Supreme Court – Page 2

Trump Makes It Hard On Conservative Supremes

February 16, 2019 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. He made that clear, once again, during yesterday’s rambling, incoherent “national emergency” Rose Garden speech.

Responding to questioning from a reporter, Trump actually admitted he didn’t “need to do this.” Instead of sticking to the script that what is happening on our southern border is a serious national security issue, Trump blurted out the truth.

This is reminiscent of Trump’s interview with NBC’s Lester Holt when he admitted he was going to fire FBI Director James Comey, because of that whole Russia thing, regardless of recommendations from his attorney general and deputy attorney general.

It seems the serial liar can’t help incriminating himself by occasionally letting out a truth bomb.

While Trump’s speech contained many of the usual lies about illegal immigration and the necessity of a border wall, he did get one thing straight … this whole national emergency charade will be decided by the courts.

“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court,” said Trump.

While under normal circumstances one would expect the compliant conservative Supreme Court to go along with the President’s broad power to declare a national emergency, saying this is not really an emergency ain’t the way to go. It just might get a justice like John Roberts to say “no amigo.”

Roberts has now replaced former justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote on the Court. As Chief Justice, Roberts has his legacy to protect. He also has shown he cares about the independence of the Court.

No, Donald, even though you have packed the Court with two conservative lackeys (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) don’t expect a rubber-stamp from the Supremes.

I am waiting for the day when Trump admits he did get help from Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, but it doesn’t matter because he would have won anyway!

The man is not very bright. He just can’t help himself.

Photo | today.com

Something Even The Writers Of “Animal House” Could Not Have Imagined

October 6, 2018 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

During the final scenes of perhaps the greatest frat movie ever made, the audience of National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978) is treated to a glimpse of what becomes of some of the wild boys of Delta Tau Chi. Ladies’ man Eric Stratton (“Otter”) goes on to become a Beverly Hills gynecologist. Eternal loser Kent Dorfman (“Flounder”) finds his calling as a sensitivity trainer and obnoxious boozer John Blutarsky (“Bluto”) becomes a U.S. senator.

It now appears the movie’s comedy writers were too timid in their satire. They needed to think bigger, especially for John Belushi’s “Bluto” character. But back then, even satire had its limits. To be fair, how could the writers have ever imagined that in the year 2018, an actual hard-drinking frat boy could be appointed Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Without a doubt, in the Age of Trump, satire is dead.

Photo | theconservativetreehouse.com

Brett Kavanaugh Set To Star In New Beer Ad

October 2, 2018 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

From moronmajority.com

Brett Kavanaugh may have hurt his image as a judge while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he certainly enhanced his reputation as a beer lover. By repeating, “I like beer,” Kavanaugh caught the ear of some very savvy beer execs.

Photo | washingtonian.com

Kavanaugh Channels His Inner Thomas

September 20, 2018 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

Reprint from moronmajority.com

Looking to counter the accusation he attempted to rape a girl in high school, Brett Kavanaugh takes a page from the successfully disingenuous “socio-economic” outrage employed by Clarence Thomas at his own Senate confirmation hearing.

Photo | theccut.com

Forget The “McConnell Rule”… Dems Need To Push The “Booker Rule”

July 10, 2018 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Many Congressional Democrats are asking Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to follow his own rule concerning a president’s ability to nominate a new Supreme Court justice. McConnell prevented Barack Obama from nominating a justice to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia on the theory that a president should not be able to appoint a new Supreme Court justice during an election year.

Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, has asked McConnell to put off consideration for a new justice to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy until after this year’s midterm elections. But trying to shame McConnell into abiding by his own rule seems like a complete waste of time. The man is incapable of self-reproach.

A better rule for Democrats to use in their effort to stop the consideration of the newly nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Court is the “Booker Rule.” Namely, there should be no Supreme Court pick while a president remains under criminal investigation.

Here is how Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) explained his position:

“President Trump is currently a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, and any nomination of a Supreme Court justice while that investigation continues is unacceptable because of the clear conflict of interest inherent in the President installing someone who could be the deciding vote on a number of potential issues from that investigation that could come before the Court.”

Democrats need to keep repeating the “Booker Rule” until they’re blue in the face (no pun intended).

It is common sense that no person under criminal investigation should be able to literally pick his own judge. And on that matter, Kavanaugh has written, in a 2009 article for the Minnesota Law Review, that presidents should be immune while in office from “time-consuming and distracting” criminal investigations. “Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.”

No, Democrats should not be playing the “shame” or “hypocrisy” card but the “conflict of interest” card. It is difficult to defend the idea that Trump should be able to choose a justice who may soon decide his legal fate. The “Booker Rule.”

Granted Dems don’t have the votes to block Kavanaugh’s nomination but if enough pressure is placed on a few moderate Republicans, and those Blue Dog Democrats, the day may yet be won.

Photo | Jack Gruber/USA Today

Democrats Don’t Understand The “McConnell Rule”

June 28, 2018 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

Now that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement, Democrats are insisting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abide by the same rationale he used to thwart President Obama from naming his own replacement to the Court in 2016. Namely, the Senate will not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

This unprecedented move by the Senate leader has come to be known as the “McConnell Rule.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called on McConnell to play by his own rule now that a vacancy will soon be taking place on the high court because of Kennedy’s departure. After all, 2018 is also an election year.

To do otherwise, said Schumer, would be the “height of hypocrisy.”

What Schumer and the rest of his fellow Democrats don’t understand is that there is only one true McConnell rule. It’s called, “I win, you lose.” McConnell has proven time and again he will do whatever it takes to win.

Democrats think they can shame McConnell into doing the right thing? They believe they can convince the evil genius to play fairly?

Without wasting a moment after Kennedy’s announcement, McConnell declared, “The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy. We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall.”

Good luck Chuck!

Dems just don’t get it. They are dealing with pure ruthlessness. Trying to use the “fair play” card with McConnell is as useless as pushing water uphill with a rake.

The best Democrats can hope for is that enough moderate Republicans block any extreme right-wing jurist Donald Trump is sure to nominate.

If history is any guide, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

As the front page of the NY Daily News aptly stated, “We’re F*#%’D.”

Barack Obama was right … “Elections have consequences.”

Photo | gazette.com

Like Congress, Supremes Fall In Line

June 26, 2018 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator, we all know that. And he has been aided and abetted in his pursuit of absolute power by a feckless and subservient Congress.

Now we have the United States Supreme Court falling in line.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s Muslim travel ban. The basic rationale? Trump, as president, has the constitutional power to decide issues of national security. So when Trump said he was proposing his travel ban against mostly Muslim countries to protect the homeland, that was good enough for the five conservative members of the Court.

It didn’t matter that lower courts had struck down each and every iteration of Trump’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. It didn’t concern the Supremes that each lower court found that the initial order, and each new version since, exceeded the president’s authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice against Muslims.

If Trump said it wasn’t about religion but national security, then that was just fine for the deferential justices. All evidence to the contrary be damned! It doesn’t matter that the man occupying the White House is a pathological liar.

We are living through dangerous times. It is obvious our two other supposed co-equal branches of government … legislative and judicial … are not going to challenge Trump’s power grab.

The only way to begin getting out of this mess is to flip Congress in November.

Of course today’s decision wound not have been possible but for Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented move to block President Obama from nominating a replacement on the Court after the unexpected death of Antonin Scalia.

Here’s a thought. What happens when Trump declares that, as president, it is his responsibility to protect all life, both born and unborn? What happens when il Duce proclaims all abortions illegal?

I’m afraid to think what this conservative court, thanks to the illegal seat occupied by Neil Gorsuch, will decide.

Photo | eatprayvote.org

Another Mass Shooting? Put The Blame Where It Belongs … The Supreme Court

November 7, 2017 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

America… another day, another mass shooting.

Only one month after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history took place in Las Vegas, the most deadly mass shooting in Texas state history has taken place at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.

In a country awash in gun violence, people are angry. They ask, “When will enough be enough? When will the madness end? When will our lawmakers enact gun regulations that might help stem the tide in this seemingly endless wave of gunphilia insanity?”

As if on cue, politicians have once again offered up their “thoughts and prayers.” Yet the American people want something more … they want action.

While anger continues to grow against our feckless politicians, bought and paid for by the NRA, one government institution seems to have escaped blame … the Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

The NRA, and gun enthusiasts everywhere, hailed the decision as an affirmation of unfettered gun ownership. While this reading of the Court’s ruling is misguided and a clear misinterpretation, let’s leave that aside for the moment (read: The Supreme Court Ruling On The 2^nd Amendment Did NOT Grant An Unlimited Right To Own Guns by David Ropeik).

Thanks to Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Scalia, we have the NRA trumpeting its false narrative that the Constitution absolutely protects one’s right to bear arms.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons. Justice Stevens argued that the Amendment states its purpose specifically in relation to state militias and does not address the right to use firearms in self-defense, which is particularly striking in light of similar state provisions from the same time that do so.

No, let’s not let the above-mentioned activist judges off so easy. They are one of the main reasons why mass shootings have dramatically escalated in the last ten years.

The Heller decision was, ironically, the very kind of judicial overreach conservatives constantly rail against.

Photo | achievement.org

The Daily Nooze voted one of top 10 political satire blogs by blog.feedspot.com!