An Undemocratic Power Grab

You pack sardines.  You don’t pack the courts.

As if we needed any more evidence that Democrats are still not taking their devastating 2016 election loss well, they want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.

In recent weeks, there has been growing support for court-packing on the Left. A number of Democrat presidential candidates have either endorsed the idea of expanding the size of the Supreme Court to reverse the current 5-4 conservative majority among the justices, or at least indicated they are open to it.

Those expressing such views include Pete Buttgieg, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand. Former Obama administration attorney General Eric Holder also argues that the idea should be "seriously" considered. Presidential candidate Robert Francis O'Rourke has suggested a plan to increase the size of the court to fifteen justices: five Democrats, five Republicans, and five more justices selected by the other ten.

Court-packing would destroy the entire institution of judicial review by creating a pattern of escalation under which each party would pack the court any time it simultaneously controlled both Congress and the presidency. That would ensure the Court would almost never rule against any significant initiative of the party in power, no matter how dangerous and unconstitutional.

Apparently, Democrats believe originalists like Antonin Scalia who was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh who was appointed when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, hold seances with our long-dead Founding Fathers. 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights continue to puzzle the current crop of loons seeking the highest office in the land and our friends on the Left.

WATCH: 2020 candidates float plans to change Supreme Court by packing court or changing confirmation rules #MTPDaily pic.twitter.com/Nd5HtAcgLo

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 15, 2019

Scalia most notably said, “As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to do what the people want instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.”

The Supreme Court has been set at nine seats since 1869, and the last attempt at packing the court occurred in the 1937, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was frustrated that the court had stymied some of his New Deal proposals. He proposed appointing a new justice for every sitting justice over 70 years old.

The public was horrified by visions of “Caesarism” and punished FDR’s Democrat Party in the 1938 midterm elections.  It was the most consequential legislative and political failure of the Roosevelt Administration.

The 29-year-old Bolshevik bartender from the Bronx, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, proclaimed Democrats should “pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America” as a way of kick-starting a left-wing transformation of America.

As heirs to a legacy more than two centuries old, it is important to remember there still exists other forms of government in the world.  Those countries long for a democracy such as ours.

UPDATE:  Welcome readers of Bad Blue Uncensored News.  We’re glad you stopped by and hope your day is a good one.

Jiggery-Snubbery From POTUS: The Calculated Insult

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's courtroom chair is draped in black wool crepe to mark his death as part of a tradition that dates to the 19th century.

What makes Washington’s little acts of thoughtlessness so telling is that they attract more attention than doing the right thing would.

The “constitutional law professor” can’t be bothered to attend the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer’s former head of the Auto Task Force, Steven Rattner tweeted, “If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with.”

Even more astounding to me is lefty fan boy, Chris Hayes tweeted. “Some amazing advice my mom gave me once:  ‘If you’re wondering whether you should go to the funeral, you should go to the funeral.”

This isn’t the first time Obama hasn’t shown leadership or respect for the office he holds.

During the 2013 memorial service of Nelson Mandela, the president, acting like a child with no apparent sense of upbringing or decorum, was caught taking selfies with British Prime Minister David Cameron and Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.  So outrageous was his behavior that First Lady Michelle Obama switched seats with her husband to bring an end to the embarrassing sophomoric behavior.

In August 2014, Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene became the first US general killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was the first U.S. general to die in combat since the Vietnam War. Following his death, the president said nothing about the incident.  A national security official said, “the administration does not want to signal that the death of a general officer merited a different response than any other service member’s would.”  During the funeral service, Obama was golfing in Martha’s Vineyard while on vacation.

Then, in September 2014, when journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS, the president took a quick break from his vacation to publicly address the brutal act, but hit the golf links seven minutes after he concluded his brief statement.

The most shameful rebuff from this president came with the passing of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 2013 that enraged our staunchest allies the British people.

Bear in mind that when the Democrats’ “messiah” took office his awkward naiveté was unbelievably epic.  There was the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office, the iPod loaded with his speeches that he presented as a gift to the queen and the boxed set of 25 DVDs of American movie classics he gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown after he had graciously gifted him with a pen set crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British naval ship HMS President (the sister ship of HMS Resolute that provided the wood for the Oval Office’s desk) that had served on anti-slavery missions off the coast of Africa.

And let’s not forget the equally insulting gift his wife gave Brown’s two little sons.  The “last-minute” gifts of toy models of Marine One scooped up from the White House gift shop was an outrage.

President Obama is rudeness personified.

“As the world bids farewell to Lady Margaret Thatcher today, it’s hard not to notice that America’s official presence at the state funeral for England’s most significant prime minister since Winston Churchill will be underwhelming,” wrote The Post. “Instead of sending a high-ranking member of his own administration to lead the official delegation, President Obama has dispatched two former Republican secretaries of state, George Shultz and Jim Baker. Nothing against these men, but we can forgive the British for regarding Obama’s choice as yet another snub.”

Her ideological rival on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted of her treasured friend, “I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it. A great legal mind has been lost, but his influence on the Supreme Court and the legal profession as a whole will remain for years to come.”

No president has skipped the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice in 60 years.  Obama is making history by his unprecedented and disgraceful disrespect.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest would not offer information on what the president will be doing while the nation mourns the loss of this great man, but rest assured the District of Columbia’s weather forecast of 63 degrees and sunny skies tells me all I need to know about POTUS’s plans for the weekend.  You effing slob.

Reason #32,937 Why Most Liberals Are Going Straight to Hell

Don't give me that "not all liberals would dance on Scalia's grave" nonsense.  Yes, they would.  They despised Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, just like they hated Reagan and Thatcher.  All because he was a consistent voice for constitutional rule of law which keeps us from total dictatorship and mob rule.  And they'd dance on that grave 30 seconds after they spent an hour explaining to you why it's disgraceful and dangerous to dance on bin Laden's grave.  You know, if he had one.  Because that's the kind of people they are, as proven by this tweet here.

The Most Influential Justice Of The Last Quarter Century, Antonin Scalia, Dead At 79

Via The New York Times

Justice Antonin Scalia, whose transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance in his three decades on the Supreme Court, was found dead on Saturday at a resort in West Texas, according to a statement from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. He was 79.

“He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served.”

The cause of death was not immediately released.

Justice Scalia began his service on the court as an outsider known for caustic dissents that alienated even potential allies. But his theories, initially viewed as idiosyncratic, gradually took hold, and not only on the right and not only in the courts.

He was, Judge Richard A. Posner wrote in The New Republic in 2011, “the most influential justice of the last quarter century.” Justice Scalia was a champion of originalism, the theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to apply the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. In Justice Scalia’s hands, originalism generally led to outcomes that pleased political conservatives, but not always. His approach was helpful to criminal defendants in cases involving sentencing and the cross-examination of witnesses.

With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010, Justice Scalia became the longest serving member of the current court. By then, Justice Scalia was routinely writing for the majority in the major cases, including ones on the First Amendment, class actions and arbitration.

He was an exceptional stylist who labored over his opinions and took pleasure in finding precisely the right word or phrase. In dissent, he took no prisoners. The author of a majority opinion could be confident that a Scalia dissent would not overlook any shortcomings.

Justice Scalia wrote for a broader audience than most of his colleagues. His opinions were read by lawyers and civilians for pleasure and instruction.

Justice Scalia’s sometimes withering questioning helped transform what had been a sleepy bench when he arrived into one that Chief Justice Roberts has said has become too active, with the justices interrupting the lawyers and each other.

The current occupant of the Oval Office can be expected to appoint a replacement whose views will more align with his own. Once his nominee is chosen, the US Senate will hold confirmation hearings and then put the nominee to a vote. A majority of 51 wins, which may be difficult for Obama in a Senate that currently has 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and two Independents. There is definitely a concern that the Republican-controlled Senate will do their best to put off the confirmation of any less-than-conservative nominee in the hopes that a Republican president will be elected in the fall and the task of nomination will then go to him.

The time for all this action to take place isn't set in stone, and having a Democratic president try to replace a conservative justice in a Republican-led Senate will surely prove difficult. The last person to join the Supreme Court was Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by Obama on May 20, 2010 in anticipation of Justice John Paul Stevens' impending retirement on June 29 of that year. She was confirmed by a 63-37 vote of the Senate on Aug. 5, 2010. The last Justice to die on the bench was William Rehnquist on Sept. 2, 2005.  

Jan Brewer: “We Are On Our Own, Apparently”

Within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, the errand boy sent by grocery clerks used the bully pulpit to put more citizens at risk.

He issued a directive telling Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security to refuse many of the calls it will receive from Arizona Police reporting undocumented Democrat voters illegal immigrants.

KPHO Phoenix has the transcript of the statement issued by Napolitano today:

"I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government's immigration enforcement policies or priorities.” 

“DHS remains focused on enhancing public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally.” 

“The Court's decision not to strike down Section Two at this time will make DHS's work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities.” 

“Over the past three and half years, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and to enforcing our nation's immigration laws in a firm and reasonable fashion. We continue to urge Congress to pass comprehensive reform because nothing short of a comprehensive solution will resolve the current patchwork of immigration laws.” 

“Finally, it is important to note that today's Supreme Court decision will not impact the memorandum I issued on June 15 related to prosecutorial discretion eligibility for productive members of society who were brought to the United States as children."

Dave Gibson, freelancing at Examiner on immigration reform takes Big Sis to the woodshed  by pointing out:

“In her time as head of DHS, Napolitano has refused much-needed funds for her department, leveled unfounded accusations at veterans and conservatives by labeling them as potential terrorists, stopped worksite enforcement, refused Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s desperate request for troops along his state’s border and continuously lobbied for amnesty for this country’s enormous illegal alien population.” 

“It is hard to imagine why the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is charged with defending this nation, would end a program which very effectively and efficiently removes huge numbers of illegal aliens from this country. That is unless Madame Secretary has another agenda…An agenda which directly conflicts with the interests of the American people.”

With the stench of betrayal hanging heavy in the air, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued this statement:

“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.” 

“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.” 

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn—downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.” 

“Since 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security credits the 287(g) program with identifying nearly 300,000 potentially-removable aliens nationwide. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration law, including many in Arizona. In fact, even as the President was wiping out Arizona’s 287(g) agreements, the ICE website itself continued to herald the collaborative approach of the 287(g) program, noting, ‘Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through  a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise.’" 

“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment—and the American people will have theirs very soon.” [Emphasis mine.]

Final point, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s bench statement on today’s ruling is powerful.

“The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

He's a shameless scofflaw.