The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Karma, Precedent and the Nuclear Option
by Charles Krauthammer
by Charles Krauthammer
.
McConnell Kills the Filibuster
Senate Democrats followed through Thursday morning on their promise to use a partisan filibuster for the first time in Senate history to temporarily derail Judge Neil Gorsuch's cloture vote. Their victory was short-lived. Cloture failed by a 55-45 margin (only three Democrats sided with their 52 Republican colleagues), leaving Gorsuch short of the 60 "yes" votes needed in order to advance. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately followed through on his pledge to outmaneuver Democrat obstructionists by implementing what's become known as "the nuclear option," which, as Democrats hate to be reminded, is also known as "the dinky-Reid Rule." It's a simple rules change that eliminates the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.
As Bloomberg explains, "The 'nuclear option' allows Republicans to revise Senate rules with a simple majority vote, rather than the 67 typically required. McConnell has said he had no choice but to change Senate rules for Gorsuch and future high court picks because Democrats were ignoring a tradition of allowing nominees to proceed to simple-majority confirmation without a filibuster."
He's absolutely right. For example, in 2006 Sen. Dianne Feinstein opined, "I think when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there — whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface. Now, I mean, [Justice Samuel Alito] is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the Court." Her logic was correct. Ironically, and regrettably, she ultimately let her private sentiments dictate her cloture vote then just as she is now. Feinstein recently stated she found Gorsuch's "originalist, judicial philosophy to be really troubling," and, as such, his jurisprudence precludes her from advancing his nomination. Which makes the situation doubly ironic. Recall that in 2006, Feinstein — along with every other Democrat lawmaker at the time — supported Gorsuch's nomination to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer's response was predictable: "Just as it seemed unthinkable decades ago that we would change the rules for nominees, today's vote is a cautionary tale about how unbridled partisan escalation can overwhelm our basic inclination to work together and frustrate our efforts to pull back, blocking us from steering the ship of the Senate away from the rocks. There's a reason it was dubbed the nuclear option." Evidently, he forgot to counsel then-Senate Majority Leader Harry dinky-Reid likewise in November 2013, when dinky-Reid changed Senate rules to give non-Supreme Court nominees a reprieve from the 60-vote threshold. Their antics, like the hypocrisy of Sen. Feinstein, epitomize "unbridled partisan escalation."
Meanwhile, on Tuesday The New York Times published an editorial under the headline, "The Supreme Court as Partisan Tool," accusing McConnell of abusing his Senate power. However, in 2013 when former Senate Majority Leader Harry dinky-Reid changed the rules on judicial nominees to prevent the Republican minority in the Senate from blocking votes, the Times applauded the move under an editorial title, "Democracy Returns to the Senate."
McConnell correctly says, "There cannot be two sets of standards, one for the nominees of Democratic presidents and another for the nominees of Republican presidents." So Senate Democrats threw a tantrum and trashed Senate customs and traditions. And for what? If all goes according to plan, Gorsuch will Friday become the ninth member of the Supreme Court. At which point Justice Antonin Scalia will finally have a worthy replacement. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Jared Kushner Texting Info To Joe Scarborough, Establishment Isolated Bannon
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Roger Stone begins his interview with a nod to Mike Cernovich, the journalist who broke the story about Susan Rice’s espionage and more recently the planning for a 150K troop deployment to Syria... by General HR McMaster with help from General David Petraeus. He notes that Cernovich is, like him, coming under the Facebook choke hold, as are we at RickWells.US, cutting off their reach in an effort to strangle them out of existence. Stone reports that he was one of those that Susan Rice unmasked in her fishing trip for dirt on Trump supporters and insiders. He notes that using intelligence service products for personal or political purposes is a felony. He also calls out the sites, The Smoking Gun and Raw Story for accepting and disseminating illegally obtained information. Stone notes that he is still waiting to hear from either the House or Senate Intelligence committees to appear before them, reiterating that he does not need a subpoena, he’s not asking for immunity and he wants to testify before both bodies in public, not behind closed doors...
.
Data in! Sanctuary cities have higher crime rates
by Alicia Powe
{wnd.com} ~ Surprise! Sanctuary cities do, indeed, experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities, an in-depth WND analysis of the most recent study of the question reveals... An August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics, WND has found. The study, published last fall by researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, is frequently cited by proponents of “sanctuary cities” who ignore or downplay one important detail – the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model... http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/data-in-sanctuary-cities-have-higher-crime-rates/
.
New Ways of Responding to Extremist Islam
Hirsi Ali's research
by Giulio Meotti
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Jihad is spreading violence -- and succeeding. "Of the last sixteen years," notes Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her new book, The Challenge of Dawa, "the worst year for terrorism was 2014... with ninety-three countries experiencing attacks and 32,765 people killed." "The second worst was 2015, with 29,376 deaths. Last year, four radical Islamic groups were responsible for 74 percent of all deaths from terrorism: the Islamic State also known as ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. Although the Muslim world itself bears the heaviest burden of jihadist violence, the West is increasingly under attack". Hirsi Ali's research, supported by the Hoover Institution, is a summary of the war on terror since the extremist Muslim attacks on the United States in September 2001:...
.
Presidents Trump, Xi Exchanges On Syria,
N Korea Situations During Meeting
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is asked on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” program, “What message did the Chinese take from US action in Syria?” Tillerson responded... “Well, the president, I think, very thoughtfully and rightfully, did notify President Xi Jinping at the end of the dinner on the evening of the attack. I think, out of respect to President Xi, he wanted to explain to him the rationale for the US action, why it was taken and why he felt it was necessary.” Tillerson wasn’t standing nearby at the time, but says, “My understanding is that President Xi said, ‘well, no one should kill children.’ The Chinese have since issued their own statement on the attack itself.” John Dickerson asked a question more directly related to the Chinese and their actions, quoting President Trump in the process as having said, “If China doesn’t act in North Korea then we will.” Dickerson asked Tillerson, “Did the Chinese get that message from this meeting over the weekend?”... http://rickwells.us/tillerson-presidents-trump-xi-exchanges-syria-n-korea-situations-during-meeting/
.
The Exodus from Egypt is nearly complete
by Leslie Eastman
{legalinsurrection.com} ~ The year, as we mark the season of Passover, there has been a discovery of the remains of a pyramid in Egypt that was reportedly built around the time of the Exodus:... Ahead of the Passover holiday, an unknown pyramid was discovered in Egypt, dating roughly to the time of Jews’ exodus from bondage. A top antiquities official says an Egyptian excavation team has discovered the remains of a pyramid dating back to the 13th Dynasty, some 3700 years ago. The head of the Ancient Egyptian Antiquities Sector, Mahmoud Afifi, said in a statement Monday that the remains were located north of King Sneferu’s bent pyramid in the Dahshur royal necropolis south of Cairo... http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/04/the-exodus-from-egypt-is-nearly-complete/
..
Karma, Precedent and the Nuclear Option
by Charles Krauthammer
{freedomsback.com} ~ For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides — and scripts — depending on the ideology of the nominee.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry dinky-Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack liar-nbama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the dinky-Reid Rule to the Supreme Court.
To be sure, there are reasoned arguments to be offered on both sides of the filibuster question. It is true that the need for a supermajority does encourage compromise and coalition building. But given the contemporary state of hyperpolarization — the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats of 40 years ago are long gone — the supermajority requirement today merely guarantees inaction, which, in turn, amplifies the current popular disgust with politics in general and Congress in particular. In my view, that makes paring back the vastly overused filibuster, on balance, a good thing.
Moreover, killing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations the so-called nuclear option yields two gratifications: It allows a superb young conservative jurist to ascend to the seat once held by Antonin Scalia. And it constitutes condign punishment for the reckless arrogance of dinky-Reid and his erstwhile Democratic majority.
A major reason these fights over Supreme Court nominations have become so bitter and unseemly is the stakes — the political stakes. The Supreme Court has become more than ever a superlegislature. From abortion to gay marriage, it has appropriated to itself the final word. It rules — and the normal democratic impulses, expressed through the elected branches, are henceforth stifled.
Why have we had almost half a century of massive street demonstrations over abortion? Because the ballot box is not available. The court has spoken, and the question is supposedly settled for all time.
This transfer of legislative authority has suited American liberalism rather well. When you command the allegiance of 20 to 25 percent of the population as measured by Gallup, you know that whatever control you will have of the elected branches will be fleeting (2009-2010, for example). So how do you turn the political order in your direction? Capture the courts.
They are what banks were to Willie Sutton. They are where you go for the right political outcomes. Note how practically every argument at the Gorsuch hearings was about political outcomes. Where would he come out on abortion? Gay marriage? The Democrats pretended this was about principle, e.g., the sanctity of precedent. But everyone knows which precedents they selectively cherish: Roe v. Wade and, more recently, Obergefell v. Hodges.
Liberalism does not want to admit that the court has become its last reliable instrument for achieving its political objectives. So liberals have created a great philosophical superstructure to justify their freewheeling, freestyle constitutional interpretation. They present themselves as defenders of a “living Constitution” under which the role of the court is to reflect the evolving norms of society. With its finger on the pulse of the people, the court turns contemporary culture into constitutional law.
But this is nonsense. In a democracy, what better embodiment of evolving norms can there be than elected representatives? By what logic are the norms of a vast and variegated people better reflected in nine appointed lawyers produced by exactly three law schools?
If anything, the purpose of a constitutional court such as ours is to enforce old norms that have preserved both our vitality and our liberty for 230 years. How? By providing a rugged reliable frame within which the political churnings of each generation take place.
The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch’s appointment simply preserves the court’s ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry dinky-Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack liar-nbama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the dinky-Reid Rule to the Supreme Court.
To be sure, there are reasoned arguments to be offered on both sides of the filibuster question. It is true that the need for a supermajority does encourage compromise and coalition building. But given the contemporary state of hyperpolarization — the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats of 40 years ago are long gone — the supermajority requirement today merely guarantees inaction, which, in turn, amplifies the current popular disgust with politics in general and Congress in particular. In my view, that makes paring back the vastly overused filibuster, on balance, a good thing.
Moreover, killing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations the so-called nuclear option yields two gratifications: It allows a superb young conservative jurist to ascend to the seat once held by Antonin Scalia. And it constitutes condign punishment for the reckless arrogance of dinky-Reid and his erstwhile Democratic majority.
A major reason these fights over Supreme Court nominations have become so bitter and unseemly is the stakes — the political stakes. The Supreme Court has become more than ever a superlegislature. From abortion to gay marriage, it has appropriated to itself the final word. It rules — and the normal democratic impulses, expressed through the elected branches, are henceforth stifled.
Why have we had almost half a century of massive street demonstrations over abortion? Because the ballot box is not available. The court has spoken, and the question is supposedly settled for all time.
This transfer of legislative authority has suited American liberalism rather well. When you command the allegiance of 20 to 25 percent of the population as measured by Gallup, you know that whatever control you will have of the elected branches will be fleeting (2009-2010, for example). So how do you turn the political order in your direction? Capture the courts.
They are what banks were to Willie Sutton. They are where you go for the right political outcomes. Note how practically every argument at the Gorsuch hearings was about political outcomes. Where would he come out on abortion? Gay marriage? The Democrats pretended this was about principle, e.g., the sanctity of precedent. But everyone knows which precedents they selectively cherish: Roe v. Wade and, more recently, Obergefell v. Hodges.
Liberalism does not want to admit that the court has become its last reliable instrument for achieving its political objectives. So liberals have created a great philosophical superstructure to justify their freewheeling, freestyle constitutional interpretation. They present themselves as defenders of a “living Constitution” under which the role of the court is to reflect the evolving norms of society. With its finger on the pulse of the people, the court turns contemporary culture into constitutional law.
But this is nonsense. In a democracy, what better embodiment of evolving norms can there be than elected representatives? By what logic are the norms of a vast and variegated people better reflected in nine appointed lawyers produced by exactly three law schools?
If anything, the purpose of a constitutional court such as ours is to enforce old norms that have preserved both our vitality and our liberty for 230 years. How? By providing a rugged reliable frame within which the political churnings of each generation take place.
The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch’s appointment simply preserves the court’s ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation.
>
