Enter SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh – The positives and concerns

 

Daniel Horowitz wrote an excellent piece at the Conservative Review that Mark Levin suggested reading. I made a special effort to catch Levin’s program as I was curious as to Mark’s take on the SCOTUS pick. The big concern was Kavanaugh starting the ball rolling with the Obamacare as a tax. I suggest wandering over to the Conservative Review for a balanced view and thoughts on the judiciary.

The full podcast is out there at Levin’s website and on YouTube if you want the full thing. I agree with Mark. Let’s ask some questions. Must we follow and support blindly? Or can we raise questions without feeling disloyal to Trump?

 

 

Below are some points:

Here are several concerns that conservatives should research thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s meetings with senators:

  • Obamacare regulation as a tax: In Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011), Kavanaugh wrote a dissent opining that the individual mandate of Obamacare could not be challenged in court because, under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, no lawsuit can be brought until the plaintiff actually was forced to pay the tax, which in this case wasn’t for another few years. I’m a big stickler for courts staying in their lane and properly abiding by rules of standing, but in this case his entire rationale was built upon a dangerous premise that a government mandate/penalty was really a tax. This served as the basis for John Roberts’ infamous opinion upholding Obamacare.

 

  • Endless standing to rip God out of the public square: In Newdow v. Roberts, an infamous atheist sued to take the words “so help me God” out of the presidential oath of office. Aside from it being insane to suggest this violates the Establishment Clause, the notion that a random person could get standing to sue and that this is even a justiciable case violates the very essence of what distinguishes a court from a legislature. It lies at the core of what is allowing the ACLU to shut down our civilization for years with radical forum-shopped lower courts. While, in his separate opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the right way on the Establishment Clause, he held that the plaintiff indeed had valid standing to sue as “offended observers.” This is the type of nonsense that is plaguing public prayer and display of the Ten Commandments across the country. It is simply astounding for any originalist to disagree with other justices in granting such standing and is very consequential for cases that will reach the Supreme Court soon. Kavanaugh hid behind Supreme Court precedent, but admitted that the high court never directly addressed the issue of this type of standing.

These rulings taken together, Kavanaugh is essentially saying that a random atheist with an obscure and abstract claim against a presidential oath can get standing, but individuals directly forced to purchase a private product and engage in commerce couldn’t get standing.

  • Contraception as a “compelling government interest”: Almost every circuit upheld Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Like most of the originalist judges, Kavanaugh dissented from these opinions and sided with plaintiffs in Priests for Life, which is good. But what is still puzzling is that he gratuitously and explicitly conceded that the government has “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.” While the Supreme Court did assume that the government might have a general interest in promoting contraception, the court never assumed, much less ruled, that such an interest would apply to the narrow subset of employees at religious institutions. The fact that he didn’t join the stronger dissent from Judges Brown and Henderson – built upon the premise that the government must find a compelling interest specifically in mandating “seamless” coverage – raises concerns that we won’t see him categorically opposing the Left on these issues and joining Thomas on the court.

 

  • Immigration: Immigration is perhaps the most important issue winding through the courts now, and most of the nominees had thin records on the issue. I haven’t seen anything big on the fundamental issues of the plenary power doctrine, for better or worse. However, as we reported last year, the D.C. Circuit absurdly granted an illegal alien the right to demand access to an abortion. While Kavanaugh rightly dissented on the grounds that the opinion drastically expanded abortion jurisprudence, he declined to sign on to Judge Karen Henderson’s indispensable dissent, finally laying down the law on sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. That was a much-needed dissent, given what is going on throughout the circuits on immigration, and it is a bit peculiar that he didn’t sign on to that dissent, while Henderson signed onto Kavanaugh’s dissent tackling the abortion angle.

Snip…

“At least he’s a lot better than the other side” is no longer good enough. If we are going to accept the premise, as the president himself did last night, that “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States,” we can’t afford to settle for anything less than the best. The aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, conservatives should be happy with much of Kavanaugh’s record but should look a little deeper before jumping in with both feet.

Full thing at Conservative Review 

Advertisements

Under 10 percent of “March for our Lives” were under 18

 

So the usual suspects no doubt were involved with the so-called “march” in D.C. on Saturday. Less than 10 percent were under 18.  But no matter, once again, the siren call for our guns begins again. Now ammunition is under attack. Thanks to dear Wasserman-Schultz. No discussion of the failures of the government. The School, the Sheriff. I’ll add a few words from the NRA:

 

A sociologist on MSNBC threw cold water on all the media’s claims that the March For Our Lives protests were spontaneous and led by the nation’s children during a “Morning Joe” segment on Monday.

While Fisher tried to make it sound like these individuals were all potential voters, it is likely that many of those who showed up were simply run-of-the-mill liberal activists.

University of Maryland sociologist Dana Fisher conducted a study of the demographics of Saturday’s march in Washington, D.C., and discovered that only less than 10 percent of those in the crowd were under the age of 18.

The study was done by going through the crowds with tablets and conducting surveys of participants and then extrapolating trends from the data collected, according to Fisher.

More at Daily Caller

Raising the age to buy guns at the age of 21?

 

Another feel good moment for the uninformed. Earlier I posted

The U. S. is 3rd in murders throughout the world.Take out 5 Democrat controlled cities, the United States is 4th FROM THE BOTTOM, in the ENTIRE world, for murders

So of course, the fly over country whose citizens don’t have the benefit of the so-called 4-6 minute response time from the police should give up our guns and now for good measure, raise the age for buying a gun to 21. That way, soldiers who stick out their neck and kill on our behalf on lands afar, come back and cannot buy a gun to go hunting. Makes perfect liberal sense don’t you think?

 

Australians give up 51,000 illegal firearms as 3-month amnesty ends

See how easy how the medicine goes down? You and I know the drill, I don’t have to sell you. But it is good to know how the few Democracies around the world are handling this gun thing. Would Trump please tell the Aussies not to count on us next time the Japanese come knocking on their door step?

Australians turned in 51,000 illegal firearms, ranging from 19th-century weapons to a rocket launcher, during a three-month amnesty that ended on Friday, Reuters reported. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the move had helped avert Las Vegas-style mass shootings. The cache represents about a fifth of illegal firearms and will be destroyed. It was Australia’s second amnesty since its worst-ever massacre, when a lone gunman killed 35 people in the island state of Tasmania in 1996. Those who still own such guns face jail time, and the government is pushing for harsher penalties for gun traffickers. H/T:  RT

More guns = more gun homicides? Nope.

Put this down as the chart of the day. When the left spins their tale, give them a copy of this.

A return tweet:

Here in Brazil we have total and absolute prohibition of all kinds of guns. Last year we had 70.000 murders This year we expect around 80k

 

Obama finalizes Social Security gun ban ‘rule’

Obama is dropping a whole lot of goodies down our chimney before he exits. As if selling Israel down the tubes at the UN with the latest abstention vote wasn’t enough to rile us, let’s tool up the gun rights folks. Of course SS folks are in the news everyday, brandishing their weapons. I was chewing on raw hide all weekend wanting to post this but did not in respect for Christmas. Here tis:

On Monday the Obama administration finalized a Social Security gun ban that could prevent “tens of thousands” of law-abiding elderly citizens from purchasing guns for self-defense.

old-woman-with-gun-640x480

The Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

More at Breitbart

Woman Shoots at 3 Invaders During Home Invasion in Georgia

How about this for a feel good story for a Saturday? Enjoy….

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. – Police are hoping someone can help identify two home invaders. They were caught on camera as a woman in the house shot at them.

“She exercised her right to defend her livelihood and property,” Cpl. Deon Washington with the Gwinnett County Police Department told Channel 2’s Nicole Carr.

 Surveillance video from inside the home shows the Gwinnett County woman rush from her bedroom and then unloads all her bullets on the three men who kicked in her front door.  (One dead in driveway) More at  WSBTV

 

%d bloggers like this: