RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

I think it is clear

03 Feb

that Obama made a bet in regard to SCOTUS. He tried to replace a solid Conservative with a solid Liberal. But when the Senate refused to give consent and even consider the nomination, he did not withdraw his candidate, as one would expect. He just bet that Hillary would win the general election. And to be honest, most of us thought that would indeed happen. I think that most Republicans would have been happy to consider a Kennedy-like figure, and even approve such a person. But no, Obama swung for the fences. It seemed like a safe bet.

Obama figured that Hillary would win and so he really did not have to compromise. But he lost that bet. I think we were all surprised. Everyone was. The problem is that he was not used to losing. He never even considered that he might actually lose. I’m sure he was shocked. I know I was.

His overweening narcissism has left the Democrats in a very difficult position in regard to the court.

 
Comments Off on I think it is clear

Posted in Supreme Court

 

Polls

01 Feb

at the time of the election showed 1 in 5 voters were voting for Trump out of concern for the make up of the Supreme Court. One in five. Think about that. 20% of Trump voters went his way in large part because of the Supreme Court.

Now you can just bet that Leftists are apoplectic about the Gorsuch nomination. That’s a safe bet. But the sad truth is that short of re-nominating Merrick Garland there is no pick that would not provoke apoplexy in the Left! It just didn’t matter who Trump picked in terms of the Left freaking out. It is what they do. It is as sure as the sun rising in the East. It means absolutely nothing. They have cried, “Wolf!” so many times that few give a rat’s patoot anymore. I know I sure don’t. This is the rantings of spoiled garbage babies.

Now the Left has a choice: Either die on this particular hill, or keep the powder dry for the next pick. If they shoot their wad here, there will be virtually nothing left for next time. Gorsuch will indeed be elevated to SCOTUS no matter what they do, but they could lose the filibuster–and they may dearly want it next time.

Now, Gorsuch is a highly intelligent and widely respected judge. The last time the Senate approved him it was unanimous. The next elections are nearly 2 years away. The Left runs a real risk of looking like spoiled garbage babies. Those are just not good odds for the Left.

In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, “Tell me, do you feel lucky, punk?”

 
 

I would

26 Jan

just love it. Love, love LOVE IT!

It won’t happen, but I would love it.

 
Comments Off on I would

Posted in Supreme Court

 

My advice for Trump:

24 Nov

Name a SCOTUS nominee now, well before he takes office. The holidays will intervene soon, so by the time of the actual hearings the Leftist squealing will be old and tired. It will blunt the outrage of the usual NAZI Leftists.

He will also thrill Republicans. Choose a universally acclaimed person clearly on the Right and really energize your base! That also would throw the Lefty hypocrisy into high relief.

Also, so much Lefty attention and “fight” will be on the court pick that there will be little left over for the other administration nominees. The spotlight will be off them. It would be VERY churlish to deny a new President the nominee, and for that and other great reasons he will certainly win THAT contest.

In any case, Harry Reid has foolishly said that the  Senate should use the “nuclear option” for SCOTUS picks. Yeah, maybe they should. Of course, Reid is whistling a different tune now (he is now all about the sanctity of age-old Senate procedures), but there is a ton of footage showing him doing it when he thought Democrats could run roughshod over Conservatives. Well, that’s Harry Reid for you, a freakin’ hypocrite

Anyway, Trump should do this now.

 
Comments Off on My advice for Trump:

Posted in Politics, Supreme Court

 

I gotta tell you,

18 Nov

It’s pretty well-established stuff that the Bill Of Rights is incorporated into the states. I mean, there is freedom of religion in Maryland just as there is in New Mexico. If a free speech ruling from the Supreme Court says that you have free speech in Maryland, you also have it in New Mexico.

So, help me understand. There have been several SCOTUS cases on gun rights from the Supreme Court. If there is a Constitutional right to bear arms in DC (Heller), how is there not the same right in Chicago or Pasadena? It seems to me that the legal doctrine of incorporation makes the rules unlawful in Chicago and Pasadena.

Honestly, what am I missing?

 
 

I think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg

13 Nov

(the notorious RBG) will die soon. She has long been looking frail and fragile. I really doubt she is reliably cognitively intact anymore. Nodding off during the SOTU, saying goofy things that a judge should never say (her frontal lobes that inhibit behavior are very clearly shot), looking frail–these all are symptoms or signs of major age-related cognitive decline. If the universe were fair, SHE would have died and not the far more robust-looking Scalia. He was much more cognitively intact. Then again, at least Trump is naming Scalia’s replacement and not she-who-must-not-be-named. SCOTUS has become the ultimate super-legislature, and the importance of these judges has gone through the roof. I just don’t think that issue got the attention it deserved in the run-up to the election.

But honestly, Ginsburg can’t be long for this world. All these are great arguments for forced retirement of SCOTUS judges at a certain age. Look, when the Constitution was written, few lived much past 40. Almost no one hit 65. You could just drop dead working in the fields because at 42 you were still physically able to work in the fields! There is a very good reason the Social Security retirement age was set at 62-65–because hardly anyone lived that long! So in terms of government finances it worked. Now, when people regularly are spry, vigorous, and healthy at 62-65 and move to Majorca or get a motor home and golf and visit the grandkids for 20 years, it doesn’t.

Back then, Judges died when they were young enough to be fully cognitively intact. Now, not so much. I would set the age limit at 80. But we can debate that, and should. Trump will virtually for sure replace RBG and Anthony Kennedy. Scalia is gone, so Trump already has to nominate a replacement. Thomas also will very likely be gone soon. Scalia and Thomas have long been the most conservative justices, and one is already gone and the other may be soon. So Trump will almost for sure put 3 people on the court and probably 4. Thank Heaven Hillary lost! We really dodged a bullet, there.

 
 

And she is a Supreme Court

10 Sep

Justice! Really? It seems quite clear that the best explanation of her behavior is age-related cognitive dysfunction. As we get elderly, we lose frontal lobe capacity and our “filter” doesn’t function very well–we say and do things that we wouldn’t have at, say, age 40. As one old battle-ax training nurse on a geriatrics ward said when training a group of young female nurses, “Old is not dead.” Where are the most patient to caregiver assaults? The Geriatric Ward.

THAT is almost for sure what we are seeing here. This is the decline of an intellect. She knows she is hard left, but not much else. That is yet another reason her rulings are so reflexively Leftist–it is a structure she knows and can cling to.

I know it is unpopular, but there should be an age limit on the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the issues. Even in 1900 the AVERAGE life expectancy for a male was 42! You didn’t get age-related cognitive decline at 42. The Social Security age was set at 65 for a reason–hardly anyone lived that long. They didn’t retire and go frolic in Majorca!

 
Comments Off on And she is a Supreme Court

Posted in Lefty Stupidity, Supreme Court

 

It has never

29 Aug

been said better.

The truth is that I think Donald Trump sucks and is a loser. I think it is by far most likely that he will crash and burn in November. And of course, he will do the crashing and the rest of us will burn for a generation. Thanks, Trumpkins. Way to go.

That said, I really hope Trump pulls his head out and pulls the election out of the dumpster fire that it is now. Why? Because he is very likely to make better SCOTUS appointments than Hillary. Even if half of his picks are stinkers, we already know for a fact that ALL Hillary’s appointments will be a Constitutional nightmare. And don’t kid yourself, there will be at least three and probably more appointments that will be made. So if Hillary chooses, we lose SCOTUS for at least a generation. THIS is the result of stupid Trumpkins, but that is beside the point.

The point is that if you care about freedom at all, you vote for Trump. Better to kiss a toad than a turd…

 
Comments Off on It has never

Posted in Supreme Court

 

I really think

15 Jul

that this seriously calls into question the mental abilities of Ginsburg (the notorious RBG).

She is NOT stupid, so we are left wondering just how mentally intact she is. I have treated many elderly patients who look fully intact but who no longer have a reliable “filter.” They say or do things at 75 that they would never have said or done at 45.

One person I know trained (in nursing) at a nursing home and the first day the old battle-ax nurse in charge told the newbies, “Old is not dead. ‘Nuff said.” She was saying that these patients would say (and do) things now that they never would have done 20 years ago. Many of these things are vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. Often they were sexual or aggressive in nature. Their “filter” was simply gone, and they were ruled by impulse. They might have thought these things in the past, but they certainly would not have acted on those thoughts. It is NOT a moral issue, it is an age issue.

I really question whether RBG is cognitively intact. There is no question in my mind that there should be age/term limits for SCOTUS members. And The Notorious RBG is a prime example of why. As the Haitian proverb goes, “It’s not her fault, it’s her age.”

25 years ago the likely age of death was far earlier than it is today. So you didn’t have these problems. But we need to change with the times.

 
Comments Off on I really think

Posted in Supreme Court

 

So now that

19 May

Trump released his supreme court list, will Hillary? Don’t bet on it…

 
Comments Off on So now that

Posted in Supreme Court