REVENGE OF THE CRYBABIES: LIBERALS NOW CALLING NEIL GORSUCH ‘ILLEGITIMATE’

Crying boy in glasses

Over a year after the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court once again has nine justices, as Neil Gorsuch was given the oath of office by Justice Anthony Kennedy – for whom he clerked after law school – in the White House Rose Garden on Monday.

You can watch the full ceremony here:

But now, in the same spirit as the president’s countless unhinged opponents, who’ve wailed “Not My President” well after the election, the cries that Gorsuch is somehow an illegitimate justice have begun. It began shortly after Gorsuch’s confirmation Friday, but has carried on through his swearing-in this week.


(Author’s note: This particular tweet got trolled in a truly beautiful fashion.)


Self-styled constitutional scholar George Takei also managed to drop this analysis on the eve of the vote:


But what precisely is so illegitimate about Gorsuch’s nomination? For all of the screeching and mewling that the seat was somehow stolen from Obama-nominee Merrick Garland, the screechers and mewlers have yet to point to anything remotely unconstitutional or delegitimizing (aside from some nebulous Russian conspiracies) about the process by which we got from nine to eight and back to nine again on the SCOTUS bench.

So, to clarify, here’s a quick recap, from the beginning …

-------------------------------

In the 1780s, a group of men drafted a national constitution in Philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation were a train wreck. This framework gave the president the power to nominate judges and the Senate the power to confirm them to the Supreme Court.

Democrats lost the Senate majority in 2014.

This means that they no longer had the ability to push their party’s nominee through the hearing process.

(The power to advise and consent isn’t a rubber stamp; this is part of that checks-and-balances thingy that you’re really going to want to brush up on for the next four years, at least.)

Antonin Scalia passes away in his sleep last year.

GOP leadership decides it will not hold a hearing for Scalia’s replacement during Obama’s lame-duck year.

The issue of which president and Congress would be given the duty of filling the seat became one of the biggest issues of the 2016 general election.

And – by the rules of the game – the people chose Donald Trump’s vision over that of Hillary Clinton’s.

President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch.

A Republican Senate confirmed him by a parliamentary procedure pioneered by Democrats in 2013. (If Gorsuch is illegitimate because of the nuclear option, so are quite a few Obama appointees on the federal circuit.)

Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in by his former boss in the White House Rose Garden on a sunny Monday morning.

----------------------------

If you can, with a straight face, claim that any of this process was illegitimate or unconstitutional, congratulations; you stand as a living testament to the absolute failure of American civic education.

Contrary to the bastions of progressivist autocracy that liberals have built up in the courts and federal bureaucracy for decades, Gorsuch’s nomination proves that elections, in fact, still come with consequences.

If you can’t deal with the consequences of said elections, you should stop your party from being a regional voice for coastal elites and figure out where you went wrong in 2016. If you see these consequences as illegitimate, then maybe a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” just isn’t your kind of thing.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/revenge-of-th...

Image result for LIBERALS NOW CALLING NEIL GORSUCH ILLEGITIMATE

Views: 10

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

The cartoonist's homepage, indystar.com/opinion/varvel

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service