The Left is Deeply Disappointed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

By: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The shine of one of the progressive left’s icons has recently been tarnished. I liked to say that supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be mellowing with age, but it seems like she has been aged for decades.

However, she did stun a whole lot of nouveau-leftists in her interview  with Yahoo’s resident shrew, Katie Couric.

Many younger liberals have come to call Ginsberg, Notorious RBG, for her stance on abortion and such, but it appears she may have lost the gangsta moniker when the topic turned to something I’m sure Couric and most leftists would consider “safe.”

Katie brought up the Colin Kaepernick, National Anthem flap that so many, including me, have been talking and writing about for many weeks. I don’t know what Couric was expecting to hear, but I can guarantee it wasn’t this.

Couric asked Ginsberg: “How do you feel about 49ers player Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who have basically refused to stand for the National Anthem?” read more

Texas Beats Obama on Illegal Immigration

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The good guys finally won one! Well – kind of. We have at least temporarily beaten back the Obama forces of evil – the pro-illegal alien crowd.

To further clarify, we didn’t actually do anything. The supreme Court, with is deadlocked eight current members, did the job for us.

Yesterday, the eight member court failed to muster a majority of votes to rehear the case concerning Obama’s stalled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty scheme.

To review, DACA was illegally decreed by Obama in June of 2012. It allows that illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. In other words, call it what they will – but it’s ultimately a form of amnesty. read more

See All You Haters – Trump is Conservative

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Donald Trump has released his list of choices for U.S. supreme Court should he be elected. Or has he?

Trump’s press release from his campaign website reads: “May 18, 2016 – Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”

If one were to read this press release, one would assume, if Trump is elected, he will nominate one of these 11 to replace Justice Scalia. This is the implication as it is written.

If you just happened to instead be listening to conservative Trump Talk Radio, save for Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, it would be the only conclusion you could come to. This is the list, which was crafted by The Donald and we can all rest easy now that he has released such a list of constitutional jurists. This proves he is serious about restoring constitutional principles back to the high court. So there – all you haters! read more

Appoint a Justice – Don’t Appoint One – What’s the Hurry?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The upcoming presidential election is being hailed as the most important in our lifetimes – possibly in the history of this nation.

We always hear this type of thing every election cycle. This time however, the claim is absolute due to the recent passing of Justice Scalia and the subsequent tipping point in the balance of power of the supreme Court.

So I agree with those who claim that we will lose our country – we lose our Constitutional rights and liberties should just one more liberal justice be appointed. For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate leadership not even allow hearings, much less a vote on whomever Obama nominates.

The Senate leadership must understand that literally anything can happen should they allow an Obama nominee to come to a vote. There are simply too many spineless Republican Senators to take that chance. Short of an Article V Conventions of States, there would be no correcting the wrong outcome.

Many have pointed to the history of lame-duck appointments, giving deference to the next Executive – that it hasn’t been done in many decades. But historical precedent aside, Obama has every right under the Constitution to nominate someone, anyone to the court. The interesting thing is that if one reads Article II, Section 2, clause 2, the founders clearly did not make a fuss over the process. It was not some Earth-shattering event, but merely included in the several duties of the President. read more

Podcast – Supreme Courts Freezes EPA Clean Power Plan – Free Form Politics

In this week’s episode I discuss another razor-thin, 5-4 Supreme Court decision to freeze Obama’s Clean Power Plan while they decide if it is legal to ruin what’s left of the coal industry and further reduce greenhouse gasses.

In the Free Form Politics segment I go noteless and just speak extemporaneously about the candidates, who’s courting whom, who’s dissing whom, and why the supporters of one candidate are different from the rest. read more

With The Supreme Court in the Balance – This Election is No Joke

by: the Common Constitutionalist

It’s on to South Carolina. Yes, the presidential primary, which has been dragging on since the day after Obama was elected to his second term, is finally in full swing. All the candidates are jockeying for position – all the nonsense we’ve had to endure is finally coming into view.

And now with the recent exit of two more on the Republican side, Christie and Fiorina, we are down to a much more reasonable six candidates. Its actually only five – Carson is out – he just hasn’t announced it yet. Oh, I almost forgot Jim Gilmore. He may a force going forward. After all, he did garner 125 votes in the New Hampshire primary, although that was about half the 240 votes that Vermin Supreme received on the democrat side. But what democrat wouldn’t vote for a guy who looks like a Viking and wears a boot on his head. Sounds like a mainstream democrat, or a college professor.

On the democrat side the race has and will continue to be focused on who can give away more of our money to those who have not earned it or are otherwise undeserving. On the right, the issues are a bit more diverse, or at least more defined.

Our candidates quibble over their varying views on Obamacare, immigration, taxes and spending. Yet something has gone virtually unmentioned throughout this campaign. We haven’t heard it out on the stump (much) and the debates appear bereft of questions from the moderators. I am speaking of the black-robed 800 lb. Gorillas in the room – the Supreme Court. read more

Podcast – Justice Scalia is a Racist – Democrats Support Refugee Resettlement – A Ramadan Christmas

In this episode I discuss Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s disagreement to affirmative action as a method of college admission. He argues that is it actually detrimental to black students – which makes him a racist.

Democrats support refugee resettlement from a fictional Middle Eastern city. What a bunch of rubes!

Yes, it’s a Ramadan Christmas, at least it was for those at Blaine High School in Minnesota, where a choir teacher made the children perform a song about Ramadan at the Christmas concert. read more

Ted Cruz – The 21st Century Thomas Jefferson

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I think it was the late Sen. Arlen Specter who said, I didn’t leave the Republican Party – the Republican Party left me. Well, Arlen was wrong – he abandoned his principles and left the Republican Party. And that’s saying something, considering the state of the Republican Party.

Anyway, after Ted Cruz proposed retention elections for the Supreme Court, some big-time lawyers have come out against him, effectively saying that Cruz has gone off the reservation. To this I say, Ted Cruz didn’t leave the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court left him – and all of us.

That well-known right-wing journal, , writes that, “Conservative attorney and prominent gay rights activist Ted Olson took a swipe at Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, saying the freshman senator had abandoned a fundamental understanding of the Constitution suggested a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality.”

First: How can anyone be a “conservative attorney” and a “gay rights activist” at the same time? Second: how is proposing an amendment “abandoning a fundamental understanding of the Constitution?” Isn’t that what the amendment process is for? Is that not supposed to be one of only two ways to modify the Constitution?

Meanwhile, the Washington Post weighed in saying that Cruz should know better, being that, “Sen. Ted Cruz spent his years at Harvard Law school working to secure a Supreme Court clerkship and then made his name as a lawyer by arguing in front of the body nine times.”

They go on to accuse Cruz of suggesting such a thing is just a way of “seeking support from the right wing of his party.” Well that’s funny, because Ted Cruz is the right wing of the party! read more

Oppressive Wisconsin Requires ID

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court just simply refused to hear the case of “Everyone in the State of Wisconsin v racist Scott Walker and his republican legislative shills.” At least I think that was the official filing name of the case brought for consideration.

The Guardian  writes that “Civil liberties campaigners filed an emergency motion on Monday to stop Wisconsin’s ‘disenfranchising’ new voterphoto ID identification requirements from going into effect, setting up an instant showdown after the US Supreme Court turned away an appeal to throw out Wisconsin’s controversial law that forces people already registered to vote to show photo ID.”

They continue: “If emergency filing by the American Civil Liberties Union fails and Wisconsin fully activates its voter ID laws, the High Court non-decision could affect an estimated 300,000 voters in that state – with sweeping voting rights implications nationwide.”

Wow – the left is indeed in a panic over this latest slap down. They should be in a panic, for this will make it that much more difficult for Democrats to lie and cheat their way into office. And don’t you just love the lefts use of phony statistics like “could affect an estimated 300,000 voters.” Not that it will affect anyone who cares to make the slightest effort to obtain a photo ID – just that it will make it more difficult for illegals, multiple voters and the deceased who wish to cast a ballot from the great beyond. That and I think I read that the manufacturing of photo IDs causing global warming. read more

Good News for Texas Voters

from: the American Thinker:

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the new Texas voter ID law was in effect when early voting began in the 2014 midterm. The court upheld the Fifth Circuit’s stay pending appeal of an October 11, 2014 District Court injunction barring implementation of the law’s voter ID provisions. The last-minute injunction was issued by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in an opinion whose content and timing make it smell suspiciously like the grievance industry’s race card.

[E]ven where specific discriminatory practices end, their effects persist. It takes time for those who have suffered discrimination to slowly assert their power.  Because of past discrimination and intimidation, there is a general pattern by African-Americans of not having the power to fully participate.

read more