The SCOTUS ruling for Trump goes further than you think

I was quite pleased to watch this video by Viva Frei, breaking down the opinions of the majority on the dissent by the minority, exposing that the minority's opinion is not based on Constitutional merit but rather fear-mongering. Wow! And there's even more via Clarence Thomas.

Merrick Garland's inherent contempt

Merrick Garland - This guy almost made the Supreme Court, he's clearly a threat to democracy and thankfully, his time in D.C. in an official capacity is almost up. His inherent contempt is coming up to a vote.

Merrick Garland is apparently calling House RINOs asking them to vote No on inherent contempt

This scumbag is putting Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in prison for not complying with subpoenas, but then he ignores subpoenas and calls Congress telling them not to hold him in… https://t.co/QWojJbqIq7

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 21, 2024

An attempt to cope

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0, yes even the 3 ultra-liberal justices sided with Trump, that Colorado could not remove president Trump from the 2024 ballots.  Liberal heads have been exploding everywhere, but the truth is, the Constitution won and the wackos lost. Here's one particular coping attempt that looks like it's not going well:

SCOTUS could decide Trump ballot case today

After the dramatic Nikki Haley primary win in D.C. (sarcasm), Donald Trump could use some good news and the Supreme Court could deliver that today.  The question really is not if the court will decide in his favor, but rather when they will decide in his favor.

The video below focuses on Let's Go Brandon but the first minute discusses the SCOTUS ruling about to come down,

Wait, you didn't know Nikki Haley won something? Washington D.C. is a dumpster fire of Democrats and RINOs. It doesn't matter that the district has a closed primary, this 'win' is still a non-event.  Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. She's going to get smushed.

The Hunter Biden special counsel farce

This Merrick Garland guy was almost on the Supreme Court. Wow. And now this. Merrick Garland appoints David Weiss as the special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Who is David Weiss? Watch the video below. This is so flawed there are no words to describe how corrupt and terrible it is.  Well, except maybe this.

Busy day for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court today sided with the first amendment over the woke agenda, in the second win in a row for common sense. 

America finally stops discrimination against Asians

But racism!!!

This guy could have been on the Supreme Court

 Thank God, he didn't get there.  Kudos to Tom Cotton for not relenting in his questioning.

Democrat power grab is now out in the open

 Supreme Court packing in full effect:

GOP must filibuster this.  MUST.  Joe Manchin must allow the filibuster to continue.  MUST.  Patriots must protest this en masse (assuming you are in a non-lockdown scenario or are not yet fed up with that too).

The time to act is running short, as Democrats have gone all-out power mad.  This power grab would be the end of liberty and the beginning of tyranny on a  massive scale.  Do not doubt this.

Be prepared for a huge battle!

I don't think this is a likelihood, or feasible,  but BE PREPARED to demonstrate in numbers not seen before if this is actually in motion:

Amy Coney Barrett has a brilliant mind.

 The Supreme Court will be enhanced with her on board.

Pelosi, evil genius?

Is Nancy Pelosi and evil genius? Many people have been speculating that the reason Nancy Pelosi has held up handing the impeachment articles to the Senate, so that the likes of Bernie Sanders cannot engage in campaigning for the Democrat primary, thereby ensuring that an Establishment favorite like Joe Biden wins the nomination. Sanders will be stuck in the Senate for weeks, waiting for the trial to end.

If not that then that they are speculating that she realizes the case for impeachment is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

But what if....

She's just trying to keep Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts (who must preside over the trial as not a judge but rather more as a process referee) out of deliberations of Supreme Court cases, leaning early year Supreme Court decisions slightly back in favor of the liberal agenda?

Just asking - I'm not sure what's on the court's docket for February/March.

So Kavanaugh is happening.

I have not posted much about the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court process for two reasons; (1) I have been very busy and not posted much and (2) it's been a farcical circus and in the end, he will be the next Supreme Court justice. Period.  

No Republicans will break ranks, including flaky Flake, Collins and Murkowski. They will all vote to confirm Kavanaugh. We might see a Democrat or two vote in favor of Kavanaugh (e.g. Manchin) but I'm not holding my breath because it doesn't really matter. This is purely political theater meant to impress voters on both sides of the political spectrum by the prospective parties.  Republicans look to have benefited more from the process than Democrats, who came off as obstructionists in a purely partisan way.  Some polling bears that out.

All that said, Kavanaugh will be confirmed today but the real implications are much broader than just him.  

(1) Do not expect future nominations to get broad approval the way previous Democratic nominees like Ginsburg did.  With the nuclear option having freed up senators from bi-partisanship expect bitter political battles for every nominee going forward, regardless of party.  The Democrats have sewn the seeds of political motivation in Republicans by their unnecessary and nefarious actions on Kavanaugh. For proof just look at the recent angry outbursts of political milquetoast  Lindsey Graham.  To push him to this, you know the Democrats have gone about 30 steps too far.  They will reap eventually what they have sewn when the next Democrat president tries to nominate anyone.

(2) The same is true for Republican leaning voters - they have had enough and may have been energized enough to not only thwart a blue wave, but maybe hold the line in Congress or even make small gains.

(3) President Trump will likely have another nomination to make during his tenure, especially if he is likely to serve two terms.  The court will drift further back towards originalist judges.  That is clearly a healthy thing.  But prepare for all-out open warfare from the Democrats when that happens.  To date their actions have been covert thanks to a complicit media.  But that cannot last when there such an absolute division in the country and in the Capitol.

There will be more fallout than just that, but that alone is enough to make this a dramatic turning point in the country's history.

Bobby Jindal's not so good reaction to recent SCOTUS rulings

A few days ago Governor Bobby Jindal reacted to SCOTUS rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage. Not well.

When your gut reaction to bad rulings is to scrap the Supreme Court, I'm not sure you still qualify as conservative.  It strikes me as being as bad as progressives saying "...let's scrap the Constitution - it was written hundreds of years ago by old white guys."

I'm not sure how this will play with conservatives. I get the visceral gut reaction of disgust. I empathize - these were bad decisions, from a legal perspective, not just a conservative viewpoint.  I even get to playing to that same reaction in others.  I just don't get this approach as it relates to presidential politics. Sure it will play in Louisiana and a few other states, but beyond that, as a broad based conservative appeal.

What the rulings display is what Jindal says later on - we need a better cohort of Justices.  That's how he should be campaigning. Honestly, his answers to the questions were better than his self-inflicted soundbite.

New York Times, SCOTUS docket news and/or editorializing

Yesterday, someone left a copy of the New York Times on the train.  I don't normally get to see the NYT, because (1) I'm in Canada, not New York, and (2) I certainly wouldn't buy one at a local newsstand here (yes, many do carry it, as well as USA Today and the Washington Post) because I'm well aware of their biases. 

 

So, out of curiosity I picked it up to peruse the articles.  A lot of what gets reported about the New York Times are their more liberal pieces.  I found out that the reason is because most of their articles are indeed from a very liberal bent.  That was certainly the case yesterday at least.

 

 

There's so much I could comment on and point out their liberal slant, but the effort would be tiresome.  Bias aside, there was one article about the docket for the Supreme Court in its term that started yesterday.  Strip out the bias and there is some important factual stuff in there about a number of precedents that are in play and could be overturned by the Supreme Court.  Among them are issues relating to political contributions, the First Amendment, government prayers, federal treaties, affirmative action (again) and abortion.

 

That is indeed news, and worth conservatives taking note over.  Good reporting in this instance, but bad editorializing.  Honestly though, who among us reads the NYT?  It's a shame they are so clearly liberal that conservatives that cannot stomach it, do not bother to read the NYT paper.  I found the article online, you can read it here, if you really want to do so.

Bad Day for Liberty

Fear rules the day, not liberty.

Oh my God.

The Supreme Court today made a decision that will reverberate for a century. I'm not overstating it when I say that this was a fundamentally bad decision, a terrible precedent and a truly shameful day in American history. Before I delve into the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, let me add a glimmer of good that may come out of this decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare (PPACA). There are two ways to look at this; the glass is half empty and the glass is half full.

Glass half full: This should really motivate the conservative base. Get out and vote for Senators and Congressmen and even Romney. It may also help ensure that there are more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, since even thoughs deemed dependable, are clearly not. Getting out the conservative vote has taken on new importance.

Obamacare Countdown

Apparently at 10 a.m. the Supreme Court is going to release it's decision on Obamacare.  I'm going to be in a meeting at work and I'll be unable to find out what happened until after 11 a.m.  However, I haven't divulged what I think the decision is going to be.  I'd like to get on record before the fact with my best guess. My instinct is in line with InTrade that the individual mandate will be overturned.  I'm much less certain but still hopeful that the mandate on businesses will be overturned as well, but if that happens the whole severability issue gets brought into the mix and the entire Act may get thrown out.  It's not likely but possible.

The mandate therefore in my best guess, is all that gets tossed and then chaos will ensue.  It might lead Obama to double down on Single Payer as an election issue, which is probably going to be the plan under any scenario other than the law being upheld entirely.

Krugman - still in a tinfoil hat

Photo via Death by 1000 Papercuts.

Whenever I get bored by the political landscape - we're in a gap between GOP primaries right now - there are a few places I can go to get inspired to write something.  I've been busy of late and I haven't been doing that, but today I have some bandwidth and I went back to one I haven't in quite a while: Paul Krugman.  For a Nobel Prize winner, he rarely fails to bring a tinfoil hat perspective to the table.  With the Supreme Court taking a look at the Constitutionality of Obamacare, Krugman has decided that he needed to scold the Supreme Court on their lack of understanding of how health care is different from broccoli.

Hatch-ing an Argument Against Kagan

Senator Orrin Hatch laid out a case against Supreme Court Judicial nominee Elena Kagan as Politico reported today;

Will the Constitution control Elena Kagan, or will she try to control the Constitution? Does she believe that judges may change the meaning of the Constitution, and of the law generally? Is there any evidence that her personal or political views drive her legal views?

Hatch's reservations are important because he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  But as a Republican, it's likely that his opinion won't matter. Short of a filibuster, expect Kagan to be confirmed.  No Harriet Myers style popular backlash will fell this nominee, if that were the case, health care reform a la Obama would not have passed.  Democrats have been largely quiet on the Kagan matter, except to endorse her qualification for the Supreme Court at the start of the hearings.  Democrat Senators are the ones who have to blink in order to put a stop to the nominee - that doesn't appear to be happening.

This might be a time to contact your Senator about their vote - Presidents come and go, but Supreme Court Justices linger on for years.

Franken gets it

Al Franken, clueless lefty, finally gets it. Known for his boisterous tirades and his angry brand of anti-conservative illogical, Franken has been on his game during the hearings for Supreme Court judicial nominee Elena Kagan. The thing is, it looks like his game isn't really politics.