HOW AMERICA ALMOST BECAME A DICTATORSHIP
The election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton has changed the course of America’s history in ways that might only be paralleled by Washington defeating the British, FDR winning WW II or Reagan defeating Communism.
Although it seems inconceivable, Barack Obama and Harry Reid almost turned America into a Liberal Dictatorship.
In a sad way, you almost have to admire the sheer audacity of what they nearly accomplished.
To be clear, they didn’t start out with some evil and nefarious plan that took decades to implement. Things just worked out this way. Nevertheless, Reid and Obama almost pulled off the greatest power grab in the history of American politics.
If they had been successful, the balance of power in America would have tilted so far in favor of liberals that conservatives would have faced the choice becoming a powerless underclass or starting another Civil War.
Without exaggeration, that is the magnitude of what almost just happened.
Created by Obama and Reid, an unconstitutional abomination is functioning today as a new 4th branch of America’s government. This illegal, perverted, 'check and balance' was never intended to exist.
The resistance to Trump’s Travel Ban is the perfect demonstration of this new abomination in action.
- The ELECTED President of the United States, issues a lawful order.
- A NON-ELECTED judge issues a nationwide injunction, blocking the President’s lawful orders.
- The President’s orders are then put on hold until the case battles its way to the Supreme Court, where his orders are deemed to have been fully lawful.
What is wrong with this picture?
Who said a judge that no one elected, has the power to override the President?
Who gave an insignificant judge from San Francisco, Hawaii or Washington State the right to rule over the entire United States?
No judge, can ever have the same amount of critical information as the President of the United States.
Total chaos is currently at hand.
What will happen when conservative judges start issuing contradictory orders to liberal activist Obama judges?
How will anyone know what ruling to follow?
This is why ‘nationwide injunctions’ were almost never issued.
The first nationwide injunction came in 1963. Then from Reagan to W. Bush there was an average of 1.5 per year issued against the President. Under Obama the number went up to 2.5 per year.
So far, the Abomination Harry Reid and Barack Obama created, has issued 22 nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump in a year and a half.
At this rate, judges appointed by Obama and Clinton will issue more injunctions against Donald Trump than against all the previous Presidents in the history of the United States – COMBINED!
The ELECTED President has been neutralized. The ELECTED Republican controlled House and the ELECTED Republican controlled Senate have been neutralized.
By Obama judges who no one elected to any office.
What the hell is going on?!?!? Is this America?
The abomination Reid and Obama created is only just beginning to flex its muscles.
All it takes to prohibit the President of the United States from doing his job, is to file 10 lawsuits in 10 different districts. All the plaintiff needs is for one of 10 judges to issue a nationwide injunction and this blocks the President's lawful actions across the entire nation. It doesn’t matter if the plaintiff loses 999 out of 1000 cases, a single victory is enough to stop the entire United States government from working. Consequently, plaintiffs file the same lawsuit in as many locations as possible.
This is called “forum shopping” and this is why all the Anti-Trump lawsuits are filed on the West Coast or the North East.
Three judge Appellate Court panels and District Court judges that were appointed by Clinton and Obama are running wild all across America. They aren't just blocking the President, these liberal tyrants are creating their own laws about every issue under the sun.
Quote -
A Reuters review of rulings by the courts over the last two years shows Obama’s appointees…. have voted in favor of broad civil rights protections, major Obama administration regulations and gun regulations and against Republican-backed voting rules.
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 19 The court ruled 2-1 in favor of a transgender student seeking to use a boys’ restroom, with two Obama appointees in the majority.
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 29 A three-judge panel featuring two Obama appointees struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on a 3-0 vote, saying it had a discriminatory intent.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, June 14 On a 2-1 vote, with an Obama appointee in the majority, the court upheld the Federal Communication Commission’s major “net neutrality” regulation.
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Oct. 19, 2015 A panel featuring two Obama appointees and one judge appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton rejected challenges to gun regulations in New York and Connecticut
6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 7, 2015 The court allowed employee class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc to move forward. An Obama appointee wrote the opinion, while a Republican appointee partially dissented.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22 A three-judge panel featuring one Obama nominee in the majority ruled 2-1 in favor of the right of employees to bring class claims against employers in a case involving Ernst & Young.
All judges appointed by Democratic presidents on the Fourth Circuit voted against the temporary travel ban.
The three judges who formed the Ninth Circuit panel issuing the preliminary injunction against the temporary travel were all appointed by Clinton.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Trump’s immigration policies, it is still absurd and dangerous that a district judge was able to shut down a president’s policy and even force him to alter it dramatically, especially now that we know the Supreme Court agreed with the president all along. Now district judges are mandating that illegal DACA amnesty be administered nationwide.
Are we going to allow national security, the military, and foreign policy to be run by a single forum-shopped district judge and hope that somehow the Supreme Court will step in within a few years, after all the harm is already done?
Unless we heed Clarence Thomas’ warning, SCOTUS ‘travel ban’ victory is hollow
Aren’t there checks and balances in place to make sure this kind of abuse of power and judicial activism cannot take place?
There used to be, this is where Obama and Reid come in.
Today, everybody is focused on the Supreme Court, but that isn’t the real story, not by a long shot.
There is a level of courts that actually has a far greater impact on our everyday life. Only we don’t know about it…. Thank you American public education system.
Liberal activist Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor said it best, “…(The) Court of Appeals is where policy is made, and I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law’ I know.”
America has a hierarchy of judges and courts.
Sorry, but I have to bore you with a civics lesson before this gets really interesting.
The US President gives lifetime appointments to America’s three most important courts.
The 1st or top level is the U.S. Supreme Court. (9 judges)
The 2nd level down is the U.S. Court of Appeals. (179 judges, who mostly work in three judge panels)
The 3rd level down is the U.S. District Courts. (677 judges)
It gets a little more complicated when you consider that Federal judges still hear cases even though they are officially retired. However, only the active Appellate Court Judges can hear and decide “en banc” or full court cases. Basically, this is the makeup of the courts.
Although the Appeals Court is theoretically lower than the Supreme Court, in many ways it is more important and has a much bigger impact on the everyday life of America’s citizens.
The Supreme Court can only hear about 2% of the cases it is presented with each term. The final judgment of the other 98% lies in the hands of the judges on the Appeals Court.
What’s more important, the 98% of decisions issued by the Appellate Court or 2% of decisions issued by the Supreme Court?
Now that you understand the what is at stake, the story becomes more devious and underhanded than any plot taken from a soap opera or movie. And perhaps...that's the best way to describe the current situation.
Episode 1 – Hi, I’m Darth Vader, have you seen my new Death Star?
Every story has a villain, here we meet ours…
Barack Obama once wrote -
…a perception that we used the courts and lawyers and procedural tricks to avoid having to win over popular opinion,” he wrote. “I wondered if, in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.” –
What Obama begrudgingly admitted was a “perception”, is in reality a statement of fact.
For most of the last 100 years, liberals have used the court system to violate the concept of ‘Government of the People, By the People, For the People’ in the United States of America on a daily basis.
Abortion, Gay Marriage, Drug Legalization, etc.
Democrats have found victory after victory in the courtroom that could never have been found at the ballot box.
If you can control who sits on the courts, you can control all of America. Not just for a little while...lifetime control. The federal judges have lifetime appointments, they answer to no one.
The Senate is the only road block, but if you remove that obstacle, and you appoint the Federal judges… You can control America for decades if not perpetually.
Obama and Reid, almost fully obtained this goal.
Former Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Tom Daschle explains -
Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back. . . . The whole budget process was a Democratic product, and that was in my view a procedural disaster. Then we lowered the (filibuster/cloture) threshold from 67 to 60. That was a Democratic effort. And then in 2013, we took it (the filibuster) away completely for nominations, and that was Democratic. So, Democrats who may lament this institutional deterioration, I think there’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained away.
Actually, what he should have said was, “There’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained in a way that makes Democrats look like anything except treasonous cowards and vile criminals.” because that is exactly what he meant.
But how did it come to this? Let’s go back and explain…
Episode 2 – Peace in our time
As hard as it may be to believe today, there was a time of civility between Republicans and Democrats.
During those times Republican Presidents thought nothing of nominating Democrat judges to the Supreme Court.
It was the best of times for the liberals; it was the worst of times for conservatives.
In almost 40 years, Republicans had successfully placed TWO conservative justices on the Supreme Court.
Republican Presidents appointed these liberal judges -
- Earl Warren (R) 53, Anti School Prayer (Engel), Pro Evolution (Epperson),
- John Harlan II (R) 55 Anti School Prayer (Engel), Pro Evolution (Epperson)
- William J. Brennan Jr (Democrat) 56, Pro Abortion (Roe)
- Charles Whittaker (R) 57, (Just went with the majority on everything)
- Potter Stewart (R) 58, Pro Abortion (Roe)
- Warren Burger (R) 69, Pro Abortion (Roe)
- Harry Blackmun (R) 70, Pro Abortion (Roe, Casey)
- Lewis F. Powell (Democrat) 71, Pro Abortion (Roe)
- John Paul Stevens (R) 75, Pro Abortion (Casey)
- Sandra Day O'Connor (R) 81, Pro Abortion (Casey)
Then in 1987 came the nomination of Robert Bork and the world changed.
NY Times –
The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics.
Opinion | The Ugliness All Started With Bork
Episode 3 – Pearl Harbor
Senators Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, looked at a process that had led to unimaginable gains for liberal causes and said, “Let's @!$@% this up!!!"
At this point, they decided to kill the goose that had laid the largest golden eggs in the history of the Democratic Party.
Biden and Kennedy started a war that literally scorched the earth and burned any hope of working with Republicans for America's common good to the ground.
Democrats stormed the Senate floor blatantly lying about Robert Bork and his positions.
A multi-million dollar nationwide media smear campaign was orchestrated.
Nothing like this had ever taken place in America’s history.
Why? To keep the most qualified judge in America off the Supreme Court.
Judge Richard A. Posner, who was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century, said this about Bork. -
…probably the best qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in the last 71 years, which is to say since 1941, when Robert H. Jackson—attorney general, former solicitor general, confidant of FDR, brilliant lawyer—was nominated.
Later, Joe Biden (D) who was the Senate Judiciary Chairman at the time, bragged about his corruption and dishonesty.
Quote -
BIDEN: Remember, I'm the guy that kept there from being a guy who was maybe the most brilliant conservative who was nominated for the Supreme Court…. and I kept him off the court.
You can hear Biden’s comments at the 29:00 minute mark of this pod cast -
Bork was slandered, demonized and destroyed for the crime of being smart and honestly answering questions.
Democrats had not only gone into the toilet, but thru the toilet, down the pipes and into the lowest part of the sewer that can be imagined.
Every part of decency, every part of civility, every precedent regarding how Supreme Court nominees should be considered - was destroyed. Every part of how Democrats and Republicans should treat each other had also been destroyed.
When Ex-Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back.”
The Bork travesty is almost certainly the time period he was referring to as, ”all the way back.”
But many dominoes fell because of Bork.
One domino in particular, was a tiny little club Robert Bork helped start.
It was co-founded by one of Bork’s Law Clerks in 1982, it is called The Federalist Society.
Although the full impact of this tiny little club can’t be explained yet, this is a tease…
The Federalist Society Will Soon Have a 5–4 Stranglehold on the Supreme Court
When the historians look back and ponder what was the single largest mistake in the history of the Democratic Party, the day Democrats made an enemy out of this tiny little club is going to be hard to ignore.
However, the main Domino that fell was the clear statement from the Left -The new rules of the game are, there are no rules. No trick is too low. From now on, nothing matters but liberal getting their way on every issue no matter what the cost.
The “Law” means nothing. The “Constitution” means nothing. The Voters mean nothing. America means nothing. Democrats get their way or they burn America to the ground.
From Bill Clinton’s Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Land Schemes, Rape Accusations, Sexual Harassment… to Obama’s targeting conservatives with the IRS and allowing terrorists to sell drugs to American children… all the way to Hillary cheating Bernie and her Illegal E-mail Server and Cattle Future Trading. No liberal accountability for anything…. ever.
In over 30 years, not one single Democrat has stood up and shouted, “What the hell are we doing?” None… Not a single one has found any fault with the criminal actions of the Democratic Party, at any time.
The new rules the Democrats want to play by is - There are no rules!
And it started with Bork.
Episode 4 – 1988-1992 George H.W. Bush, How many judges can we “Bork”?
For eight consecutive years, 1986-94, Democrats controlled the Senate and the House. This time period encompassed George H.W. Bush’s entire term in office.
Bush Sr. had to contend with unheard of obstruction as Democrats continued the scorched earth war against Republican judicial nominees.
This is the confirmation rate of the previously elected Presidents –
JFK -99%, LBJ -96%, Nixon- 99%, Carter – 93%, Reagan – 94%.
But for George H.W. Bush – 78%
From 94% to 78% in a procedure that had largely been automatic up to that point. Once again, Democrats made history by breaking the precedents, traditions and rules that had allowed America to function.
As Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
In 1992, Joe Biden gave his now infamous ‘Biden Rule’ speech –
But Joe Biden didn’t just believe in not giving Bush’s Supreme Court nominees hearings.
He didn’t believe that ANY nominee from Bush deserved a hearing!
During the last year of Bush’s term, Biden denied hearings to 52 Bush judicial nominees.
Included in the list of 52 indisputably well qualified nominees was a man who would later be directly confirmed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Washington Post -
How Biden killed John Roberts’s nomination in 1992
According to Ballotpedia George Bush inherited 37 Federal Judicial Vacancies, four years later, when he left office; the number had increased to 111 Federal Judicial Vacancies. In just four years!!!
Nothing like this has ever happened before in America’s history.
The same liberals who today weep and bitterly gnash their teeth over Merrick Garland not receiving a hearing... had refused to give hearings to qualified Republican judicial candidates for four years!
Compare the number of confirmed judges for these single term Presidents -
The number of confirmed Judges under Bush Sr. is absolutely inexcusable.
When Democrats controlled the Senate, no Republican deserved a hearing and if Democrats were forced to have a hearing… It sure as hell wasn’t going to be a fair hearing. From almost a 100% automatic confirmation rate to 78% confirmation rate, Bush nominees were clearly held to a totally different and completely unfair standard.
Once again, Democrats made history by breaking the precedents, the traditions and the rules that allowed America to function.
As Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
Episode 5 – The Clinton Years
From 1992 thru 1994, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.
Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees were not put thru anything close to the experience Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas had been subjected to.
Even by today's standards, people would be horrified to learn the true beliefs of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.
Because there was no Fox News, Broadband Internet or Twitter, the Fake News Media was able to hide her dangerous and radical ideas from the public.
In fact, the Fake News Media is still trying to hide Ginsburg’s true beliefs, but her own words cannot be denied.
Excerpts from "The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law" - Ethics & Public Policy Center
However, Joe Biden was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and he made sure Ginsburg could hide her radical views from America. Biden established new rules for questioning nominees. Biden stipulated that she [Ginsburg] had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views on issues that might come before the court.
Biden warned senators not to ask questions about "how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her."
Consequently. Ginsburg simply refused to answer any question upon the grounds that the issue might come before the court.
She declared, "I'm not going to give an advisory opinion on any specific scenario because as clear as it may seem to you, I think I have to avoid responding to hypotheticals because they may prove not to be so hypothetical."
This is now known as ‘The Ginsburg Rule’, No hints, no forecasts, no previews.
The same Senate Democrats who had openly lied about Robert Bork, and then crucified him for giving honest answers to their loaded, dishonest questions, now made rules to hide what a dangerous, radical zealot Ruth Ginsburg was and then rewarded her for not answering questions.
Despite this, Republicans did not retaliate for the treatment of Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas.
Ruth Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3 in 1993 and Stephen Breyer was confirmed 87-9 in 1994.
Once again, Democrats made history by trashing the precedents, the traditions and the rules that allowed America to function.
But thanks to the Democrat's ‘Ginsburg Rule’ no Supreme Court nominee will ever honestly answer questions again.
Well done Democrats, that’s how to look out for America’s future.
As Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
In 1994, the Republicans reclaimed the House and Senate and held both Houses for the remaining six years of the Clinton Presidency.
At this point, Republicans mildly retaliated, but ‘mildly’ probably is too strong of a word.
Republicans even made the ultimate compromise.
It was called, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.
Republicans basically made Clinton the King of America.
The other Democrats went crazy. They weren’t going to have it.
Liberals immediately filed a flurry of lawsuits to stop the ultimate tool for cutting thru red tape and ending wasteful government spending.
The Masters of Obstruction, the Kings of Gridlock, saw it as an affront to their very existence. This law was the end of petty partisan politics as we know it.
The President would be able to control the budget, and thereby, in reality, control everything in America.
Ultimately, the Courts decided this much power cannot be responsibly wielded and struck down the law.
That a Republican Congress would give that much power to a Democrat, speaks volumes about how fairly Bill Clinton was treated.
The non-vindictive Republicans gave him virtually limitless authority over the government. No liberal can ever deny this fact.
This fair Republican treatment applied to Clinton’s judicial appointments as well.
According to the Federal Judicial Center - Federal Judicial Center
Bill Clinton successfully appointed the most Federal judges in history.
Ronald Reagan, who had 6 years of Republican control of the Senate confirmed 364 Federal judges.
Bill Clinton, with only 2 years of Democrat control of the Senate confirmed 372 Federal judges.
Reagan only had to contend with a hostile Senate for TWO YEARS. Whereas Clinton was opposed by a hostile Republican controlled Senate for SIX YEARS.
The fact that Clinton was able to confirm the most judges in America’s history proves how fairly his judicial nominees were treated by Republicans.
Especially, in light of the fact Clinton made no attempt to appoint the most qualified people to the bench. Instead he used ‘Affirmative Action’ to determine his nominees. A record 58 percent of Clinton’s judicial appointees were women or minorities.
http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/26-2/LAW.WEBSITE.pdf
Intelligence didn’t matter. Qualifications didn’t matter. Experience didn’t matter. The judicial appointments were just a publicity stunt to him.
Nevertheless, the confirmation rate of the less qualified liberal nominees rose from 78% under Bush Sr. to 85% under Clinton.
Judicial vacancies fell from 111 to 84 according to ballotpedia, but many sources say the number was actually much lower.
The number of court vacancies had significantly dropped and confirmation percentages had significantly risen due to liberal nominees receiving fair hearings when Republicans controlled the Senate.
But no good deed goes unpunished by Democrats.
Despite having been treated with unimaginable fairness by Republicans, this still wasn’t enough for Clinton. Before he left office he committed a number of childish acts that deeply offended even the members of his own party.
According to CBS News –
Clinton made 62 executive and judicial nominations in his last days. Mr. Clinton also gave Roger Gregory and more than 42 other nominees recess appointments after they weren't considered by the Senate.
The worst act of his childishness was probably the recess appointment of Roger Gregory to the U.S. Court of Appeals, (a lifetime tenured position). Even though he could only serve temporarily as a recess appointment, the smart members of Democratic Party had warned Clinton against doing this. They feared the consequences, because recess appointments are away of gaming the system, and they diminish the power of the Senate to advise and consent to the appointment of important positions.
People like (D) Robert Byrd knew that Presidents come and go, but the power of the Senate’s bargaining chips is what to protect. Regardless of whether you are in the majority or the minority. Today. that’s a lesson (D) Harry Reid probably wishes he had learned.
But Clinton didn’t care what mess he left behind for his own party, he left office with as much class as he entered with.
Once again, as Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
Episode 6 – A New Hope.
Or…
Where the Dictatorship starts.
The Bush Jr. Years were historic for many reasons. Bush took office after one of the most controversial elections in history. Initially, the Senate was split 50/50. Republicans were considered the majority party only by virtue of the Vice President’s tie breaking vote and Missouri having knowingly elected a dead Democrat as a Senator.
This lasted about six months until Democrats tricked Jim Jeffords into leaving the Republican Party. The liberals promised Jeffords they would fully fund portions of the 'Individuals with Disabilities Education Act' (IDEA). But later, the Democrats betrayed their sucker and produced a bill so bad that even Jeffords voted against it.
Thanks to Jeffords treachery, Democrats assumed the Senate majority for the next 18 months, until a special election for Missouri’s dead Senator gave control back to Republicans.
What soap opera can beat this?
This is was the circus Bush had to try and manage.
Despite this, Bush began his Presidency with a remarkable act of goodwill.
After officially withdrawing the absurd 62 executive and judicial nominations made by Clinton in his last days. May 9, 2001, in an historic move, Bush began to re-nominated some of Clinton’s failed judicial nominees, including the particularly the contentious recess appointment of African American, Roger Gregory to the Appellate Court.
The White House called the re-nomination of Gregory "unprecedented," saying it was the first time in at least 50 years that a president has resubmitted a nominee first proposed by a president of the opposing party.
Bush also re-nominated another African American, Clinton nominee to the Appellate Court, Barrington Parker.
Democrats responded by refusing to give Barrington Parker a vote.
Apparently, Democrats didn’t want the vice chairman of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, on the second most important level of courts in America.
You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
Later, Bush resubmitted Barrington Parker and other Clinton nominees such as Legrome D. Davis (African American) for the District Court on January 23, 2002, David S. Cercone for the District Court on March 21, 2002, Helen White for the Appellate Court.
Bush and the Republicans made history for all the right reasons.
While Democrats made history for all the wrong reasons.
Once again, as Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
The 2nd scorched earth war against Republican judges begins with all the typical Democrat tricks.
In the 18 months Democrats were in the Senate majority, they denied hearings, delayed votes and made requests to judicial nominees that could never be legally fulfilled.
To quote -
Democrats began calling for “litmus tests” — explicit demands that nominees state their views on everything from abortion to affirmative action to Congress’s unquestioned power to regulate anything and everything.
And then Democrats lost the House and the Senate in the 2002 mid-term elections.
Now powerless to stop Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, Harry Reid weaponized the filibuster. The filibuster went from a tool that was only used in an emergency to a weapon that was used or threatened to be used every day.
If a Republican said Tuesday followed Monday, Harry Reid threatened a filibuster. Keep in mind, the threat of a filibuster was as good as the use thereof. Once Reid had successfully filibustered things that no other politician in American history has ever filibustered before, no one doubted his ability to fulfill his threats.
Once again, Democrats made history by breaking the precedents, traditions and rules that had allowed America to function.
As Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
This is where the attempt to turn America into a Dictatorship truly begins.
In 2003, for the first time in America’s history Democrats successfully filibustered a nominee to the US Court of Appeals.
Miguel Estrada’s credentials were nothing short of amazing.
After arriving in the United States at 17, barely speaking English.
He graduated magna cum laude from Columbia.
He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
He was a law clerk to Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
By 40 years of age, he had won 10 of the 15 cases he had argued before the Supreme Court.
To filibuster a nominee to a Lower Court with these credentials was unheard of.
It was historic. It was unprecedented. It was a new low in politics that no one ever truly imagined was possible.
In the past, some politicians had made threats of taking this unthinkably short-sighted and self-destructive action. Some had even made symbolic attempts, but only when it was clear the attempt was doomed to fail. Even then, only for Supreme Court nominations, not Lower Courts.
But Democrats didn’t stop there. They successfully used the filibuster against 10 Bush Appellate Court nominees.
Once again, Democrats made history by trashing the precedents, the traditions and the rules that had allowed America to function.
As Sen. Tom Daschle said, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands…
It all started with one man, Miguel Estrada, but why him? What was so special about one man that the Democrats would change the course of American history in order to deny him a seat on the Appellate bench?
Details later emerged when communications between Democratic Leadership and Special Interest Groups became public. Estrada had been specifically targeted in 2001.
An aide to Dick Durbin told his boss that liberal activists in the meeting “identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”
"Especially dangerous, because ... he is Latino."
'Because ... he is Latino': The glorious history of the Democrats' filibuster fight
In 2003, the late Senator Ted Kennedy wrote, “The White House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can’t repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.”
Meaning Democrats can’t have their attempts to destroy good people with impeccable qualifications overcome by having the race card played against them in public as Thomas had done.
The minorities have to be destroyed in private, before a TV camera gets anywhere near.
During the two year confirmation struggle, Estrada’s wife miscarried; in November, 2004, she died, of an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills. The death was ruled accidental by the medical examiner.
Democrats had committed a political hate crime.
While the Fake News Media was all too happy to echo the Democrat lies as they proclaimed Estrada was an ‘extremist’ whose views were, ‘outside the mainstream’ at every opportunity.
In a tactic that will soon be re-used in upcoming Kavanaugh hearings…Democrats will request approximately 1 million documents from the nominee that he doesn’t possess, because they have nothing to do with his legal career…
Likewise, Democrats made document requests of Estrada that were either impossible to fulfill or because of his work for the government, would have been illegal to fulfill.
After the witch burning/minority lynching, Democrats ran to their allies in the Fake News Media and claimed Estrada was denied a fair hearing because he had ‘stonewalled’ their request for documents that were illegal to provide.
But the Democrats own words revealed the REAL REASON later...
Democrats ‘stole’ Estrada’s seat on the bench and caused the death of his wife and child for one reason only.
BECAUSE HE WAS A MINORITY.
A disgrace made even worse by the Democrat’s disgusting comments made after that fact.
CNN Reports –
But unapologetic Senate Democrats claimed victory and vowed to continue trying to block any Bush nominees who are, in the words of Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, "far beyond the mainstream."
Yeah…if “far beyond the mainstream” means being a minority.
A common theme emerges from the ‘extremist’ judges, whose views are so far ‘outside the mainstream’ that Democrats must keep them off the Bench, at all costs. See if you can guess what it is? These are the 50% of the 10 Judges that were successfully filibustered for the first time in history.
1. Miguel Estrada – Latino
2. Janice Rogers Brown - African American Female
3. Carolyn Kuhl - Female
4. Priscilla Owen - Female
5.Henry Saad – Arab American
If confirmed, Saad would be the first Arab American to sit on the 6th Circuit bench.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6017-2004Jul22.html
In addition to the normal lies about Republican nominees having “far beyond the mainstream” views, the Democrats attack Republican Minority Nominees with far more vigor and zeal than the white male nominees.
If you’re ringing your hands about the Kavanaugh confirmation or the next Supreme Court vacancy.
Republican’s have a nuclear weapon that they are holding back, just in case Democrats should ever take over the Senate under Trump.
Although Estrada is no fan of Trump. If Trump should nominate him - Democrats will face a nightmare beyond any comprehension in trying to deny him a seat on the bench.
Estrada would probably receive the fastest confirmation vote in history as Democrats want no part of having their despicable and racist behavior highlighted and played out in the media headlines for weeks.
At some point, you would think that Democrat hands couldn’t get any dirtier, but Democrats continually invent new ways to soil and stain our nation’s future.
By 2005, Senate Republicans has finally had enough. They were ready to do away with the filibuster. But a group of Rino’s and Dino’s got together and made a deal to save it. In retrospect, the deal was horrible for Republicans. The deal allowed Democrats to continue blocking exceptional talent from the bench.
For about 1½ years, most Republican Judicial nominees were treated fairly.
Unfortunately, in 2006, Democrats reclaimed the Senate and went right back to the delay, stall, block and deny hearings tactics they had been using.
In 2007, Democrat Judiciary Chairman Chuck Schumer claimed he would block ANY Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. (19 months before the next election)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee
A few quotes describing the Democrat actions under Bush –
George W. Bush suffered stiffer resistance and longer delays for his nominees than Obama. Bush’s nominees to the DC Circuit faced confirmations dragging on for 707 days on average, with one particular nomination (Brett Kavanaugh) dragging on past 1,000 days.
This was written in 2009 -
President Bush has seen fewer appellate nominees confirmed per term than any president in the past 30 years. We would not have thought it possible, but the rate of confirmation in the past two years crawled to a new low.
On May 9, 2001, Terrence Boyle was nominated by Bush to the Appellate Court. On January 9, 2007, the White House announced that Boyle would not be re-nominated. Boyle’s nomination is the longest federal appeals court nomination never given a full Senate vote in history.
This is important.
In the 28 years, from Regan to Bush to Clinton to Bush…there had been 20 years of Republican Presidents nominating Judges and only 8 years of a single Democrat. The courts should have been overwhelmingly Republican. The Appellate Courts should have been packed with perhaps as many as 140 Republican Judges.
But that didn’t happen.
28 years of lying, cheating, denying hearings and stealing seats had paid off for the Democrats.
Out of 179 Appellate Court judges, (the second most important court in America), there were only 100 that had been appointed by Republicans. (some of those were Clinton nominees which Bush had foolishly re-nominated.)
Some say, Fine!!! So What?!? That’s just smart politics on the part of the Democrats.
And that’s a fair assessment, no question about it.
But what happens when the same tactics Democrats used against Republicans are now used against Obama?
The Obama Years –
When Obama was elected in 2008, he came to Washington with control of 60 votes in the Senate and 60% of the House.
The Super Majorities in both Houses of Congress gave him a blank check to do anything he wanted.
Fortunately for Republicans, he was obsessed with Obamacare. He squandered most of the first two years on that one goal. For two years, not many judges were nominated and not many fights took place.
After all, how could Republicans fight anything? They weren’t even allowed to see what was in the Bills before the Bills were passed.
To quote Mitch McConnell about Obama’s first two years – “He and I didn’t have a private meeting until just before the August recess of last year (2010). His firm position is that the White House never had any interest in getting input from the minority, and marched off toward its liberal utopia”
It was mathematically impossible for Obama to have been obstructed in any way.
It was only Obama's laziness and incompetence that obstructed Obama.
The Ultra Liberal Washington Post –
President George W. Bush sent 95 names to the Senate in the same period that Obama has forwarded 23.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html?noredirect=on
The Ultra Liberal NY Times –
The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
Ratings Shrink President’s List for Judgeships
But things changed after the 2010 elections when Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate.
Republicans were now able to use the tools and weapons Harry Reid invented to obstruct Bush against Barack Obama.
Just as Former Senate Leader Tom Daschle said -
Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back. . . . I think there’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained away.
All the schemes and scams of the Democratic Party would now be paid back, with interest.
Although Republicans were still in the minority, they could use Harry Reid’s unprecedented and historic tactics against Obama.
Filibuster after filibuster, delay after delay. Eye for an eye.
Democrats went ballistic! HOW DARE REPUBLICANS TREAT US AS WE TREATED THEM!!!!
How unfair can they be! How un-American! WAAAHHH!!!!
And yet, despite this “Unfair and Historic Republican Obstruction”, somehow Obama managed to confirm 110 Federal Judges in his 3rd and 4th years.
As compared to 62, in his 1st and 2nd years, when Democrats had 60% Super-Majorities in both Houses of Congress.
The 2012 elections saw Democrats gain 2 Senate seats, the Liberal majority was now 55 seats for the 5th and 6th years of Obama’s time in office.
According to the Federal Judicial Center’s Database -
Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, 1789-present
As of Nov .21 2012 Obama had confirmed 159 Federal Judges.
As of Nov. 21 2013 Obama had confirmed 210 Federal Judges.
In one year’s time, Obama had confirmed 51 Federal judges.
If you multiplied that pace by eight years, Obama would have been the No.1 President in history. The 408 judge in eight year pace would be well ahead of Reagan’s 364 in eight years and Clinton’s 372 in eight years. (According to the FJC database)
CONFIRMING JUDGES AT AN HISTORIC RATE ? !$&^% THAT’S INSANE. HOW CAN REPUBLICANS BE SO UNFAIR TO POOR LITTLE OBAMA?
WE HAVE TO NUKE'EM************NUKE’EM ALL********
Consequently on Nov. 21 3013, Harry Reid employed the Nuclear Option.
To stop the “Unprecedented and Historic Republican Obstruction” that had allowed Obama judges to be confirmed at a historically FAST rate.
The tool Harry Reid was the first person in history to successfully use, he now destroyed. The filibuster for Judicial Nominees was gone.
As of Nov. 21 2014, One year after dropping the Nuclear Bomb on Republicans, Obama had confirmed 286 Federal Judges. But that wasn’t the real story.
The Nov. 2014 Elections had dealt a staggering blow the Democratic Party. Republicans picked up 9 Senate seats and became the Majority Party.
However, before Republicans could take control of the Senate in January 2015. In Harry Reid’s last despicable act as a Politian, he confirmed 27 additional Obama judges in a Lame Duck Congressional session.
Thus bringing the total of liberal judges seated since dropping the Nuclear Bomb on Republicans to 93 in less than 13 months.
NPR -
Obama got 27 judges confirmed during the lame-duck session alone. That's the most ever in lame-duck history, said Wheeler. It made for some grumpy Senate Republicans the last days of session.
2014 Yielded Bumper Crop Of Judicial Confirmations
Of all the despicable acts committed by Harry Reid which Democrats are now screaming WHY! HARRY, WHY!?!?! HOW COULD YOU BE THIS STUPID? HOW COULD YOU BE THIS IGNORANT?
Of all the vile, filthy, unhanded, two faced acts that Harry Reid will be remembered for, which will devastate the Democratic Party for at least one generation to come.
This obscure, tiny little act may be the most damaging of all.
POST ARMAGEDDON - Years seven and eight of Obama.
After you drop a Nuclear Bomb on someone, you lose the right to whine about anything they do in retaliation.
The actions of Mitch McConnell may not make much sense to many people. But few people truly comprehend what this man just accomplished. The actions he took between 2014 and 2016 will shape the future of America for the next generation.
Let me repeat a few things, because it is that important.
But if Obama and Reid had been successful, the balance of power in America would have tilted so far in favor of Liberals that Conservatives would have had to choose between being a permanently irrelevant and powerless underclass in America or fighting another Civil War.
In 2008 -
In the 28 years, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush…there had been 20 years of Republican Presidents nominating Judges… 28 years of lying, cheating, denying hearings and stealing seats had paid off for the Democrats.
On the second most important level of Courts in America, out of 179 Appellate Court Judges, only 100 had been appointed by Republicans.
By 2014, JUST SIX YEARS LATER, this is how much things had changed -
There are 13 Appeals Courts.
In 2008, Democrat appointees made up the majority of members in 1 of 13 Appellate Courts.
In 2014, Democrat appointees made up the majority of members in 9 of 13 Appellate Courts.
Huffinton Post -
Obama will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.
Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.
The entire Judicial Branch of the United States Government had been high jacked.
Today we don’t just have one 9th Circuit issuing insane verdicts, we have nine of them.
These incorrect decisions are being overturned by the Supreme Court in such volume that liberals are beginning to accuse Kagan and Breyer of turning conservative.
But this probably would not be the case if liberals were in the majority.
By confirming a 5th liberal to the Supreme Court, Clinton would have cemented a 'Liberal Dynasty' that would have ruled America from the courts for the next 40 years, if not forever.
Although Bill Clinton, while armed with the Line Item Veto arguably wielded the most power of any President. When you also factor in his status of being placed ‘Above the Law’ after not being removed from office for committing Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. You could make a fair case for him being America’s first dictator.
But Bill Clinton’s impact on the future of government in America was negligible.
Hillary Clinton’s impact could have resulted in a permanent liberal government.
She would have cemented a 'Liberal Dynasty' that would have ruled America from the courts for the next 40 years, if not forever.
The new form of American government liberals have created is just beginning to flex its muscles.
Instead of having a single 9th Circuit, we now have NINE!
If Hillary had been able to back this up with a 5th Liberal Justice…
Freedom of Religion - Gone.
Freedom of Speech - Gone.
The Right to Bear Arms - Gone.
Trump and McConnell stopped it all.
America was saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment