Ted Cruz for U.S. Supreme Court

Blaska’s Bring It! Blog is pure energy straight from the Big Bang. (That’s my theory, anyway.)

I am not suggesting a corrupt bargain, circa 1824. Well, maybe a little.

But just say Marc O’Rubio drops a hint that his nominee to replace the late Justice Scalia would be someone whose legal chops are indisputable. A graduate of some of the best schools, say, Princeton and Harvard Law. Someone who worked cases in the U.S. Department of Justice. A state attorney general, or its equivalent. Maybe faculty from a big law school. Perhaps elected to high public office, like the U.S. Senate. Preferably, serving on its Judiciary Committee. A social and political conservative like Scalia. Must be someone still in his 40s to ensure a long tenure. Ethnic? Only helps. Would someone who checked all of those boxes be a winner?

Does that sound like Ted Cruz? What a co-inky-dink! Lays claim to some of the anti-establishment vote and gets Ted Cruz out of Mitch McConnell’s hair. A two-fer.

Our liberal-progressive-socialist acquaintances will remonstrate that Obama must name a successor to the late Justice Scalia soon. So he shall. The Constitution specifies he will do so with “the advice and consent” of the Senate. Obama will not ask the Senate’s advice and that body will not consent to any nominee Obama is likely to propose.

With Ike in the White House, while Nixon vied with JFK to succeed him, the Democrat-controlled Senate in August 1960 passed Senate Resolution 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” (H/T: the Volokh Conspiracy, Feb. 13, 2016)

In July 2007, Democratic leader Senator Chuck Schumer said that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated. — Washington Examiner

Remember when “The People” demonstrated against Act 10 in the Occupation of the Capitol in 2011? Turns out they were only some of the people, a minority, judging by the subsequent recall and regular elections.

“If anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts. The liberal left will be as loud as they ever have been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left.” — Congressional Memo, New York Times, Feb. 14, 2016 (H/T Anne of Althouse.)

Robert Bork, anybody?

(Continued)

 

The Reagan of the judiciary

Antonin Scalia was the Reagan of the judiciary. A clear legal mind and an expressive writer. I have memorized parts of his radiant concurrence in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission 2010:

The [minority court] dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons.

Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.”

The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals …

A bonus Scalia gem:

To pursue the concept of racial entitlement — even for the most admirable and benign of purposes — is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American. — Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 1995.

Resolved: that all federal forms, statutes, and rules must henceforth delete references to race. 

Pilloried and Hillaried by identity politics

Which brings us to that dumpster fire, the Democratic presidential election. That contest between a Venezuelan-type socialist and an FBI Person of Interest.

The once Inevitable One is being skewered by her own identity politics. Madeline Albright’s “special place in hell” for women who don’t vote Hillary is the ultimate in identity politics. But that is Hillary’s message: I am woman. I am victim. Hear me guilt-trip you. This is the lifeblood of Democratic politics: black, LGBT, women (52% of the population), students (mired in debt from taxpayer-subsidized colleges), workers — everyone except those Oregon ranchers.

“It’s a victim mindset that is exhausting,” sighs Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.

When it was politically beneficial, the feminists went after [Clarence] Thomas for bad behavior and painted [Anita] Hill as a victim. Later, when it was politically beneficial, they defended Bill [Clinton’s] bad behavior and stayed mute as Clinton allies mauled his dalliances as trailer trash and stalkers.

Tuesday is primary day in Wisconsin. Get out and vote.

Bernie’s slogan: Make America Greece Again.

Click here to sign up for the free IB ezine – your twice-weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices, and the names you need to know. If you are not already a subscriber to In Business magazine, be sure to sign up for our monthly print edition here.

Comments

comments