An explosive show on this Blue Monday edition of 'The Savage Nation' podcast for February 15, 2016. Michael Savage talks about the unexpected death of Justice Scalia and whether there could have been foul play involved. Also, Donald Trump visits the show in Hour 2. Thanks for listening.
His pro-gun leadership on the Court will be sorely missed.
But we are now in the fight for our lives, as President Obama will try to nominate a replacement to change the balance of the Court.
When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos quizzed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz over Scalia’s replacement, the Senator suggested that our Second Amendment rights are “hanging in the balance.”
Cruz is right.
No one should fail to understand what is at stake in Barack Obama's scramble to appoint the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court.
If Obama appoints a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, the reconstituted court will declare the Second Amendment dead.
Period.
Those of us who are constitutionalists know that Obama and the Court can’t really obliterate the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution trumps any unlawful action to the contrary.
But a change in the Court -- with the anti-gun decisions that follow -- will give the “green light” for all kinds of gun registration and gun bans, resulting in a chilling effect on the exercise of our gun rights.
Heller, the 5-4 decision which recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right, will be reversed. McDonald, the 5-4 decision which recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the states, will be reversed.
Even sooner, the court will recognize Obama's illegal efforts to grant amnesty to 5+ million anti-gun voters.
And the consequence will be that the entire U.S. government will soon be the same gun-hating “utopia” which California's government became as a result of a 1986 amnesty bill.
The Leftist media has already begun their White House-coordinated campaign to bludgeon Senate Republicans into approving Obama's efforts to pack the Supreme Court with a “jurist” who will repeal the Second Amendment -- and achieve Obama’s life-long dream.
But all of their arguments are, transparently, lies and false propaganda.
FIRST: Everyone knows that the Obama appointment would result in the reversal of Heller -- and the effective repeal of the Second Amendment -- at least, as recognized by a corrupt court system.
SECOND: Obama’s ultimate nominee will lie.
He or she will say that they have no opinion on the Second Amendment. And they will talk about legal doctrines like stare decisis -- which supposedly gives a presumption to retaining “settled law.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also swore, under oath, that she had no preconceived opinions on the Second Amendment. But as soon as she got her lifetime appointment, she couldn't move fast enough to call for the Second Amendment’s repeal.
If there is one thing we have learned from Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and the gaggle of Obama lower court appointees, it is this: They will say whatever needs to be said to get on the Court, but they will run fast and hard to the Far Left once they are confirmed.
THIRD: There is no constitutional principle which requires the Senate to approve a lawless nominee.
Besides, Obama has had no problem using the Constitution and the laws as toilet paper.
So he is the last one to lecture others on their “constitutional obligations” -- particularly when the goal is to confirm lawless jurists who would rubber-stamp Obama’s unconstitutional and lawless actions.
You might be surprised to know -- but then again, maybe not -- who it was that, as a Senator, loudly protested the ability of the President to simply get anyone he wants on the Supreme Court.
Remember who said this:
“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee ... that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”
That was then-Senator Barack Obama in 2007, stating that the Senate can vote down a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, based on his views alone.
Ironically, Obama was right then, and his words are true today -- even more so than ever before!
You can be sure that GOA is going to remind every Senator of Barack Obama’s words before he became President.
And you can tremendously help by demanding that your Senators filibuster anyone who is nominated by President Obama -- even if both of your Senators are Democrats.
We are going to remind every Democrat of what their “leader,” Barack Obama, said back in 2007.
We are going to make sure they feel the heat from the grassroots, so they know that their colleagues will pay a political price if they choose to listen to the leftist media.
Senator Ted Cruz promised ABC’s Stephanopoulos over the weekend that he would be willing to lead a filibuster against Obama’s nominee.
He’s led filibusters before. He has the experience and knows what to do.
But we need to raise a national outcry like never before.
So please urge your Senators to reject and oppose -- in every possible way -- any anti-gun “swing vote” nominated by President Obama.
Tell them that any support for an Obama-nominee will be tantamount to a vote to reverse Heller and repeal the Second Amendment.
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
If you haven't already taken steps to insulate yourself from corrupt rulings by an exceedingly partisan, venal government, there is still time but the hour grows late.
February 18th, 2016, 02:01
vector7
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
Hmmm...
Flashback: Matt Drudge Warns Gov't Wants To Shut Him Down: "A Supreme Court Justice Told Me To My Face, It Is Over"
Matt Drudge made a rare appearance in public yesterday to speak with Alex Jones on ********.
“Google News – hello anybody? The idiots reading that crap think there is actually a human there – there is no human there – you are being programmed to being automated even up to your news…. the same corporate glaze over everything,” said Drudge.
MATT DRUDGE: I had a Supreme Court Justice come up to me and say to my face it is over for me.
Matt, it is over for you, they've got the votes to enforce copyright laws, you're out of there. They're going to make it so you can't even use headlines.
To have a Supreme Court Justice say that to my face, that it is over, they've got the votes. It means time is limited. Time is not forever, how many more moons and sunrises will you see in your life rise and fall, not that many, it is a small amount.
For people to be saying with this attitude, I'll get on with my life and my greatness some time, no you can't.
ALEX JONES: That's it, we're being enslaved now. Under the TPP, they admit you can't put a headline to the New York Times. You are sending massive traffic to them, they're claiming you are takin their words. This is insane.
MATT DRUDGE: And Justice Breyer said we need to look at a global law, now, so they're getting ready for these decisions to come. You thought Obamacare was shocking. These other decisions. Wait until these copyright laws work their way up and the Supreme Court decides you can not have a website with news headlines linking across the board.
That will end for me, fine I've had a hell of a run, it has been twenty years next year, or about now.
I couldn't have gone any further, I have gone as far out as I can. I still want to stay out here, but I have gone pretty far for what one individual...
This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!
Posted on October 7, 2015
Drudge Reveals What Supreme Court Justice Said ‘To My Face’
Matt Drudge warned in a rare interview Tuesday that future decisions on digital copyright laws could stifle free speech, including putting an end to his popular Drudge Report website.
The comments came in a radio interview with Alex Jones.
“I had a Supreme Court justice tell me to my face it’s over for me. Said, ‘Matt, it’s over for you. They’ve got the votes not to enforce copyright law. You’re out of there. They’re gonna make it so headlines, you can’t even use headlines,’” Drudge said. “To have a Supreme Court justice say that to my face!”
Drudge then warned the American public about such cases making their way up the court system.
“You thought Obamacare was shocking? You thought some of these other decisions were shocking? Wait until these copyright laws work their way up and the Supreme Court decides you cannot have a website with news headlines linking across the board,” he said. “Then that will end for me.”
“Fine, I’ve had a hell of a run. It’s 20 years next year – or 20 years about now. Hell of a run,” Drudge added. “I couldn’t have gone any farther. I feel completely, I have gone as far out of the galaxy as I can on this. I still wanna stay out here. But I have gone pretty damn far for what one individual can do in this culture. But I’m talking about the future.”
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
Some news I've heard today.
1) Scalia's family has asked people to drop the conspiracy stuff. In my opinion, that's good enough for me. Since they are his family and would probably be the first to jump on anything unusual, I'm going to respect their request.
2) Obama is not going to attend Scalia's funeral. What more needs said... Classless piece of shit. Not that Scalia would probably want him at his funeral anyway.
February 18th, 2016, 03:54
vector7
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
The Texas county judge who decided an autopsy of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was unnecessary revealed Monday new details about the late justice's health that seem to be at odds with what his friends recollect about the days before he died.
Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara told The Associated Press she spoke with Scalia's doctor on the day he was found dead in his room at a remote Texas ranch. She said the doctor told her that Scalia had a history of heart trouble, high blood pressure and was considered too weak to undergo surgery for a recent shoulder injury.
However, friends described Scalia as his usual, happy self in the days leading up to his surprising death on Saturday.
Guevara told the AP that she consulted with Scalia's personal physician and local and federal investigators, who said there were no signs of foul play, before concluding that he had died of natural causes. She said she spoke with a "Dr. Monahan" at some point after 8 p.m. on Saturday to discuss Scalia's health history.
News that the 79-year-old justice was in declining health may come as a surprise to the public, but unlike presidents, the high court's members don't provide regular health disclosures.
Rear Adm. Brian P. Monahan is the attending physician for members of Congress and the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court spokeswoman could not immediately confirm that Monahan had examined Scalia, and Monahan did not return a phone message left for him at his Capitol office Monday.
Scalia's death was a shock to those at the Cibolo Creek Ranch where he died, as well as to the rest of the nation. The owner of the ranch near Marfa, about 190 miles southeast of El Paso, said Scalia seemed normal at dinner the night before he was found "in complete repose" in his room.
John Poindexter told reporters Scalia had arrived Friday and was part of a group of about 35 weekend guests. Scalia retired around 9 p.m., saying he wanted a long night's sleep, according to Poindexter.
Chris Lujan, a manager for Sunset Funeral Homes in El Paso, Texas, said Scalia's body was taken from the facility late Sunday afternoon and was to be flown to Virginia.
An El Paso International Airport official, Terry Sharpe, the airport's assistant director for operations, said a private plane carrying Scalia's body left the West Texas airport about 8 p.m. Eastern time Sunday.
Guevara said Monahan told her Scalia had gone to the doctor's office on both Wednesday and Thursday before traveling to Texas, and had an MRI on his shoulder. She said Monahan told her surgery was needed, but that Scalia wasn't strong enough to endure surgery so rehabilitation was recommended instead.
Scalia apparently had mentioned to some people at the ranch he was not feeling well, according to Guevara. She said that information came from her conversations with Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez and a U.S. marshal she identified as Ken Roberts, both of whom had seen Scalia's body and determined there was no foul play.
State law allows an inquest to be performed by phone. Guevara said she followed the procedure because both justices of the peace serving the region were out of town and she was also about 65 miles away from the resort.
Guevara certified Scalia's death by telephone about 1:52 p.m. Saturday. She had previously conducted two other death inquests by phone.
Bryan Garner, one of Scalia's close friends and the co-author of two books with the justice, said in an interview that Scalia seemed happy and jovial during recent trips to Hong Kong and Singapore in late January and early February. Garner said Scalia never mentioned anything about heart problems or other ailments during the trip.
"He did seem strong as ever," Garner said. "He was a very strong man physically."
During the trip, Scalia and Garner spent long days traveling, speaking to university audiences about their most recent book on interpreting the law, and meeting with public officials.
Garner said his most recent conversation with Scalia was on Wednesday morning, when the justice told him, "'The world of tennis has lost a great competitor.'" Scalia, long an avid tennis player, said he had torn his rotator cuff for a second time and that his playing days likely were over, Garner said.
But Garner said Scalia never mentioned any other ailments other than that he was dealing with a "head cold."
In the nation's capital, where flags flew at half-staff at the White House and Supreme Court, the political sniping soared over replacing Scalia on the bench, raising the prospect of a court short-handed for some time.
President Barack Obama has pledged a nomination "in due time." But the Senate's top Republican, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, thinks it should wait for the next president.
McConnell and other Republicans argued that, as a lame duck, Obama should not fill the vacancy created by Scalia's death during an election year.
Before Scalia’s Death, a Clash Between G.O.P. and Obama Over Appellate Judges
Elena Kagan appearing before the Judiciary Committee in 2010 as a Supreme Court nominee. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The vow by Senate Republicans to block whomever President Obama nominates to fill the sudden vacancy on the Supreme Court presages a prolonged election year struggle, but the clash is less a new front against the White House than an escalation of a battle that had begun at the appeals court level before Justice Antonin Scalia died.
Since Republicans took control of the Senate in January 2015, the process that would enable Mr. Obama to fill vacancies on the 12 regional federal courts of appeal has essentially been halted. Mr. Obama has managed only one appointment because Republican senators have refused to sign off ahead of time on nominees for judgeships in their states — a traditional step before a president makes a nomination.
In the weeks before Justice Scalia’s death, influential conservative groups and commentators called on Senate Republicans to ensure that Mr. Obama appointed no more appeals court judges.
Among those commentators was Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia and a prominent blogger. He said in an interview Monday that conservatives could not compromise over any appointments to the upper ranks of the judiciary — including the appeals courts, which get the last word on matters the Supreme Court does not review and often serve as a breeding ground for future justices.
“This fight has been fought by both sides for decades,” Mr. Whelan said. “Conservatives believe with good reason that liberal judges will twist the Constitution and statutes to reach whatever result they want.”
Just as there is no precedent for leaving a Supreme Court seat open because it is an election year, as Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, vowed to do hours after Justice Scalia’s death was announced, there is also none for virtually shutting down the appointment of new appeals court judges so early. Each of Mr. Obama’s predecessors since Ronald Reagan also faced a Senate controlled by the opposing party, yet they appointed between 10 and 18 appellate judges in their last two years in office.
Antonin Scalia had been reliable in voting for contested voter ID laws. | AP Photo Justice Antonin Scalia’s death is certain to have an impact on the political debate in this year’s elections, but it could also have a far more direct effect on the elections themselves.
There are numerous challenges to Republican-led congressional redistricting plans and new voter ID laws likely to come under Supreme Court scrutiny. Scalia had been a reliable vote for allowing such redistricting plans and voting rules.
A new justice nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate would almost certainly shift the court in the direction of stricter voting rights enforcement and a greater willingness to take account of race when considering redistricting and election law matters.
But the more likely scenario in the near term — deadlock over Scalia’s replacement — could have a similar effect by leaving the court less likely to come up with the five votes required to set precedents on such matters and to issue emergency stays in challenges to last-minute voter ID and election-law changes coming up from lower courts.
“Justice Scalia wasn’t really a friend of voting rights. ... He was the one saying the Voting Rights Act was a racial entitlement,” said Katherine Culliton-González of the Advancement Project, a civil rights group.
The issue isn’t a theoretical or remote one. One-person-one-vote cases from Arizona and Texas were argued in December and are awaiting decision by the high court. The justices also have a Virginia redistricting case set to be argued next month — before what now looks all but certain to be an eight-member court.
The most urgent matter is a pending emergency application to halt a court-ordered redo of redistricting in North Carolina. The stay request from the state’s Republican governor and other officials came to the justices last Wednesday, just three days before Scalia died. Those seeking to stick with the challenged map are hoping the Supreme Court will act before a Friday deadline that a federal appeals court set for the Legislature to redraw the lines because race was improperly used as a factor.
Experts said that, without Scalia, the court is somewhat less likely to come up with the five votes needed to step in, but there’s still a decent chance it will do so because absentee ballots are already being sent out for the March 15 primary and some justices of both parties are often reluctant to interfere with an election already underway.
The 4th Circuit “just gave the Legislature a few days to draw a new map,” noted Dan Tokaji, an election law professor at The Ohio State University. “The justices may think that a little bit hasty.”
“The question is whether or not the court regards this as too late,” said University of California at Irvine law professor and election law blogger Rick Hasen, referring to the appeals court’s Feb. 5 order. “You can actually redo the election at this point,” Hasen observed, pointing to the possibility of delaying the primary by a few weeks and starting the voting again.
The high court could also be hit with a series of election-related stay requests in advance of this fall’s elections, just as it was in 2014, when the justices fielded emergency applications from North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin over issues such as voter ID laws and cutbacks in early voting. If Scalia’s seat remains vacant, the Supreme Court could be less likely to intercede, leaving appeals courts with broader leeway to act as they see fit in those cases.
“We’re virtually certain to see more of those cases this election cycle. In those cases, it could make a really big difference that Justice Scalia is no longer there,” Tokaji said.
The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official and Federal Election Commission member under President George W. Bush, said: “We're really dependent on the fact that if the justices divide 4-4 over any of those cases, the rulings in the lower courts will prevail. it would be final for this election. In a sense, we’ll be stuck with what the lower court decided.”
Civil rights advocates said in interviews this week that they’d be happy to take cases in election law cases to the 4th Circuit, the 6th Circuit or even the traditionally conservative 5th Circuit because of case law that seems to favor complaints from minority voters. If those courts’ rulings are final for this election because the Supreme Court can’t muster a majority to halt them, that could be a favorable result, those advocates said.
“It could allow voter-friendly circuit decisions to take effect,” Tokaji said.
Active lawsuits over voter ID laws in North Carolina and in Texas might well be taken to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis before November, activists said.
“You’re, of course, rolling the dice and looking at the odds of which cases you want to go to the circuit court and how is the circuit court there,” Culliton-González said.
Alabama and Georgia’s voter registration deadlines for their March 1 presidential primaries have already passed, but registration is still open in Georgia for state and federal primaries on May 24. In addition, Kansas is holding caucuses on March 5 and allows voters to register as Democrats as late as caucus day.
If U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon or the D.C. Circuit were to issue an order reversing the approval of the proof-of-citizenship requirement, proponents of such requirements like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach could ask the Supreme Court for relief. Or the roles could be reversed, with opponents of such requirements heading to the high court. Such a showdown seems likely, either in the coming weeks or before the fall general election.
“That’s an example of things that are bound to come up this election year,” Culliton-González said. “It’s the first presidential election our nation has gone through since 1965 without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act,” she said, referring to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in 2013 striking down the requirement that many Southern states and several others get advance approval for changes to voting procedures. “It could get really complicated.”
February 18th, 2016, 04:08
vector7
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
A couple of photographs of President Obama shaking hands with a wealthy Democrat Party donor named John Poindexter, who also owns the ranch resort where he found Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead, has fueled the whispers that radio host Michael Savage just gave wings to with the blunt broadcast question: “Was [he] murdered?”
As WND reported, Savage posed that question to listeners on his recent show, at the same time insisting “we need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation” and calling Scalia’s sudden death “serious business.”
Now the blog DC Whispers has stoked those flames with a post that includes a couple of photographs of Obama and Poindexter, who owns the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia was staying at the time of his death, in a friendly handshake.
The blog says Poindexter, a Texas millionaire businessman, also received an award from Obama for his Vietnam military service.
“It has been long-standing policy for the Obama administration to grant presidential awards to those who are among the president’s most prized political donors,” DC Whispers wrote. “It was Poindexter who reportedly was among those who initially discovered the justice’s body, and who then coordinated with local officials to have Justice Scalia declared dead via a phone conversation with the area medical examiner, but without an actual medical examination of the body.”
The blogger writes: “Coincidence? That will be for you the readers to decide.”
The Associated Press reported Texas Judge Cinderela Guevara initially determined an autopsy should be performed on Scalia’s body, but then changed her mind when the justice’s doctor confirmed he had a history of heart troubles and when emergency officials responding to the scene of his death said no foul play was suspected.
Obama: "The constitution is clear on what is to happen now, the President is to nominate the next supreme court Justice like Kagan and Soytomayor who cares deeply about our democracy."
President Obama fired back Tuesday at Senate Republicans pre-emptively threatening to block his eventual nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, saying at a press conference that the Senate has “more than enough time” to consider his pick and he intends to press ahead.
“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Obama said. “When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president of the United States is to nominate someone. The Senate is to consider that nomination.”
Obama, in his most extensive remarks on the vacancy since the 79-year-old Scalia was found dead at a Texas ranch on Saturday, rejected widespread calls by Republican lawmakers and 2016 candidates to defer to the next president to fill Scalia’s seat.
“There is no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the constitutional text,” Obama said, blasting what he called an “obstructionist” Senate.
The president has found himself in an awkward position, though, as he scolds Republicans over threats to block his nominee – since Obama, as a U.S. senator, tried in 2006 to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, who ultimately was confirmed. Asked about that seeming discrepancy on Tuesday, Obama did not answer directly. He noted that senators are sometimes worried about primary elections and a backlash from supporters, and take “strategic decisions.” But he brushed off his own opposition to Alito, saying he’s on the bench now, “regardless of which votes particular senators have taken.”
Obama held the press conference at the close of a summit in California with leaders of Southeast Asian nations.
It came as he’s facing an already-heated battle back in Washington over his potential pick to replace Scalia – before he has even announced his nominee.
Senate Republicans want Obama’s successor to fill the vacancy, and some are threatening to oppose any Obama nominee. “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president,” Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said in a statement Monday.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said push to let Obama’s successor to fill the vacancy "is not about the person," but "about the court."
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice by allowing this issue to be front and center in this year’s election," he said. "As Democrats have already admitted, their breach of decades of precedent is all about scoring political points.”
But Obama says he will fulfill his constitutional duty and nominate a replacement in due time.
Suggesting he would not use a single-issue litmus test in selecting his nominee, Obama said Tuesday whomever he chooses will be “indisputably” qualified.
At the same time, he said he understands the “stakes,” bluntly acknowledging the next justice “would be a deciding vote” in a divided court.
Later asked if the public should assume he is likely to choose a moderate, Obama curtly responded, “No.” He then elaborated, saying: “I don’t know where you found that. You shouldn’t assume anything … other than they’re going to be well-qualified.”
He also suggested he was not considering a controversial recess appointment, but did not definitively rule it out, either.
Obama’s Democratic allies have blasted Republicans for their recent statements on the court battle.
"By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a scathing op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Post.
A key Republican senator, though, left open the possibility of at least holding a confirmation hearing.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley told Iowa radio reporters Tuesday he supports Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should nominate someone but won't make any decision until there's a nominee.
At Tuesday’s press conference, Obama also weighed in on the 2016 race to succeed him in the White House. He reprised his criticism of the Republican candidates, and even seemed to take a shot at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for allegedly “running away” from a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
But on the Democratic primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, he declined to comment extensively.
“Let’s see how this thing plays itself out,” he said, adding: “Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it.”
On foreign policy, Obama also said he's under no illusions that a ceasefire negotiated for Syria will bring lasting peace to the "shattered" nation.
Obama and leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, meanwhile, spent the session in California Tuesday trading views on China's territorial claims to disputed water of the South China Sea, moves that have sounded international alarms and heightened tensions with some association members.
Counterterrorism, a growing concern in the Asia-Pacific region, was also on the agenda.
The U.S. maintains that maritime disputes should be resolved peacefully according to international law, a stance Obama emphasized Monday in welcoming leaders of ASEAN's 10-nation bloc: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.
“Freedom of navigation must be upheld,” Obama said Tuesday, following the first ASEAN-only summit held in the U.S.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
February 19th, 2016, 19:13
vector7
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
Cracks are starting to appear in the Republican wall of opposition to President Obama nominating the next Supreme Court justice, as several prominent senators signal that a hearing -- at least -- could be allowed.
Those lawmakers include Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who would not rule out a Judiciary Committee hearing on the president’s forthcoming nomination to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly during a retreat at a Texas resort on Saturday.
He was joined by Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, who appeared to welcome the debate in comments Wednesday, but nonetheless encouraged Obama to “put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda” with his pick.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who as chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be the one to put a confirmation hearing on the schedule, has said he would wait to see who is the pick before ruling it out completely, as suggested by his colleague, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Further, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also on the committee, said he would not support a filibuster to prevent a vote, as other Republicans have suggested.
The hard line in the sand drawn by McConnell came shortly after Scalia’s death. As majority leader, McConnell has discretion over whether to schedule a full senate vote. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said in a statement Saturday. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
This was followed by equally strong assertions during that night's GOP debate in South Carolina. Several candidates said they wanted the nomination to be delayed until the next president takes office, as others suggested that in the event of a nomination, Obama's nominee be thwarted in the Senate.
Obama declared that as sitting president, it’s his right to nominate Scalia’s replacement, despite the fact that it is his last year in office and Capitol Hill is in the throes of a politically charged election cycle. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done in off years,” Obama said on Tuesday. “That’s not in the constitutional text.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid bolstered the president’s argument Wednesday and predicted Republicans would eventually “cave in.”
Obama has also faced accusations of hypocrisy, since he tried to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito's nomination in 2006. The White House says he now regrets that decision.
Vice President Biden said Obama should be able to nominate, but acknowledged it is up to the Senate to confirm it. Because of that, the former Delaware senator told Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday, “the president is not going to be able to go out -- nor would it be his instinct, anyway -- to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court. “
“There are plenty of judges (who) are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
February 19th, 2016, 22:53
American Patriot
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
Yeah. Fecklessfucks.
February 20th, 2016, 16:15
Ryan Ruck
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
Oh... Well, since Obama says he regrets his actions over Alito, we clearly have no choice but to rubber stamp anyone he nominates because racism.
February 24th, 2016, 03:12
Ryan Ruck
Re: BREAKING (2/13/2016): Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died
The theory comes from a WikiLeaks email from Hillary’s Chairman John Podesta to DC lobbyist Steve Elmendorf. Elmendorf was also the former chief of staff to Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. Podesta writes, “Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard.” Elmendrof responds, “I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down”
The theory goes that Podesta’s use of wet work implies an assassination. And the references to pool and Vineyard refer to the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia’s body was found.
The Ranch does have a pool and it is believed that a vineyard is just down the road.
The email was also written just four days before Scalia was found dead on February 13, 2016.
In an unguarded moment Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia occasionally made her so angry that she would have beaten him with a baseball bat if she could have.
During a Q&A session at the University of Minnesota with some 2,700 people present, Sotomayor admitted that Scalia’s opinions sometimes infuriated her.
“There are things he’s said on the bench,” Sotomayor told the room full of lawyers and students, “where if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it.”
Slate LGBT commentator Mark Stern suggested that Sotomayor’s baseball bat comment probably referred to Scalia’s remarks during arguments in a recent affirmative action case.
Stern’s hypothesis gains plausibility in the light of a number of scathing opinions that emerged following President Obama’s choice of Sotomayor for the high court in 2010, where pundits accused Obama of “dumbing down” the court with the appointment of a less-than-qualified lawyer who was herself the product of “affirmative action.”
Writing for CNN, Ilya Shapiro said that in his choice of Sonia Sotomayor, “President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic.”
Shapiro noted that “in over 10 years on the Second Circuit, she has not issued any important decisions or made a name for herself as a legal scholar or particularly respected jurist.”
In picking a case to highlight during his introduction of the nominee, Shapiro wrote, “President Obama had to go back to her days as a trial judge and a technical ruling that ended the 1994-95 baseball strike.”
Critics of Sotomayor, however, were not confined to the Right but spanned the gamut all the way to the far Left.
In a letter to President Barack Obama in 2009, his former Harvard law professor and mentor Laurence Tribe tried to convince the President not to appoint Sotomayor, saying that despite her “demographic appeal” she was not qualified for the job and would stir dissension among the justices.
Although he acknowledged his intent to move the court in a “pragmatically progressive direction,” Tribe counseled the President to steer clear of Sotomayor.
“If you were to appoint someone like Sonia Sotomayor,” Tribe wrote, “whose personal history and demographic appeal you don’t need me to underscore, I am concerned that the impact within the court would be negative in these respects.”
“Bluntly put, she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is, and her reputation for being something of a bully could well make her liberal impulses backfire and simply add to the fire power of the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas wing of the Court,” he said.
According to Slate, during Court arguments, Sotomayor often watched Scalia with “a leery gaze,” as though she were dreading the next statement to leave his mouth. When he spoke, “Sotomayor remained frozen in a steely stare,” the article states.
Which probably explains why she would have liked to beat him with a baseball bat, had she had the chance.
