Today’s Important, Too

Did you notice?  This week already we are at war in Congress over the reform of the Healthcare Law, From the NSA and FIB, Admiral Rodgers and Jim Comey both testified about wiretapping before Congress, and today was the second day of grueling hearings regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch before the Senate Judicial Committee regarding his pending confirmation as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  I do not remember 48 hours in Congressional history that so much work was done, except maybe for arguments over how long an adjournment should last for Congressional vacations.

In all this noise one event stands out as what may be the most important historical event of the next few decades:  the next

Judge Neil Gorsuch

SCOTUS Judge.  I am enamored at this process and this judge.  I know, I know:  I’m a political junkie.  But the political pieces of this process are not necessarily what has grabbed my attention.  It’s the historical implications of not just this confirmation, this judge, or the hearings.  It is that for the first time in my memory the deep divide between conservatives and liberals in D.C. were front and center all day on international live television.  And the differences are monumental.

I have always known there are stark contrasts between the two thinking types, but I never knew how drastic they are.  Regarding federal judges and their nomination/confirmation process, I have heard the rhetoric about whether or not they were “Originalists.”  Originalists are those jurists who feel the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent laws as amended through two centuries are a literal roadmap for ALL things regarding private and public life for Americans just as written.  The other side believes the Constitution is a living, breathing entity that is changing as America and Americans change through the years, and therefore interpretations of Constitutional laws should morph at the same time.  While I have heard those titles placed on two groups of judicial thinkers, until today I never knew just how different those are.  ( By the way, Neil Gorsuch is an Originalist)

In grueling testimony that lasted about 12 hours, Judge Gorsuch fielded about every legal question you could imagine a dozen or so Senators could throw at him.  And boy did he do a great job!  If you missed the hearings, let me fill you in.  Judicial Committee Dems led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) grilled the Judge on all things Constitutional.  Each expressed their version of what the framers of the Constitution intended before beginning their questioning.  Each Democrat in their 30 minute allotted time questioned the nominee about specific cases that came before him on the 10th Circuit Appeals Court in Colorado as to why he ruled the way he did and why he did NOT rule the other way.  Judge Gorsuch was simply amazing in his responses.  He could have easily gotten flapped and out of sorts, because (as you can imagine) those questions were not friendly, not kind or flattering in any way, and were designed to expose some judicial flaw or flaws in the nominee that would certainly disqualify him from service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As you can imagine, questioning from the Conservative side of the room was much kinder, amicable, and, I am ashamed to say, more professional than was that from their liberal counterparts.  That is not to say they were soft on the nominee, but they each expressed their opinion of his 10 year service on the Federal Appeals Court, then asked substantive questions and allowed him to give complete and thorough answers.

It was glaringly obvious from the onset the Dems all used scripted talking points and were not seeking in any way to learn anything new about the nominee that might assist in their votes to confirm or not.  Not a Senator at the table that is liberal will vote for Gorsuch.  And that’s unfortunate.  He is probably the most qualified judge that has even been mentioned as a possible replacement for Judge Antonin Scalia.  He demonstrated today his understanding of U.S. and Constitutional Law, how that pertains to American individuals and companies, and what judicial responsibilities are and what courts and judges can and cannot do according to the law.  Democrats did NOT like that approach from the Judge.  Continually Democrats tried to pin him down, digging for answers to hypothetical cases that may appear in the Court after he begins serving.  Again and again he told the questioner he does not make judicial determinations in his courtroom based on his personal opinions or feelings, but always based totally on the law, AND that he could not discuss details of any potential case that might come before a court on which he served.

There were a couple of dramatic moments that vividly illustrated this vast divide between Democrats and Republicans as it pertains to Constitutional law and the Supreme Court.  The most dramatic was in a series of questions from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL).  He asked the nominee about details and thoughts the Judge used during his adjudication of several specific cases.  One specific case caught my attention.  It was about a truck driver who while driving was caught in a snow and ice storm which forced him to pull over in his truck with its trailer.  Temperatures during the storm were below freezing, so he left the truck and trailer there.  His company fired him for violating written company rules that prevented any driver from leaving his truck and trailer under any circumstances.  He sued the company in District Court who ruled for the company.  The driver appealed to Gorsuch’s Court.  He upheld the ruling against the driver.  Durbin berated Judge Gorsuch for in such a heartless way ruling “for” a big company against a “little” guy — the truck driver.  Judge Gorsuch in his response drew the picture in neon colors of the difference between how liberals and conservatives believe the Constitution should be viewed.

The nominee in his lengthy response to Senator Durbin explained that he and each judge involved in the case had no choice but to make a legal determination which excluded ANY personal feelings.  The company acted in good faith and made their decision based on written company policies that every employee read and agreed to work under at their time of initial employment.  Durbin interrupted Judge Gorsuch at this point in his response and said this:  “How could you — a judge — make such a harsh ruling against a truck driver who left his truck to keep from freezing to death?  Doing so was heartless, and illustrates a propensity to adjudicate in favor of corporations over people.”  The Judge’s response:  “Senator, I could not nor should any judge ever make any ruling based on personal beliefs or opinions, no matter how distasteful the details of a case may be.  I made that case decision based on one thing and one thing only:  the law.”  He continued, “Making laws is the job of this House, not the Courts.  Any law that would have prohibited the company from taking actions that it did should have been passed into law by this House.  That law wasn’t passed.  The company did nothing against the law and my finding was the only one I or any other judge could make.”

So there it is:  liberal politicians today want and expect federal judges to render decisions based on what they believe is the right thing to do regardless of what the law says.  Originalists (conservatives) feel that the judicial system is there for one purpose and one purpose only:  to interpret laws on the books.  Liberals want judges to render decisions on cases in their courts based on their personal political opinions of current issues regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says.  Judge Gorsuch to Senator Durbin:  “We don’t make laws.  You’re supposed to.”  The problem with that is Durbin and friends want all federal judges to do just that — write and rewrite laws to fit the liberal narrative of the day regarding the applicable political circumstances of each case.

That’s a scary and dangerous thought.  But it’s an important one.  As I said, this may be the most important next few weeks of the next few decades.  I encourage all to tune into C-SPAN or the national news network of your choice as you can tomorrow to watch the next round of questioning.  Neil Gorsuch should be easily confirmed.  But that’s another story.

Tomorrow:  Will the Nuclear Option be Necessary?


The Worst Leftover of the Obama Administration

            U.S. Supreme Court

No, it’s not Obamacare, although the behemoth is a multi-headed dollar eating dragon that is quickly crippling our economy and steadily eroding the quality of the greatest healthcare system in World history.  It is also not the constant bickering and name calling on Capitol Hill that seemed to if not start during his double term in office, certainly to escalate dramatically during his eight years.  It also is not the ever widening divides between races in our Country — growing at supersonic speed thanks to the political racist rhetoric designed to do just that.  And it is not the division that most thought would have been shuttered after the inauguration of America’s first non-white President.  In fact, with President Obama in office, all of these U.S. problems got worse and worse the older his administration became.  The worst leftover from the Obama Administration — as horrible as are the problems listed above — are the 329 federal judges appointed by the former POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, including two U.S. Supreme Court justices.  You can bet that each was fully vetted by the Administration and confirmed to be from “moderate” liberal to “hard left” liberal in their leanings before their nominations.  His purpose?  To fulfill to the best of his ability the promise he made again and again during his 2008 campaign:  to “fundamentally change America.”  His authority to do so?  Remember this:  “Elections have consequences.”  The number one consequence of his election and then re-election was his filling courts across the nation with Leftist judges who in many cases are making determinations in their courts not based on Constitutional principles where applicable or on actual content of federal laws, but on the judge’s personal interpretation of the intent of those who wrote each law.

I agree with you that this is a far-out basis on which any judge to render an opinion.  But they are doing it and doing it more and more every day.  It has never been more evident than the judgments rendered by the various federal judges who have weighed in formally on President Trump’s travel ban…twice now.  We have all read and re-read both versions of the ban.  I have read both several times.  They are plainly written with full explanation and quote existing law that authorizes a president to take such action.  Here’s the law that President Trump used to issue the two Executive Orders:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”  Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

I don’t know about you, but that’s very plain and easy to take literally.  Based solely on the “letter” of the law, President Trump had every legal right to issue such an order.  And NO court had any legal right to issue a temporary stay of that order.  So where’s the rub?

     President Donald Trump

First let me tell you how and why the specific courts were called on to adjudicate the various appeals requested of this ban.  The process is called “forum shopping.”  That is, when a regulation, order, or law is passed in the United States with which someone disagrees, IF it has a federal basis, the “injured” party (or “alleged injured” party) can go to a federal court anywhere in the U.S. and file their appeal in THAT court.  So what happened is the “alleged injured” party representatives took their request for a temporary stay of President Trump’s travel ban to courts that are the most liberal in the nation.  In two cases the judges that heard  the appeals were vocally anti Trump!  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in northern California — in the land of “fruits and nuts” — and heard the appeal of the issuance of a temporary restraining order of the first travel ban executive order.  That court is full of liberal judges and is the most overturned Court by the U.S. Supreme Court — 70% of their rulings between 2010-2015 have been overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court.   Judge Watson — the federal judge in Hawaii who issued the stay of President Trump’s second travel ban — was appointed by Obama in 2012, and — probably not a coincidence — met with Barack Obama the day before he issued his travel ban Temporary Restraining Order.  Hmmm…..

President Obama — a constitutional lawyer — knew full well the importance of stacking the courts in America with like minded liberal judges during his 8 years in the White House.  Why?  He needed to find the best way to guarantee his socialist agenda would continue after his presidency ended.  He knew that legislatively Americans would at some point soon (even though he thought Hillary would have succeeded him as President) elect conservative legislators that would nix the liberal laws and regulations he put in place and who he felt any liberal successor would implement.  The Judicial system in America has always been the great equalizer in Government.  He knew to keep the move toward pure American Socialism alive, he had to tilt the judiciary toward the Left.  And boy, did he.

Because of Barack Obama, the Nation faces a quiet (but almost deafening in its silence) dilemma:  how to overcome the monstrous tilt toward socialism in the federal judiciary initiated by Obama.  Remember:  most federal judges are appointed for life.  That means the bulk of those 329 appointees of his are there for a long, long time.  Sure there is an impeachment process for removal.  But you can imagine how difficult that would be.  So what can we do?

         Judge Neil Gorsuch

The only sure way to cripple if not defeat the Left’s march toward socialism is to make certain that conservative judges — ONLY conservative judges — are confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, starting with Neil Gorsuch who has been appointed to replace staunch conservative judge Antonin Scalia after his untimely and mysterious death.  (That death alone makes one think of John Grisham’s novel THE PELICAN BRIEF)  With Gorsuch’s confirmation, that will put the SCOTUS at 5 conservative (or 5 who make conservative decisions “most” of the time) to 4 liberal judges who NEVER depart from a liberal perspective.  Remember:  the final determination and only way to overturn a decision for any case that comes out of one of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal is through the U.S. Supreme Court.  What they determine is the ultimate determination and cannot be changed.  If the SCOTUS goes liberal, American goes Socialist — you can bet your life on it.

What do we do?  We do everything we can do to get our U.S. Senators to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Judge Scalia.  No, we don’t have a vote for that position.  But we do have votes for our U.S. Senators.  So we have a voice there.  And it needs to become a loud voice.  We need — through every communication vehicle we can amass — to let our Senators know we demand Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation.  We need to educate our friends and family members with the information you have just read — make sure they understand and push them hard to write, call, and/or email their U.S. Senators.

“If not us, then who……If not now, then when?”


Pelosi vs. Gorsuch: Part II

Yesterday I published Part I of analysis of this important historical political event including the actual ruling explanation authored by Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.  If you have not read yesterday’s blog post, please do so now along with reading Judge Gorsuch’s opinion that — according to Liberal Democrats — is proof that he should not be the next U.S. Supreme Court Member.  Here in Part II is the analysis of his opinion, its validity as it pertains to Congressional law, and information regarding the vitriol from the Liberal Left against Judge Gorsuch’s appointment.  Here’s Part II:


The case of a severely autistic boy in Colorado centered around the parents’ decision to remove him from public school to place in a private residential treatment facility, then demand the public school district reimburse for the costs of the private facility.  The school system had developed and implemented an educational program specifically for him which was implemented with many successful results.  The parents opted to remove him from the public school system to enroll in a residential treatment center at which the child lived 24 hours a day for 44 weeks of the year.  The parents petitioned the school system (and a resulting lawsuit) demanding reimbursement for their costs of his residence at the center.

The court (and Judge Gorsuch) ruled against a lower court’s decision in which the parents’ claim was affirmed.  The court’s position was that Congress had written rules specific to such cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.  Those rules plainly stated a demand under this law for reimbursement for education care received for such a child would only be allowed if the school system did not provide Free and Applicable Public Education (or the “FAPE” rule) to the disabled student.  In this case, the school and the parents had both declared that the child had made marked and dramatic improvement in education at the public school.  The parents in their claim stated those improvements did not all transition into his life away from school.  No additional marked “educational” improvements at the private facility were achieved.  The Court ruling found the parents’ claim was in direct conflict with the FAPE rule.  The decision written by Jude Gorsuch in NO way diminishes the disability or the child’s need and right for education in public schools.  But the Congressional law stops short of defining what level of educational achievement would trigger confirm the lower court ruling.

Minority Leader Pelosi has joined other Liberals in lambasting Judge Gorsuch.  They do so knowing their claims are false, but also knowing that most Americans will not investigate case history and will simply defer to the first “news” (and in this case definitely “fake news”) they hear as being the truth.  Remember that in the 2012 Presidential election campaign, Senator Harry Reid stated he knew factually that Mitt Romney had not paid a penny in federal income tax in 10 years.  The liberal media ran with it without fact checking it or questioning Governor Romney as to its truth.  It was patently false.  The Romneys in that period had paid millions to the IRS.  Do not forget Pelosi stood at a podium and told Americans speaking of the Obamacare law that, “We must pass this law so we can find out what’s in it.”  The Speaker of the House had not even read the bill — the only bill in U.S. history that in its operations would give direct operating control of 20% of the American economy to the Government.

Both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Schumer have said they will fight any Trump SCOTUS nominee if that nominee does not subscribe to “mainstream American ideals.”  But what ARE mainstream American ideals and who defines those?  Democrats feel that THEY are the only ones capable of defining what American mainstream ideals are.  What hypocritical and absolutely asinine statements and positions these are!

It is probable that there will not be a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch until the first week of April.  Be aware that the coordinated attacks against the character, integrity, qualifications and ability to serve as a SCOTUS are well underway by the Left and will continue.  Americans will be inundated with liberal vitriol and venom on every hand by liberals, all of which will be trumpeted by national media.  I encourage all to investigate these allegations for yourself.  Details of the positions of Judge Gorsuch are of public record.  Certainly it is unreasonable to research every one of his nearly 1000 cases.  But I urge all to get details of each of the specific cases referenced by the Left.  Numerous Democrats have already voiced their support of Judge Neil Gorsuch.  I would like to express confidence that the Senate will give the nominee full and fair investigation of his credentials.  Senate Republicans WILL do so, just as they did for both of President Obama’s far left nominees who were confirmed as are President Clinton’s appointed SCOTUS justices.  But under the watchful eye of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who joined others to unanimously to confirm Justice Gorsuch’s to his present judgeship — you can be certain all reason and reasonable confirmation processes are already out of the question.  He is spearheading the attacks from his comrades against the man who is among the top three most qualified judges in history to serve on the Supreme Court.  Let’s hope political party preferences will not poison the responsibility of the Senate  to confirm the President’s choice for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Pelosi vs. Gorsuch: Part I

This is such an important issue to discuss in full, I have researched in depth and am providing you with complete details of the initial unwarranted attacks on President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court.  I have edited the story extensively, but even then it is a little over 1000 words.  So today I’m giving you the first half of the evidence.  Tomorrow I will give you “the rest of the story” in “Pelosi vs. Gorsuch:  Part II.  Please devour, fact check, and please let me know your thoughts.

Let the attacks begin. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the Minority Leader in the House. She has a past of publicly making unsubstantiated claims against conservatives and conservative causes, copying the habits of former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in which he made outlandish allegations against people that were later proven to be false. Their purpose is simple: the first “news” that comes out is what 90% of the receivers of that news believe is factual no matter if there is a later retraction. Pelosi jumped right into that practice immediately attacking Judge Neal Gorsuch after his SCOTUS nomination:

“Elections have ramifications, and here is a living, breathing example of it,” Pelosi said. “The president, in his first appointment to the court and hopefully his only appointment to the court, has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America versus class-action suits on securities fraud; he’s come down against employees’ rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine and the rest. If you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy.”

“What saddens me the most as a mom and a grandmother, though, is his hostility toward children in school, children with autism,” Pelosi said. “He has ruled that they don’t have the same rights under the [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] that they could reach their intellectual and social advancement under the law — he has said that doesn’t apply to them.”

These charges by Pelosi are everywhere today in written news stories worldwide.  Here’s the problem:  liberal news media outlets have been proven again and again through the recent Presidential election cycle to neglect to ascertain the voracity of statements made to them by their news sources — in this case Nancy Pelosi.

Historical news editorial policy was to verify information from any source before ever releasing it as news.  No need to say how important this would be regarding a Supreme Court nominee.  But Pelosi immediately began making public allegations that came from a lengthy Democrat talking points document prepared by a liberal organization.  They actually prepared such documents to attack ANY of the three judges said to be possible candidates for SCOTUS appointment.

Liberals know that few Americans take time to fact-check such charges.  I will not bore you with all the details of Gorsuch’s many opinions written regarding cases brought before his Court, but he wrote 11 of the issues referenced by Pelosi.  I  read the entire opinion of one of the three he penned in which his recommendation was to overturn the lower court finding.  I reference below his finding which Pelosi so aggressively attacked:  Judge Gorsuch’s written opinion in the autistic child case.  (the link to that opinion is below.  The finding of the Court linked to below is lengthy.  Please take time to read it.  It’s VERY important.  I will go into the details of the finding in tomorrow’s blog post and document that the Liberal Left have since the election crafted a formal talking-point-document for all liberals to use in attacking any of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees.

Part II of this story will be posted tomorrow (Friday).  Thanks for reading!