Trump releases 16th wave of judicial nominations

The president nominated five federal district court judges and one circuit judge on Friday, continuing to fulfill his campaign promise to place conservative jurists on the federal bench. Eric D. Miller, a Seattle-based attorney and part-time law professor at the University of Washington, was tapped for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The nomination comes just three days after another one of Mr. Trump’s judicial nominees was confirmed to the 9th Circuit. In total, Mr. Trump has had 22 circuit court judges and 19 district court judges confirmed since he took office. The five district court nominees announced Friday include: Tessa M. Gorman for the Western District of Washington, Damon R. Leichty for the Northern District of Indiana, Kathleen M. O’Sullivan for the Western District of Washington, J. Nicholas Ranjan for the Western District of Pennsylvania and John Milton Young for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Coulter: Kavanaugh Threatens The Left’s Right to Cheat

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 “rights” are 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.”

Exactly!!  And well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read just one article here at The Daily Buzz (and who would do such a silly thing?!), then READ THIS!!!  Then, please forward on to all of your friends and family members, especially those who are liberals or Dems…and watch their heads explode.    🙂

Trump taps Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

President Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Monday night, setting up a furious partisan confirmation battle as he seeks to move the high court firmly under conservatives’ control for decades to come. In a prime-time announcement at the White House, the president tapped Judge Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a 12-day whirlwind search to replace the retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. “He is a brilliant jurist,” Mr. Trump said as he introduced the nominee and his family. “There is no one in America more qualified for this position.” Judge Kavanaugh, 53, has served on the appeals court since 2006, ruling on some of the nation’s most high-profile cases on a court that is considered a steppingstone to the Supreme Court. He is a favorite of the conservative Washington legal establishment. He worked in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush and helped draft special counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s report urging the impeachment of President Clinton. The nominee also was a clerk to Justice Kennedy. Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to the president for judicial selection, said Judge Kavanaugh “is among the most distinguished and respected judges in the country, with nearly 300 opinions that clearly demonstrate fairness and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution as it’s written and enforcing the limits on government power contained in the Constitution.” As the president wrapped up a selection process that included interviews with at least seven candidates, he passed over three other appeals court judges who were on his short list: Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Raymond Kethledge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Also in the audience in the East Room was Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican, who conferred with the president last week on the nomination but didn’t make the short list. Judge Kavanaugh said he was “deeply honored” to be nominated to replace Justice Kennedy. “Mr. President, I am grateful to you, and I’m humbled by your confidence in me,” he said. When the president introduced his nominee, the audience gave him a standing ovation for one minute and eight seconds. “I know the people in this room very well. They do not stand and give applause like that very often. So they have some respect,” Mr. Trump said. The pick is Mr. Trump’s second to the nation’s highest court, after he selected Justice Neil M. Gorsuch last year to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. The stakes are even higher with this nomination, as Mr. Trump seizes a rare opportunity for a president to reshape the court for a generation or longer. Justice Kennedy, who will turn 82 this month, announced his retirement June 27 as the longtime moderate swing vote on the high court. His retirement leaves the court with two solid blocs — four liberal and four conservative justices — and the next justice could be a pivotal vote on such issues as abortion, gay rights, entitlements, presidential authority, election law, labor rules and government regulation. The confirmation hearing promises to be a fierce battle. Republicans have a 51-49 majority and can’t afford to lose any votes because Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, is absent with brain cancer.

Judge tosses suit alleging Trump campaign conspired with Russians in hack: report

A federal judge on Tuesday tossed a lawsuit claiming that the Trump campaign and former adviser Roger Stone colluded with WikiLeaks and the Russian government to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the presidential election. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle said in a ruling that the allegations of conspiracy were insubstantial to proceed in a court, Politico reported. “The Trump Campaign’s efforts to elect President Trump in D.C. are not suit-related contacts for those efforts did not involve acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracies to disseminate emails that harmed plaintiffs,” wrote the Clinton-appointed judge. “Campaign meetings, canvassing voters, and other regular business activities of a political campaign do not constitute activities related to the conspiracies alleged in the complaint.”

DOH!!  Case dismissed!  Take that, DNC, CNN, and MSNBC!  And, that’s from a Democrat, Bill Clinton appointed judge.  For more, click on the text above.   Excellent!!    🙂

Opinion/Analysis: Trump should nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to save his presidency

To save the remaining time on his term, preserve Republican control of Congress and place himself in the best position to win the 2020 presidential election, President Trump should nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court. Several news organizations reported Monday that Barrett was one of four federal appeals court judges who are candidates for the high court appointment interviewed by President Trump on Monday. The candidate the president nominates would fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, if the nominee wins Senate confirmation. The other judges the president is reported to have interviewed Monday were Brett Kavanaugh of the District of Columbia Circuit, along with Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar of the 6th Circuit. While Barrett’s nomination for the Supreme Court would likely cause the most vicious confirmation hearing since that for Justice Clarence Thomas, it would be well worth it for conservative members of Congress who provide President Trump his legislative base. Barrett is a judicial newcomer and has been a judge for less than a year. She doesn’t have an extensive judicial record that Democrats could attack during a confirmation hearing. The Senate battle over Barrett’s confirmation would cement trust between the president, social conservative voters and the members who represent them in the House and Senate. Barrett’s nomination would energize Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections and build permanent credibility with conservative members of the Senate in case of a possible impeachment trial of President Trump. The judge’s presence on the Supreme Court would allow Republicans to reach judicial nirvana and accomplish through the Supreme Court what they couldn’t do through Congress. Barrett’s confirmation could radically shift American laws on issues like religious freedom and abortion. Since she is only 46 – young for a Supreme Court justice – she could serve on the high court for more than three decades. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., opposed Barrett vehemently during Barrett’s Senate confirmation for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Feinstein implemented what many called a religious test, blasting Barrett for her deep Catholic faith, calling it “dogma.” Feinstein specifically referenced a 2006 graduation speech where Barrett made several references to God. Barrett told graduates: “No matter how exciting any career is, what is it really worth if you don’t make it part of a bigger life project to know, love and serve the God who made you?” While these representations are anathema to many Democrats, it is precisely what conservatives want to hear from a potential Supreme Court justice, meaning that Barrett’s nomination would likely permanently bond them to President Trump. Barrett’s conservative credentials are impeccable. She once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, taught law at the University of Notre Dame, and has reported conservative views about protecting religious freedom. She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, a conduit for judicial nominees to the Trump White House. She is reported to belong to a small, tightly knit, conservative Christian group called People of Praise. Barrett has written and spoken frequently about the importance of her Catholic faith and in her belief that life begins at conception. While President Trump said he’s not going to ask the candidates whether they would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, the candidates’ view on this topic will be determinative in securing the nomination. Crucially, Barrett was already confirmed by the Senate eight months ago by a 55-43 vote for her seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She secured the votes of a few critical Democratic senators from moderate states, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Winning the support of a few Democrats could be the key to winning Senate confirmation for Barrett if she is President Trump’s pick to replace Kennedy. Senators Manchin, Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota are three Democrats facing tough difficult re-election races who could find it difficult to oppose Barrett. All three have already met with President Trump to discuss his upcoming Supreme Court nominee. The president is not guaranteed the votes of all 51 Republican senators for his Supreme Court nominee. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., remains absent from the Senate as he battles brain cancer.

For more of this compelling argument from Chicago-based attorney and law professor at Northwestern University’s School of Law, Andrew Stoltmann, click on the text above.

Sessions’ reversals on four Obama positions validated by Supreme Court

It seems the Trump administration knows the law better than the Obama administration. The Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed positions of the Obama administration in four cases decided by the Supreme Court this year — and won all four of them. They included constitutional technicalities, such as whether a certain set of appointments needed Senate confirmation, and politically charged cases over cutting names from voter lists and labor unions charging dues to unwilling workers. “In four cases, after careful review, we changed the department’s position in order to follow the law,” Mr. Sessions said Wednesday as the court closed out its term. “The favorable Supreme Court decisions in all four cases reflect that we took the proper course of action. The decisions speak for themselves.” Reversals of position at the department are a big deal and set tongues wagging in legal circles. That was the case last year when the Trump administration said it was backing an Illinois state employee who objected to being forced to pay dues to a labor union he didn’t belong to, and which took stances he disagreed with. The Obama administration sided with the unions — and a 1977 Supreme Court precedent — in saying the state could make the dues mandatory. The court overturned that precedent this week, sided with the administration and ruled 5-4 in favor of the employee. Yet another reversal came in the voter registration case out of Ohio, where the state has a policy of removing names of people who don’t vote in several consecutive elections and don’t respond to notices. During oral argument in the court this year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor chided Solicitor General Noel Francisco on the department’s new position, saying it contradicted decades of Justice Department stances under both Republican and Democratic administrations. “After that many presidents, that many solicitor generals, this many years … how did the solicitor general change its mind?” She demanded. Mr. Francisco said the law changed in 2002 and that his office was recognizing the new standard. The court agreed with him, ruling 5-4 in favor of Ohio. The justices also sided with the administration in a case over forced arbitration clauses in labor contracts, another 5-4 ruling, and in a case over appointments to the Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the Trump administration position prevailed 7-2. Lawyers said the Justice Department reversals amounted to a housecleaning. “It seems like wiping everything Obama did from the books,” Lucas A. Powe Jr., a law professor at the University of Texas, said…

It’s a beautiful thing!   For more, click on the text above.    🙂

Supreme Court deals big setback to labor unions

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to Democratic-leaning organized labor. The court’s conservative majority, re-empowered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, scrapped a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join. The 5-4 decision not only will free non-union members in nearly two dozen states from any financial ties to unions, but also could encourage members to stop paying dues for services the court said Wednesday they can get for free. Union leaders said in reaction to the ruling that they expect to suffer some loss of revenue and also predicted that the same anti-union forces that pushed to get rid of the so-called fair shares that non-members had to pay will try to persuade members to cut their ties. “There are already plans,” said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association. “They are going after our members.” But American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said unions would not be dissuaded: “Don’t count us out.” The labor leaders spoke after the court ruled that the laws requiring fair share fees violate the First Amendment by compelling workers to support unions they may disagree with. “States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion in the latest case in which Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, provided a key fifth vote for a conservative outcome. Trump himself tweeted his approval of the decision while Alito still was reading a summary of it from the bench. “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!” Trump said in the tweet. The court’s majority said public-sector unions aren’t entitled to any money from employees without their consent.

YES!!!!!   It’s about time!!  Excellent decision by the Supremes today!!     🙂