Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘SCOTUS’

SCOTUS Nominee Kavanaugh On Roe V Wade In 2017 Speech: It Was A “Freewheeling Judicial Creation Of Unenumerated Rights”


Reported by Dean Garrison

For anyone that thinks Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be an “easy” confirmation, think again.  Recently, there has been a lot of conjecture and concern in the mainstream press on how Kavanaugh might handle abortion cases.

Wednesday The Washington Post reported:

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has only one major abortion ruling in his 12 years on the federal bench, but that forceful opinion will define the coming debate on what his elevation to the Supreme Court would mean for a woman’s constitutional right to the procedure.

Antiabortion activists say they are assured, without specific evidence in his writings, that President Trump’s second nominee could provide the long-sought final piece to a Supreme Court majority that would allow far more restrictions on abortion — and perhaps even overturn the court’s abortion rights precedents that began 45 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

On this, abortion rights advocates agree with their opponents, and they point to the strongly worded dissent Kavanaugh issued last fall in a case involving a pregnant immigrant teenagerin federal custody.

But there is more.

Much more.

Lifenews just published text from a 2017 speech in which Kavanaugh slammed Roe V Wade, saying it was a “Freewheeling Judicial Creation of Unenumerated Rights”:

The SCOTUS nominee called Roe a “freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

Here’s the text of the speech in context:

In later cases, Rehnquist reiterated his view that unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg involved an asserted right to assisted suicide. For a five-to-four majority this time, Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court saying that the unenumerated rights and liberties protected by the due process clause are those rights that are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. And he rejected the claim that assisted suicide qualified as such a fundamental right.

Of course, even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade in 1973—as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

What to make of that? In this context, it is fair to say that Justice Rehnquist was not successful in convincing a majority of the justices in the context of abortion either in Roe itself or in the later cases such as Casey, in the latter case perhaps because of stare decisis. But he was successful in stemming the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The Glucksberg case stands to this day as an important precedent, limiting the Court’s role in the realm of social policy and helping to ensure that the Court operates more as a court of law and less as an institution of social policy.

Will we see an overturning of Roe V Wade in our lifetime?

If Kavanaugh is confirmed it would seem to be a step in that direction.

But it is doubtful that confirmation will happen without a serious fight from the left.

Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Kavanaugh Threatens the Left’s Right to Cheat”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh.

Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!

But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.”

If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.”

That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.

What liberals call “rightsare legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.

Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!

Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

There was nothing America could do about it.

OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.”

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.

How Do You Choose a Supreme Court Nominee? Ask Hamilton


Posted by Jake MacAulay

Like every other branch of American Government, the Supreme Court is not without its heroes and zeros. However, the Central Judiciary was a desperately needed piece added to the Constitution in Article Three after a season of no Federal judiciary during the time of the Articles of Confederation, Americas first Constitution.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton postulated: “[A] limited Constitution can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

This past Sunday President Trump said that he was “close to making a decision” about who he would nominate to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy tweeting:

Looking forward to announcing my final decision on the United States Supreme Court Justice at 9:00pmE tomorrow night at the @WhiteHouse. An exceptional person will be chosen!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1016071245568380934

So the question is if the president means an exceptional personis a constitutional person.

The dilemma is that most Americans assume rulings and decisions handed down in cases that come before American courts are based on, and consistent with, constitutional law, that is to say real law.

But, regrettably, this is not true.

In American Courtrooms today, court rulings are not based on real law.  Rather, they are based on an imitation system, which is commonly called case law” or the case law method”.

This phony case lawmethod of understanding what law is and where law comes from is taught in virtually every law school in America today.

Let me briefly explain.

Prior to the 1880s, those who desired to practice law studied under experienced attorneys.  Their apprenticeship included both the study of recognized legal scholars such as Blackstone, Montesqieue and Locke, as well as practical experience in writing briefs and memorandums and observing their masters in actual practice before the bar.

Undergirding that system was the universal understanding that law, like truth, is a fixed and certain thing because it is a part of Gods Creation, and that the principles and precepts of law are found in Gods Word and in His Creative Order.

But the case lawsystem replaces the wisdom of Gods Creative Order with the foolishness of mens evolutionary imaginings.

Law students, who, of course, go on to become lawyers and judges and congressmen, are taught that the source of law is the mind of a judge, which is then changed by the opinion of another judge and then, wellyou can tune in tomorrow to see what the law might be then

I pray that the power the President has to appoint is used to select a Justice who can hear the spirit of founding fathers like Hamilton and see it as their duty to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


By the Book

In an all-out panic over the Kavanaugh pick, Democrats resort to an old passage from their worn-out handbook of fake outrage and warnings of impending doom.

Democrats Hate Kavanaugh

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Crying Wolf, Again

Trump choosing Kavanaugh for Supreme court justice would undermine the Democrat’s plan to corrupt the highest court with anti-constitutionalist judges.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS

Watch: Students React To Trump’s SCOTUS Pick … Before He Actually Made One



While the rest of us are speculating about Trump’s SCOTUS pick, these snowflakes are offended by “the guy he picked”.If you’re wondering why we’ve long since stopped caring when the Leftists call us sexist-racist-homophobes blah-blah-blah… have a look at this clip. And remember. This was filmed BEFORE Trump made his second SCOTUS decision. That is to say, the pick which is expected to be announced tonight.

Enjoy the insanity:

Did you catch the ‘White Supremacist Legion of Doom’ comment? These folks are wearing their opinions loud and proud, facts be damned.

The setup was fantastic.

It was basically this formula: With Justice Kennedy stepping down… vacancy… how did you feel about his decision?

An informed voter wouldn’t have taken the bait. Or at most, they’d comment about the ‘short list’. Did they take the wait-and-see approach?

Of course not. They went straight to the outrage. Most, if not all invoked the word racist in there somewhere — without even knowing whether the pick was a man or a woman.

One guy said he was talking about the pick a ‘couple of days ago with his dad’ who didn’t like the pick either.

When asked about what qualities a judge should have, one young woman said ‘liberal’. When the interviewer pointed out that Obama had appointed two judges, she stood there open-mouthed.

Someone was talking about all the news sources that were upset about the disastrous pick he made, and someone else was going on about how Social media was in an uproar over it.

But CNN wants us to LOWER the voting age because these (as Rush calls them) ‘skulls full of mush’ are America’s future?

Behold ‘America’s Future’. That thought alone might be enough to make a praying man out of an Athiest.

If any single art piece could capture the wave that carried DJT to the White House, this is the one…

Drain the Swamp available through the ClashDaily Store.

“I love how Trump looks confident. He’s not weepy or angry. He’s winning and doing exactly what he promised, namely, Making America Great Again. I also really enjoyed painting Comey, Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Debbie and Anderson Cooper getting sucked down the drain. This is one of the funniest paintings I have ever painted. I couldn’t be happier and I hope these prints adorn the walls of every Trump supporter. I’m so glad Brandon Vallorani commissioned me to paint this epic, hilarious, and patriotic masterpiece.” — Doug Giles

Where can you see this fine — and hilarious — portrait?

No, you don’t have to wait until this beauty is hung in the Smithsonian. You can get your own copy of Drain the Swamp right here.

Getting Caught Up with A.F. Branco Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


It’s Our Time

Instead of Time Magazine creating the phony scenario of a crying little girl looking up at Trump on the cover, a Democrat donkey would have been a much better fit.
Trump Time Cover

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Mad Max

The face of the Democrat party Maxine Waters suggest the way to resist is to incite mob violence against Trump and his supporters.
Maxine Waters Inciting Mob Violence

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 92018.

Beat Down

SCOTUS delivered some heavy blows against tyranny this past week with its rulings. That may explain why the Democrat’s heads are explaining.
2018 SCOTUS Rulings

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.

Human Shield

Democrats are exploiting children in their war against America, trying to force us to open our borders to ultimately collapse the country.
Democrats Exploit Border Kids

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: