.

Here are two more examples from this past week:

States Cannot Punish Those Who Harbor Illegal Alien Gang Members

In 2015, confronted with the massive surge in Central Americans at the southeastern corner of the state, Texas officials passed House Bill 11. This bill was designed to combat human trafficking by slapping criminal penalties on those who encourage illegal aliens to enter the country or harbor immigrants as members of a street gang. But the George Soros-funded Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit on grounds that the Texas law is preempted by federal law, even though Texas was upholding federal law.

Last Thursday, Judge David Allan Ezra of the Western District of Texas issued an injunction on three sections of the state’s law. He based his decision, in part, on the specious “preemption” argument posited by the six liberals on the Supreme Court in the 2011 case involving the Arizona law. But as Scalia so clearly articulated in his dissent, states have full authority to restrict illegal immigration so long as that action is not expressly prohibited by federal statutes. In all of these cases, such action either complements or adds to federal laws. “The State has the sovereign power to protect its orders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition,” wrote Justice Scalia in 2012. “The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.”

Scalia further noted that immigration laws were never designed to hamper the states. “The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it,” wrote Scalia in that same dissent. His voice will surely be missed in today’s fight between Texas and the Obama administration over whether the state has standing to fight executive amnesty.

ACLU Sues to Release Thousands of Illegals into Our Communities

As radical as the Obama administration is with regard to suspending deportations, the legal profession is working to invalidate the few remaining enforcement measures ICE has retained. Last Tuesday, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in Minnesota against ICE, claiming they are detaining thousands of illegal aliens for too long. In a disturbing trend of abusing our asylum laws, thousands of them are claiming fear of persecution under the Convention Against Torture protection if they are returned home. Ironically, the only reason they are being detained and not deported is precisely because our system is clogged with so many aliens gratuitously offered a day in court to overturn their deportation. Again, our own generosity is used against us and our nation’s sovereignty.

According to Law360, the ACLU also filed a class action suit in California “to force the federal government to consider a detainee’s ability to pay when setting bond in immigration cases.” Illegal immigrants have no right to remain in the country, yet courts are increasingly granting them a right to bail, even though they represent the consummate flight risk. The ACLU is now feasting off of years of lawless court decisions to further steal our sovereignty. Even if the federal courts decline to side with the ACLU this time, they will easily make the jump within a few years to invalidate all of the detentions. There is a voracious army of immigration lawyers prepared to litigate every last illegal alien into citizenship.

Irrespective of how the Supreme Court rules in the DAPA case, conservatives would be wise to declare war on judicial amnesty, which will make executive amnesty look like child’s play. (For more from the author of “Judges Continue to Steal Our Sovereignty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Controversy About Obama Supreme Court Nominee’s College Years Could Change Everything

/1 Comment/in , /by

Following the unexpected death of U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, Republican legislators have repeatedly insisted they will not hold a hearing for any nominee picked by President Barack Obama to replace the conservative jurist. Nevertheless, Obama subsequently selected Merrick Garland, the 63-year-old chief judge of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, to join the bench of America’s highest court.

Since the nomination, Garland has faced some criticism from conservatives for his record on Second Amendment rights. In recent days, another aspect of the Harvard-educated legal scholar’s past has surfaced, leading some Americans to believe he might harbor resentment toward the U.S. military.

During his time in college, Garland served on the Harvard Committee on Housing and Undergraduate Life, a position that allowed him some influence in campus culture. It was in this capacity, reports indicate, that he agreed to hold a controversial vote to continue an existing ban on Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs at Harvard.

The ban, enacted during the U.S. military’s involvement in the Vietnam War, was about to be rescinded in 1973 at the request of the university’s then-president. When a group of socialist students approached the CHUL to float a referendum that would continue the ROTC injunction, Garland was reportedly interested conducting a vote on the issue. (Read more from “Controversy About Obama Supreme Court Nominee’s College Years Could Change Everything” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberals Told Senators ‘Do Your Job’ on Court Nominee. What the Constitution Says. [+video]

/2 Comments/in , /by

Following President Barack Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit to fill the vacancy left by sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been an intense clamor from the left for the Senate to “do your job!”

By this, they mean that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give Garland a hearing and an up-or-down vote, which Senate Republicans have announced they are not going to do. But is the Senate obligated under the Constitution to do so?

The answer is clearly “no.”

The president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court ….” That’s all Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says about the confirmation process for justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Senate can, if it so chooses, “do its job” by withholding its consent and advising the president that it will not consider any nominee to fill this vacancy until after the forthcoming election.

Then Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., had no doubt that the Senate could “do its job” by refusing to consider a nominee for the Supreme Court.

He made that point crystal-clear in 1992 when President George H.W. Bush was in office when he said:

The Senate … must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. 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.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., clearly had this same understanding when he announced a year and a half before the end of the George W. Bush administration that the Senate should not confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur until after the next election.

In 2005, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., also reminded us:

The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.

And, of course, then Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., certainly felt he was doing his job when he helped to lead a filibuster against the nomination of Samuel Alito—in other words, an effort to deny him an up-or-down vote—to the Supreme Court, something he now says he regrets.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, out of the 160 men and women whose names have been submitted by presidents to the Senate for consideration for positions on the Supreme Court, 36 were not confirmed, and 25 of those did not receive a vote.

You would have to go all the way back to 1888 for the last time an election-year nominee was confirmed under divided government, as we have now.

In that year, Democratic President Grover Cleveland nominated Melville W. Fuller to be chief justice, who was confirmed by a Senate in which the Republicans had a two-vote majority. Suffice it to say that, in marked contrast to earlier times, today, two facts are obvious: The Supreme Court plays a far more active role in deciding issues that were formerly resolved by the people through the democratic process, and the confirmation process is far more politicized—both developments Scalia decried.

What the Senate chooses to do is, of course, up to the Senate. But those who are now saying that by choosing not to schedule a hearing for Garland, the Senate is not “doing its job” or is otherwise failing to carry out a constitutional obligation are dead wrong. (For more from the author of “Liberals Told Senators ‘Do Your Job’ on Court Nominee. What the Constitution Says.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Will Confirm Obama’s SCOTUS Pick

/20 Comments/in , /by

By Cheryl Chumley. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid tapped into tea party-type fears about the Republican leadership’s ability to stand fast in the face of President Obama’s storm of demands, and put out a Twitter message saying bluntly: Yes indeed, the GOP is already on its way to caving on Merrick Garland.

Garland was announced as Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.

He wrote: “Republicans are backing down so quickly that they’re already bargaining about what month they will fully cave and confirm Obama’s nominee,” Mediaite found.

And in another tweet just four minutes later, Reid wrote: “No question in my mind that Sen. McConnell will cave, and President Obama will fill this vacancy this year” . . .

On an MSNBC appearance with host Chris Matthews, Reid called the Republican Party’s attempt to hold off hearings on any Obama nomination to the court a “hurtful” move for the country. (Read more from “Harry Reid: GOP Will Confirm Obama’s SCOTUS Pick” HERE)

____________________________________

Prediction: Garland Will Be Confirmed

By Allahpundit. Crafty of O to wait until the morning after Trump’s backbreaking wins last night to stick McConnell with this. Now Senate Republicans will face maximum pressure from both sides.

If they cave and decide to give Garland a hearing after all, Republican voters who are still cool to Trump might decide to vote for him in a burst of “burn it all down” rage. A betrayal here hands Trump the nomination — assuming there’s any doubt that he’s already on track to win it. If, on the other hand, McConnell stands firm, he’s blowing an opportunity to confirm a nominee who’s likely to be more “moderate” than what President Hillary will offer next year. The conventional wisdom on Trump right now is that he’s a dead duck in the general election barring some sort of national crisis. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not out of left field: His favorable rating, for instance, is toxic and it’s an open question whether he could organize a national campaign capable of matching Hillary’s. If McConnell agrees with that CW, that Hillary’s a prohibitive favorite to win and that the backlash to Trump will hand Democrats the Senate, then refusing to confirm Garland now clears the path for Democrats to nominate and confirm a young hyper-liberal justice next year. Garland is already in his 60s and is no far-lefty; if Hillary wins big, liberals will insist that she exploit her mandate by engineering a new Warren Court. (Garland, ironically, clerked for the most liberal member of the Warren Court but he hasn’t followed the same trajectory as a judge.) So what do you do if you’re Mitch the Knife? Accept a quarter-loaf here by confirming a guy whose centrist credentials will be used to show just how unreasonable and obstructionist the GOP is in blocking him? Or risk having no loaf at all when Democrats win this fall and ram through whoever they want? (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Judge Napolitano Saw Obama’s Supreme Court Pick, He Dropped a BOMBSHELL Obama Will Hate

/8 Comments/in , /by

By Stephen Conway. President Obama has named Merrick Garland as his nominee to succeed Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Garland, a federal appeals judge for the District of Columbia, came out on top of a short list of potential nominees devised by the president.

“It’s not a responsibility I take lightly,” Obama said of his choice during a Rose Garden ceremony Wednesday.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judiciary analyst for Fox News, said during an appearance on the network this morning that the nomination is a “lose-lose” for the President.

“It’s dangerous to appoint somebody to the court with a 19-year track record,” said Napolitano, pointing out that such a long record gives opponents plenty of rulings to criticize. “This is not a win for President Obama.”

Napolitano went on to say that Garland is the most conservative appointee a Democrat president has nominated. That could frustrate Senate Republicans, who must pledge to block the nominee of someone who is relatively conservative in nature. (Read more from “When Judge Napolitano Saw Obama’s Supreme Court Pick, He Dropped a BOMBSHELL Obama Will Hate” HERE)

_____________________________________

Democrats Plan Push to Force Hearings on Supreme Court Nomination

By Mike DeBonis and Juliet Eilperin. Democrats began laying out an aggressive strategy Thursday to get Judge Merrick Garland considered by the Senate and seated on the Supreme Court, over what appears to be implacable Republican opposition.

The approach, which is being implemented in part by a well-organized group led by former aides to President Obama, involves targeting vulnerable GOP Senate incumbents for defeat by portraying them as unwilling to fulfill the basic duties of their office. The idea is to so threaten the Republicans’ Senate majority that party leaders will reconsider blocking hearings on Garland’s nomination.

“You’re going to be surprised at how hard we’re going to work to make sure this is on the front pages of all the papers,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters after meeting with Garland on Thursday.

At the White House, Obama held a conference call with thousands of supporters across the country while senior adviser Valerie Jarrett met on Capitol Hill with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters he had no details of a specific request Obama was making on the call. “But I think the president sent a pretty clear signal, though, that this a high priority of his, and he hoped that this would be a priority that people all across the country would share,” he said. (Read more from “Democrats Plan Push to Force Hearings on Supreme Court Nomination” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Supreme Pick Tied to TWA 800, OKC Bombing

/0 Comments/in , /by

Da Noive! President Barack Obama has chosen to nominate United States Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

We are told he is a “moderate,” but we know how that works. The other “moderates” on the high court somehow manage to march their way in lockstep to the officially designated liberal position on every single major case. Can anyone name an exception?

But that is the least of my objections. Whatever his merits, Garland served as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s “principal deputy” during the two most corrupt years in American political history – the years leading up to Bill Clinton’s reelection in 1996 – and that service alone should kill his candidacy . ..

My newest book on the subject, “TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-up, And the Conspiracy,” spells out Gorelick’s role in all its unseemly detail. The book will be published before the crash’s 20th anniversary in July, but I would be happy to share an advanced copy with any U.S. senator who wants to know the truth.

In sum, Gorelick and the Clintons pulled off the most successful cover-up in American peacetime history. As a reward, the otherwise unqualified Gorelick was named vice-president of Fannie Mae in 1997, in which job she made more than $25 million during the next six years. (Read more from “Obama’s Supreme Pick Tied to TWA 800, OKC Bombing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Senators Say They Will Meet With Obama SCOTUS Pick

/0 Comments/in , /by

A small group of U.S. senators say they will meet with President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Sen. Jeff Flake, and Sen. Susan Collins all have agreed to have a meeting with Garland, reports Politico.

Ayotte – who is running in a tight re-election race against incumbent New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan – said that she would meet with Garland to explain to him that she opposes any nomination during the 2016 presidential race. Prior to Obama actually naming his choice to take the seat of recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, Ayotte said she would not meet with the president’s nominee.

“He’s a current appeals court judge and out of courtesy and respect we will certainly meet with him if he would like to meet with me,” Ayotte said. “I would want to explain my position to the nominee…I would want to give him that courtesy.” (Read more from “GOP Senators Say They Will Meet With Obama SCOTUS Pick” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Potential Supreme Court Candidate Defended Pipe Bomber, Child Murderer

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of President Obama’s potential candidates for the Supreme Court has a history of defending some of Iowa’s most infamous criminals, including the “Midwest Pipe Bomber” and the child molester who murdered five-year-old Evelyn Miller.

Judge Jane Kelly, who was appointed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013, is reportedly on President Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Before becoming a judge, Kelly worked for years as a public defender in Iowa. In 2005, Kelly was the appointed attorney for a 26-year-old man named Casey Frederiksen, who was charged with possession of child pornography.

Although Frederiksen had previously been convicted of sexual assault involving a minor, Kelly urged the judge to grant him leniency, arguing that he was not a danger to others and should be released and allowed to live with his father. Frederiksen was sentenced to 14 years in prison in the case.

A decade later, Frederiksen was convicted of murder and sexual assault in the 2005 cold case killing of 5-year-old Evelyn Celeste Miller. Evelyn, the daughter of Frederiksen’s live-in girlfriend, was reported missing from her northern Iowa home on July 1, 2005. Over 1,500 people joined police to help search for the young girl. Her body was found with stab wounds on a nearby river bank two days later, and there was evidence she had been sexually assaulted. (Read more from “Potential Supreme Court Candidate Defended Pipe Bomber, Child Murderer” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judiciary Chairman Accuses Democrats of ‘Charade’ on Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing turned into a slugfest Thursday as Republicans and Democrats traded jabs over the GOP’s blockade of President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, accused Senate Democrats of allowing “raw politics to infect the process” by stirring up a frivolous partisan fight.

“Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn’t getting confirmed. Everyone knows that. Why the charade?” Grassley asked.

“It’s because the other side is committed to using this process to score as many political points as possible. That’s it, plain and simple,” Grassley answered.

The White House has floated several potential nominees in the past few weeks, and Obama is expected to announce his final pick soon. But that doesn’t change much for Senate Republicans.

Since Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly Feb. 13, the GOP has remained adamant that his seat on the bench remain open until after the November election, for the next president to fill.

If Republicans succeed, “the work of the committee and this Congress will be shamefully incomplete,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Democrats continue to blast Republicans for dereliction of their constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on judicial nominees. They want Obama to nominate and the Senate to consider a nominee as soon as possible.

Republicans have been quick to counter that they’re only following a precedent established by Vice President Joe Biden. While a senator, Biden urged the Senate to block any of President George H.W. Bush’s Supreme Court picks before the 1992 general election.

Schumer characterized that back-and-forth as “he said, she said” dribble.

“On both sides, everyone’s said a bunch of things,” Schumer said. “But let me repeat: Not once since this committee began holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees a century ago has the committee refused to report a nominee to the floor for consideration.”

To make his point, Schumer goaded Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, for saying he enjoys a “good scrap” in a Senate floor speech last week.

“After the president makes a nomination,” Schumer said, “let’s have the kind of serious, long, detailed, thorough debate—call it a scrap if you will—that we’ve had in the past.”

Past remarks of the third-ranking Democrat have provided Republicans with plenty of ammunition. In July 2007, Schumer called on the Senate to block any of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Democrats controlled the chamber at that time, and 18 months remained in Bush’s term.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., predicted that the current fight will generate a permanent standard, one “that will stand the test of time.”

“We are setting a precedent here today, Republicans are,” Graham said. In the last year of a president’s term, he said, “you’re not going to fill the vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today. That’s going to be the new rule.”

Graham, who voted to confirm both of Obama’s previous nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, encouraged Democrats to hold Republicans to that standard in the future.

“You could use my words against me, and you’d be absolutely right,” he said.

Bipartisan criticism swiftly poured in after the committee meeting ended.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, praised Grassley for letting “the people decide the next justice through their votes for president.”

Wade Henderson, president of the liberal Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said it would “be refreshing to see the Senate Judiciary Committee embrace its constitutional duty to advise and consent on judicial nominees.” (For more from the author of “Judiciary Chairman Accuses Democrats of ‘Charade’ on Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.