|
nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2016, 03:12:51 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-18-2016 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
Garland may be the best of what promised to be a bad lot, but Obama defended his choice24 as a thorough and careful investigator. As evidence, Obama pointed to Garland’s work on the Timothy McVeigh case, which led to a conviction. “Throughout the process, Merrick took pains to do everything by the book,” said Obama. “When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.”
Regarding Garland’s record as a jurist, Obama added: “On a circuit court known for strong-minded judges on both ends of the spectrum, Judge Garland has earned a track record of building consensus as a thoughtful, fair-minded judge who follows the law. He’s shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide-ranging judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions.” Obama also noted that Senator Orrin Hatch defended Garland when first nominated to the appellate bench, calling him a potential “consensus nominee” to the Supreme Court.
As for Senate Republicans vowing to stop any Obama nominee given his status as a lame-duck president in an election year, there are a few cracks developing in that armor. So far seven Republicans have expressed an interest in meeting with Garland, with the reliably moderate Senator Susan Collins of Maine leading the way25. “The White House has asked me to meet with him,” said Collins, “and I’ve agreed to do so.”
There is a political calculus26 at work here, of course. Instead of doing what many suspected he would do and selecting a young, minority, political ideologue to the SCOTUS bench, Obama is daring the Senate to deny a hearing to an older white male jurist who he claims is occupying the center of the political spectrum. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have to weigh the possibility that they may lose the Senate as well as miss out on the White House — it’s a fear that keeps GOP strategists awake at night as they continue to see poll after poll showing Donald Trump both losing to Hillary Clinton and being a drag down ballot.
And even if Trump prevails in November and the Senate holds its GOP majority, there’s no telling just what type of nominee would come from The Donald. Republicans in general have a pretty mixed record on court picks, though Democrats are guaranteed to choose poorly.
The other possibility is that the Senate could hold Garland in its back pocket27 for a lame-duck session should Hillary Clinton win the White House. Naturally that could be thwarted if Obama withdraws the nomination and replaces Garland with a further-left nominee, but perhaps part of the thawing of this process was intended with this play in mind. With several jurists on the court being long in the tooth28, there’s also the likelihood that we’ll have another vacancy in the near future from the liberal side.
Garland would not be the ideal judge, but compared to other names that have come up (including Obama himself) there’s at least some chance of sanity on a few issues. If the nightmare scenario of a Clinton presidency comes to pass, we would see if Merrick Garland really is good at “building consensus” or is simply the rubber stamp in a lot of liberal 5-4 decisions.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS: Who Are Those ‘Evangelical’ Voters?29 A National Security Team of One30 EPA Washes Its Hands of Flint Debacle31 Israel’s Biggest Security Threat Isn’t the Islamic State32 Lie Witness News — Supreme Court Nominee Edition33 Charter Schools Don’t Need More Regulation34 When It Comes to Food, Where Are Sanders' Principles?35
TOP HEADLINES
Carter Confirms Iran Broke International Law by Detaining U.S. Sailors36 Meet the Fugitive U.S. Terrorists Sheltered by Cuba37 CO2 Emissions Have Now Been Flat for Two Years Running38
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report39
OPINION IN BRIEF
Jonah Goldberg: “All the Constitution says is that there has to be a Supreme Court. (Even the existence of lower federal courts is entirely optional). There’s nothing holy, never mind constitutionally sacrosanct about the number nine. Congress could decide tomorrow to make the Supreme Court a body of 72 people picked randomly from the phonebook (so long as the president was the one doing the random picking and the Congress approved them). When the president, a former teacher of constitutional law, says, ‘the Constitution is pretty clear’ about the need for hearings on his pick, he’s not telling the truth. He’s playing politics. The same goes for all the Republican senators who say the Constitution is clear that they don’t have to hold hearings if they don’t want to. The issue isn’t whether the Constitution is clear. The simple fact is that the Constitution is silent. And where the Constitution is silent, politics is supreme. … We’ve invested in the Supreme Court powers never imagined by the framers. And when I say ‘we’ I mostly mean progressives. The growth of the administrative state and the encroachment of federal law into every nook and cranny of local life has been a century-long project of the left. It should be no surprise that when we bequeath monarchical powers to nine — or eight — lawyers, the battle for succession to one of the nine thrones will be ugly. Indeed, it’s surprising it’s not uglier.”
SHORT CUTS
Insight: “The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” —Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)
Observations: “For seven months, Republicans — myself included — have argued against the data. The data showed that Donald Trump would be a viable candidate. Many of us presumed he would eventually fade. … The polls that showed Trump winning the Republican nomination also show that he cannot beat Clinton. In 19 of the 20 past polls, Trump consistently trailed Clinton by around eight points. … Trump voters who disagree are only arguing with the very data that shows Trump will be the Republican nominee. The only way to avoid it is to avoid making Trump the Republican presidential nominee.” —Erick Erickson
Non Compos Mentis: “We’ve got a lot of [real life super heroes] in this room, so I want to acknowledge a couple of them. First of all, we’ve got Cecile Richards in the house, making sure women’s health care is on the front burner.” —Barack Obama
Braying Jackass: “McConnell’s blind rejection of Obama’s policies was simply the kinder, gentler Senate version of bitherism.” —Harry Reid
Demo-gogues: “This isn’t supposed to be a circus. The president has done his constitutional duty, he has sent us a nominee, and now it is our job in the United States Senate to hold hearings, to examine his credentials, and then to have a vote on him. That’s what the Constitution calls for. This has just really taken off in a direction that is a direct insult to the president, it is a direct insult to the Constitution, and now it is a direct insult to Judge Garland.” —Sen. Elizabeth Warren (The Constitution also says: “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”)
The BIG lie: “I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border. I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to everything that was done the last 15 years under President Bush and President Obama.” —Hillary Clinton
Late-night humor: “This election is going to be the political equivalent of having lunch at Panda Express — nobody wins.” —Jimmy Kimmel
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
|