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

Another turkey spending bill known as a CR passes

Frankly I am sick of all of it. How come when the Dems had the majority they could always manage to figure out a way to get bills through even though they didn’t have 60 or a super majority?  So Reid blackmails the GOP in giving them everything they want. Somehow Reid gets it done. But McConnell that old turkey neck? Held captive. And as for Trump? I am getting about as sick of him as one can get. Frankly, I don’t think after second thought he even wants the job the way he is acting. Recall my post from 2012 

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to change the rules of the Senate so that the minority party has fewer tools to obstruct legislative business. (The GOP is so annoying-don’t you just hate having three branches)?

But I digressed:

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is furious that yet another bloated bill to keep the government running was approved on Capitol Hill this week and he fears it will only set the stage for an even greater spending binge come December.

“Primarily, it’s not happening because in the Senate, Harry Reid won’t let the individual bills come up for a vote. That’s the way it’s supposed to work,” said Jordan. “He’s been able to win every fight by saying, ‘Look, I’m going to hold up defense spending until you give me the spending I want on domestic issues.”

“What that means is taxpayers get the short end. I think, frankly, our military gets the short end of that deal too and it’s just not good for the country,” said Jordan.
Read more at WND

 

Hillary Clinton and her 25 percent tax on guns

If you are anything like me, I am getting weary of the Clinton server issue. While we look at her latest shiny object, her long history and baggage never comes to the fore. She was and is nothing more than a two-bit attorney from Arkansas that rode her husband’s coattails to fame and fortune. Her first taste of evil doing came with the Nixon impeachment- hiding documents, and she has never looked back.  One of her first attempts at notoriety came with a Senate hearing very soon after she arrived at the White House. Obama was never vetted, let us not let Hillary off the hook this time.

As she testified before the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 30, 1993, Hillary Clinton was asked by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) if she supported the imposition of a new, 25 percent national sales tax on guns. Clinton emphatically endorsed the tax, stating: “I am all for that.”

As reported by the Associated Press on Oct. 1, 1993:

Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., picked up Mrs. Clinton’s support for his idea of slapping stiff taxes on ”purveyors of violence:” a 25 percent sales tax on guns and $2,500 license fees for gun dealers.

”Speaking personally … I’m all for that,” said the first lady. But she stressed she was just speaking for herself.

”Well, let me say that there is no more important personal endorsement in the country today, and I thank you very much,” said a pleased-as-punch Bradley.

After she publically endorsed the 25 percent gun tax in congressional testimony, she made sure that everyone understood how important this was to her, saying: “I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

Remarkably, although the hearing was broadcast on C-SPAN and Clinton’s 25 percent gun tax endorsement was noted at the time by the AP, the Washington Post, the New York Times and others, a search of leading news databases reveals not a single media mention since 1993. Americans for Tax Reform is now highlighting the gun tax endorsement as the latest addition to its dossier of Clinton’s tax positions, available at HighTaxHillary.com. 

Boehner cleaned Obama’s clock at the Battle of the Fiscal Cliff

As I wind down my month-long Florida vacation – the long vacation due in large part to Mr. Obama and his destruction of Healthcare which led to my early retirement- and head back to the chilly climes of the North, I searched for a good news piece. Many of us have been pretty hard on Boehner, so when I found this read, I thought O.K. let’s pass this one along. Any bright light these days so here we go:

In retrospect, at the Battle at Fiscal Cliff, Boehner took President Obama to the cleaners. He did it suavely, without histrionics. While Obama churlishly, and in a politically amateurish manner, publicly strutted about having forced the Republicans to raise tax rates on “the wealthiest Americans” Boehner, quietly, was pocketing his winnings.

Dazzled by Obama’s Ozymandias-scale sneer most liberals failed to notice that Boehner quietly made 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. As Boehner himself dryly observed, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board member Steve Moore, “”Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn’t get that. And so, not bad.’”

“Not bad” is a resounding understatement. Dealt a weak hand, Boehner managed to 99% outfox, on tax policy, a president who had the massive apparatus of the executive branch, the Senate majority, and a left-leaning national elite media whooping it up for a whopping tax increase. Even more impressively, Boehner pulled it off with steady nerves while under heavy pressure from the anti-spending hawks in his own caucus. Full story at  Forbes

%d bloggers like this: