President Trump's Judicial Nomination and the Obstructionalists ... Thx Judi C!

Sam Kegley

---

Supreme Court pick editorial 1 message

---

Judi Cole	Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:13 PM
Bcc: skegley.kegley@gmail.com
This was written today before Trump's pick tonight. Fellow conservatives, stop the baseless attacks on a potential Supreme Court pick image: http://www.rocketswag.com/biography/images/Alberto-Gonzales-Biography.jpg By Alberto R. Gonzales The Washington Post Published July 9,2018 r Recent The campaign to sway public opinion and President Donald Trump about his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement is in its final hours. On a closely divided court there is much at stake with this nomination. As a lifelong Republican, I am angry about the unfair public treatment of some of the potential nominees and am ashamed of some of the anonymous sniping coming from my fellow conservatives. I learned as a young lawyer that being a judicial conservative means you do not ignore, redefine or add to the text of the Constitution or the words of a congressional statute to achieve a policy outcome. I learned that a judicial conservative exercises humility, understanding that judges have an important but limited role in the nation's constitutional scheme. Judicial conservatives do not weigh into issues that are rightfully the responsibility of the government's elected branches. I learned that a judicial conservative puts aside personal biases and acts with integrity and the courage to do the right thing even if unpopular. Being a judicial conservative means having a healthy respect for precedent, and being mindful of the public's reliance on earlier decisions but willing to overturn those that are plainly wrong, as required by a judge's oath of office. Of course every potential nominee should be carefully vetted, but baseless attacks complicate the nomination process and increase the chances that the president fails to nominate the strongest candidate. For example, it was reported that District of Columbia Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented in a case in which the circuit panel ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Kavanaugh dissented on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. Unnamed conservatives argue that he should have written to invalidate the statute. I learned long ago that a true judicial conservative exercises restraint and does not decide or speak to the merits of a dispute where there is no jurisdiction. The same reporting included another case where the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to allow an undocumented pregnant teen to get an abortion. Again, Kavanaugh dissented, and once again nameless conservatives argued that the dissent should have gone further, no doubt frustrated that Kavanaugh did not take on abortion rights even though he is bound as a circuit judge to follow Supreme Court precedent. I remember a time when true judicial conservatives did not act to advance a social agenda through dicta - words that have no legal bearing in the case at hand nor serve as precedent for future cases. The most outrageous excuse given to oppose Kavanaugh is his service in the George W. Bush administration. He has been accused of being a "mainstream" or "establishment" Republican, as if this makes him an unreliable conservative. I remind my Republican friends that Justice Neil Gorsuch also served in the Bush administration, yet I do not recall conservatives using that as an excuse to question his commitment to the rule of law or to conservative principles. Based on what I know and experienced, Kavanaugh served with honor and distinction in the Bush administration. He carried out the president's policies, and to penalize him now for his service to our country is unfair and wrong. The president has a difficult job of trying to anticipate how someone will decide cases 25 or 35 years from now. History is full of examples of dashed expectations, disappointments and frustration over the decisions of justices once considered "reliable" by supporters. Surprises are never a good thing for an administration when it comes to appointments to the court. It is wise for this president to nominate someone who has an established track record and experience - much as Gorsuch had before his nomination - as a true judicial conservative. I understand social conservatives' frustration with the court and their desire to see a justice appointed who will advance and protect their interests. But we need to remember that the Supreme Court is not an extension of the White House, or of any political party or social movement. The court should never be perceived or used as a means to promote and protect a conservative policy agenda. If that happens, then conservatives lose credibility and the country is poorer for it. Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0718/gonzales070918.php3#EewTqXBKjGItilzw.99

Gorsuch and the Supreme Court ... Thx Alex T and Ron W!

Neil Gorsuch has only been on the Supreme Court for a short while. Recently he ignited the fire of liberty and broke 40 years of precedent when he refused to join the SCOTUS “cert pool.” The cert pool was established in 1973 during the early days of the Burger Court, in order to efficiently review the near 8,000 petitions received each term.  In practice, the petitions are apportioned among the Court’s law clerks, who then circulate a memo to the justices recommending a grant or denial. The obvious problem here is that this gives the power in these 8000 cases to the law clerks instead of the Justices. It also, in theory, allows 3rd parties to unfairly influence a case through the clerks. That is NOT how the Supreme Court was designed to operate. Neil Gorsuch just managed to set his foot down in the Supreme Court and say it is NOT okay to pass off judgments to the discretion of legal clerks. This is the kind of story everyone should be hearing or reading in the media, but obviously is not. Today the United States Supreme Court issued a direct and final blow to the Islamic Indoctrination of the young in this nation.  The full panel of the United States Supreme Court which consists of 9 judges met to decided the fate of Islamic indoctrination in our American public schools. In a typical 5 X 4 decision, common sense won out, and we have sanity restored to our schools once again. The United States Supreme Court was able to hand out this decision banning Sharia Law and Islam from being taught in classrooms because of the tie-breaking vote of the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch went on to write about the decision: “The government certainly has no business being involved in religion, but this isn’t a government issue or a religious issue. This is about the judicial branch interpreting the laws as they apply to the teaching of religion. We shouldn't be teaching any religions in the public schools of this country. Amen, Justice Gorsuch, Amen! Liberals are all about teaching Islam and Sharia Law but they have issues with “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our currency. This should have been a unanimous decision, not 5 to 4, but it seems like the 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court don’t care about the constitution, nor our values. Perhaps this is the start of restoring America to its founding glory. Thank GOD for our new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch--- a great selection by President Trump. IF YOU WILL, PLEASE PASS THIS ENCOURAGING NEWS ALONG, AS I HAVE DONE.

scary thoughts! Vote in 2016 ... Thx, Dr. Jim Ki!

Before You Say You Won't Vote For Whomever Is Nominated Consider This. Something to think about, indeed . . . Supreme Court Of The United States....... Some people have brought up the fact that they won't vote for the Republican nominee if the eventual nominee is not the man they wanted. I just want to put something in perspective. Justice Scalia's seat is vacant.  Ginsberg is 82 years old Kennedy is 79  Breyer is 77 Thomas is 67.  Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75. These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology. Think about that... 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will ****guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are viewed as lacking in mandate.      Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.      Anyone and Everyone who is saying that they won't vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. Hear this! If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.  Whoever is the GOP nominee ... go VOTE for the GOP Nominee! Remember Romney? Three million conservatives who had voted for McCain did not cast a vote for Romney (for whatever reason) .... and the result was four additional years of B.H.O. AND ONE FINAL THOUGHT , she's already on the record as saying that her buddy, B.H.O. "would make a great Supreme Court Justice."   DID YOU JUST READ THAT LAST SENTENCE???????    NOW ARE YOU SCARED????

I just said a prayer for Jody McLeod of Raone County High School in Tennessee ... Thank you, Nita E!

At a Tennessee Football Game---not a joke

Christianity is now the target of persecution... I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL CAN SEE THE PROBLEM, BUT OUR SOCIETY CANNOT. Tennessee Football This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School , Kingston , Tennessee, by school principal, Jody McLeod "It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country." Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate life style," and, if someone is offended, that's OK. I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK. I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable" means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem... I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess, "Mother Earth", and call it "ecology.." I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment.." However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated. This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments. Nevertheless , as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression. For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time. " However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to bless this event, please feel free to do so.. B As far as I know, that's not against the law--yet." One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray. They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box! The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America- the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under GOD." Somehow, Kingston , Tennessee , remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion Praise GOD that HIS remnant remains! JESUS said, "If you are ashamed of ME before men, then I will be ashamed of you before MY FATHER.." If you are not ashamed, pass this on . I'm not one bit ashamed to pass this on, are you? THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS! GOD BLESS EVERYONE WHO READS THIS AND PASSES IT ON.

Supreme Court upholds obamacare

Heritage Action: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: How Will We Respond? Having trouble viewing this email?

Repeal Obamacare.

Sam, America's system of checks and balances ensures the Supreme Court's misguided decision will not be the final word on President Obama's government takeover of healthcare. >> Read more of our response to this ruling at our website. We still oppose Obamacare, and conservatives are still united around fully repealing President Obama's government takeover of our health care system. Today's decision is not the end of the fight, it is the beginning! Sincerely, Michael A. Needham Chief Executive Officer Heritage Action for America

Heritage Action for America | 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20002

Forward this email to a Friend This message was intended for: skegley@columbus.rr.com | Learn more You subscribed on August 1, 2011 | Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

Central vs. Local Government and lawyers

Lawyers-

The education of lawyers require a lot; however, I am unsure that it qualifies them to be most of our representatives in Congress or in the Judiciary.  I guess I have to concede on the Judiciary.  We currently have many lawyers in congress, all lawyers in Judiciary, and a pseudo-lawyer as PUSA.  We have obtained the obamacare thing, very unpopular with us people, pushed through by PUSA, and now somewhat endorsed by the Supreme Court.  I just wonder if the SC. justices should not be called criminal lawyers, as in lawyers who commit crimes of the highest order.

The Civil War was about more than anti-slavery differences.  It was about centralized vs local control of our country.  Long hours of study should not rule out common sense in this republic.  Common sense often  gets to and clarifies points much more effectively.

No, the current decisions against Arizona and for obamacare should not be crammed down the throats of the electorate.  By law, they definitely are. The lawyers are getting things wrong!

Supreme Court and obamacare ... thanks John & Yvette!

Subject: Supreme Court drama unfolding over ObamaCare

Grassfire Nation Update John, With the Supreme Court hearing of ObamaCare less than three weeks away, serious concerns are beginning to surface about at least one Justice and his ruling record. Fox News is reporting that at the heart of the ObamaCare hearing “is the individual mandate, which requires every Americans to have health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.” The Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive power to regulate business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, is the basis for the government’s position that the individual mandate is constitutional. Appointed by Ronald Reagan, Justice Antonin Scalia is the longest serving Justice on the Court and a stalwart conservative. However, expert review of Scalia’s legal opinions regarding the Commerce Clause, suggests he will have a difficult time ruling against the government in ObamaCare. Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center told Fox News on March 5, “Even if Scalia is skeptical of the merits of the health care reform law, it will be very hard for him to get away from his own writings on this issue that do support the government.” John, while Scalia’s history is certainly a concern, it should also serve as a lightning rod for Americans to get involved in the ObamaCare debate before the Supreme Court hearings begin -- to speak up and out about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare and the loss of freedom to make our own healthcare decisions. + + ObamaCare Hearing Just Three Weeks Away Less than three weeks from today, the Supreme Court will hear the case against ObamaCare, and we believe it is important for you to be there. We’ve teamed with Conservative 50 Plus a conservative alternative to AARP, that is giving mature Americans a unique platform to express their concern and outrage over Obama’s tyrannical drive to implement his statist healthcare plan. Prior to the hearings they will deluge the High Court with tens of thousands of petitions from conservative Americans who are complaining! John, if you haven’t yet added your name to this petition opposing ObamaCare, do so right now by going here: http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=79876&CID=901&RID=26975345 + + Rally Your Friends to Stand Against ObamaCare As we have all seen, Obama and his administration have shown time and time again that they aren’t the least bit interested in your First Amendment rights... Answer back … right now by clicking on the link below: http://www.grassrootsaction.com/901/petition.asp But don’t stop there… After adding your name to this petition, alert your friends. Millions of Americans still have yet to engage in the ObamaCare issue, even though it stands to adversely impact every American -- especially those aged 50 and older! Forward this message to 30-40 friends, urging them to join with you in opposition of ObamaCare and the trampling of our First Amendment rights by signing the petition. Click here to sign: http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=79878&CID=901&RID=26975345 With your continued help Conservative 50 Plus and Grassfire can make a substantial grassroots impact against ObamaCare before the hearings begin. Thank you for being such a key part of our team. Grassfire Nation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + (Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. This e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages. To contact Grassfire Nation with comments, questions or to change your status, see link at the end.) + + + + + Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives that is dedicated to equipping you with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day. Copyright 2012 Grassroots Action, Inc. + + Comments? Questions? http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=79880 + + Technical questions only: For technical questions regarding this email, go here: (Not for comments/feedback on this update) http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=79881 + + + + +