GOP could have Stopped Supremes Kagan and Sotomayor with a filibuster but did not

Looks like the GOP as usual stepped up to the Democrats plate both with Kagan and Sotomayor. No filibuster threatened, and better yet, we gave them the number to push it over the top. 60 votes are required to stop a filibuster. We had the numbers. With Kagan five GOPers sent it over the top, with Sotomayor the number was nine. They didn’t insist for another candidate. So who says fair is fair.

Kagan Confirmed Supreme Court – Vote Count tally Breakdown 63-37  July20, 2010

56 of the 57 Senate Democrats voted to confirm Kagan. The only Democrat who rejected the confirmation was Ben Nelson (D-NE). Both of the Senate independents, Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), voted to confirm Kagan. Additionally, five Senate Republicans broke party lines and voted to confirm Kagan; these were Richard Lugar (R-IN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Final count: 63-37. Five Republicans and one Democrat defected.

How Republican Senators Voted on Sotomayor – Interactive Graphic …

How Republican Senators Voted on Sotomayor. An interactive breakdown can be found at the New York Times August 6, 2009.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate in a 68-to-31 vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court. All Democrats and independents present voted yes (Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has been battling cancer, was not present for the vote). They were joined by 9 of the 40, or 23 percent of the Republicans in the Senate. This is less than the proportion of Democrats and independents that voted for John G. Roberts Jr. — half of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005. But it is more than the proportion that voted for Samuel Alito in 2006 — just 9 percent of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to the Supreme Court. Below are details on how Republicans voted on Judge Sotomayor.
HOW THE SENATOR VOTED STATE MARGIN OF VICTORY
WHEN LAST ELECTED
STATE’S WINNER IN 2008
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
PUBLIC STATEMENT
ABOUT THE NOMINATION
YES Susan Collins Me. +23% OBAMA +17% “I know that I will not agree with MORE»
YES Olympia J. Snowe Me. +53% OBAMA +17% “I was impressed with Judge MORE»
YES Judd Gregg N.H. +33% OBAMA +10% “Although Judge Sotomayor and I MORE»
YES George V. Voinovich Ohio +28% OBAMA +4% “In particular, the one comment MORE»
YES Mel Martinez Fla. +1% OBAMA +3% “Judge Sotomayor’s rise to the MORE»
YES Richard G. Lugar Ind. OBAMA +1% “Judge Sotomayor is clearly MORE»
YES Christopher S. Bond Mo. +13% MCCAIN <1% “If some are saying that a MORE»
YES Lindsey Graham S.C. +15% MCCAIN +9% “I believe she follows precedent, MORE»
YES Lamar Alexander Tenn. +34% MCCAIN +15% “Even though Judge Sotomayor’s MORE»
Advertisements

Al Franken Beclowns Himself Over Gorsuch

One of these people tried to lecture the other on the Constitution. Guesses? A real brain teaser on a Saturday morning. Sorry folks…. the best I could do..

 

Supreme Court slaps Obama down again, 23 unanimous decisions against him

With the Brexit passage, little is being said about the latest loss of Obama with the Supremes. After his petulant pouting yesterday, he had to admit his immigration bonanza is on hold. This latest loss doesn’t count all of the cases of Obama over reaching that never makes it to the top court. Stunning the number of unanimous decisions that went against him.That includes his two picks now on the court. Info below is from two Cato posts:

It has the worst record of any modern presidency, whether you count in absolute won-loss..

In the first 6.5 years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to June 2015), the government lost unanimously at the Supreme Court 23 times, an average of 3.62 cases per year.

And that record has only grown in the last few months. This week the government suffered its fifth unanimous loss of the year – matching its dubious achievement in 2013 with 25 cases still left to be decided – in a property-rights case in which Cato filed an amicus briefU.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

Earlier this year, I documented the Obama administration’s abysmal results before the Supreme Court (the two Obamacare cases excepted). Not only is its overall winning percentage much worse than any other modern presidency, but its spate of unanimous losses is truly record-breaking.

These cases have nothing in common, other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited: Citizens must subsume their liberty to whatever the experts in a given field determine the best or most useful policy to be. If the government can’t get even one justice to agree with it on any of these unrelated cases, it should realize there’s something seriously wrong with its constitutional vision.

More from two posts: at Cato and at Cato

Democrats have different slant on Supreme replacement now that they are in the minority

I picked up a couple of examples of the hypocrisy of the Democrats and Obama in particular regarding the possible lame duck appointment of a Supreme Court nominee. Just in case anyone asks, because the Media will not point out these discrepancies. Schumer and Obama were out there spouting their righteous indignation that they might not get their pick this year, but this is what they had done previously. An earlier post that may be of interest. A List of Bush Nominees blocked by the Democrats

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

Read more: Daily Caller

First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

Keep reading…

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

 Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

Follow us: American Thinker

Obama overrides Hobby Lobby Supreme win, Little Sisters of the Poor lose

Am I the only one who recalls all of the thousands of waivers that were handed out in the beginning of the implementation of Obamacare? If you had the right connections for your business, no problem. We thought we had a win with Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court. And we did .But guess what Obama just did with that damnable pen of his? Hobby Lobby Employees Will Get Birth Control Under A New Rule That Sidesteps Supreme Court’s Decision. Obama overrides the Supreme Court this past Friday. More on that after I get done with the Sisters and their sad plight. Apparently, the “Little Sisters of the Poor” did not escape the wrath either, and just lost another round with the Tenth Circuit, deeming them not religious enough. Take a look at this moving clip and you tell me if they are not religious enough.

The Little Sisters of the Poor have reiterated their commitment to following their conscience as they care for the poor and dying, following a federal appeals court ruling that they must obey the federal contraception mandate.

“As Little Sisters of the Poor, we simply cannot choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith,” said Mother Provincial Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire.

“And we should not have to make that choice, because it violates our nation’s commitment to ensuring that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives. For over 175 years, we have served the neediest in society with love and dignity. All we ask is to be able to continue our religious vocation free from government intrusion.

Employers who fail to comply with the mandate face crippling penalties. In the case of the Little Sisters, the fines could amount to around $2.5 million a year, or about 40 percent of the $6 million the Sisters beg for annually to run their ministry.

Updated news story at Catholic News agency

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.

Although the Little Sisters’ homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government’s narrow exemption for “religious employers.” Accordingly, beginning on January 1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

For more information, visit http://www.becketfund.org/littlesisters

Obama overrides Supreme Court decision.

On Friday, the Obama administration made its final ruling on how employers will handle birth control in their health insurance plans — they’ll provide it regardless of their moral beliefs. Birth control methods will be covered at no cost to employees, even if their employer objects.

With respect to women, preventive care and screenings provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA (not otherwise addressed by the recommendations of the Task Force), including all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).1

For-profit companies have the option of writing a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) if they wish to object to coverage. Under the new rules, the HHS will notify a third-party insurance company, which will then provide the birth control coverage to the company’s female employee without infringing any additional cost onto the company itself.

The program was running smoothly until the Evangelical Christian owners of craft chain store Hobby Lobby famously objected to the mandate, claiming it violated their right to religious beliefs. On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby in an unprecedented decision, but the Obama administration put a conclusive response to the court’s ruling by overriding it.

Medical Daily

Supremes ruling – turning nice neighborhoods into ghettos

While we were so involved with the Gay Marriage and Obamacare Supreme court rulings, this little number came our way at the same time. Guess who is moving into our neighborhood?

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said certain housing policies that put minorities at a disadvantage, even if they aren’t expressly intended to discriminate, can be challenged in court.

The court sided with a community organization alleging that Texas’ housing department had improperly clustered Section 8 housing in low-income, high-crime areas — essentially preserving the segregation that federal housing law was designed to end.

Texas had argued that the lawsuit was invalid, and the question before the high court was whether the Fair Housing Act — a law intended to outlaw racial discrimination in housing — allows people to sue over practices that might not be explicitly discriminatory, but end up hurting minorities disproportionately.

You have worked hard so as to be able to live in a nice neighborhood where you can raise your kids in safety, and you don’t want some Section 8 crack house opening up across the street? Then you’re a racist. H/TMoonbattery 

Baltimore

Every neighborhood should be like Baltimore

‘Disparate Impact’ Ruling Emboldens Obama’s Diversity Cops

Racial Preferences: Armed with a Supreme Court-licensed shakedown weapon, President Obama’s race cops will wage an even bigger war against lenders, insurers, employers and whoever else fails their “disparate impact” test.

Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch said she and her civil-rights goons are “bolstered by this important ruling” by the high bench, which by a narrow 5-4 vote upheld bogus disparate-impact theory as a tool to enforce laws against housing, lending and insurance discrimination.

Meanwhile, HUD chief Julian Castro said the ruling gives his regulators a “greater level of certainty” to go after lenders and landlords. “We’re going to keep using it,” he warned, including against local zoning officials who have the audacity to restrict high-density housing to protect against blight, congestion and depreciation.

And Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chief Richard Cordray says any financial policy, practice or standard that has a “disparate impact on communities of color” is fair game. “That doctrine is applicable for all of the credit markets we touch, including mortgages, student loans, credit cards and auto loans.”

Obama, morever, suggested that the EEOC and the Labor Department will use disparate impact as a tool to prevent employers from using criminal background checks and “calling Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal.”

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: IBD

Hillary Clinton and Obama were opposed to gay marriage before they were for it

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were against gay marriage before they were for it. The interesting point is that both clearly believed that a Constitutional amendment would be required to make it legal. No fear. The Supremes have now become the arbiter of social justice. Whether one is for or against gay marriage, the Supremes now have ripped the Constitution to shreds the last two days.

All of the justices had a similar concern, though: The decision substitutes the views of five unelected justices for the democratic process, much as Roe v. Wade did for abortion in 1973.

“If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

He concluded, “All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”

Recall the halcyon days of yesteryear? Just a few short years ago? Life seemed so much simpler.

At the Saddleback Civil Forum, Barack Obama addressed his definition of marriage.

While he said he believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, he also said that he would not support a Constitutional definition of marriage as so.

 

Now we have Hillary.

“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

 

%d bloggers like this: