No, Neil Gorsuch Did Not 'Side' With Liberal Justices In Supreme Court Immigration Case

I know that conservatives everywhere are afraid of Gorsuch becoming another turncoat like David Souter, but really, with such a long history on his resume of being a stalwart con, one should be wary of buying into Fake News so quickly.

RELATED: Gorsuch Did Not Side With ‘The Liberals,’ He Sided With Antonin Scalia

WSJ: GOP Has ‘No Obligation’ To Entertain Democratic Demands On Judicial Nominations

Townhall.com:

With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans were quick to declare that they would not confirm any Supreme Court nominee, as it should be the responsibility of the next president. Senate Democrats, of course, cried foul–until their dirty laundry was aired. Sen. Harry Red (D-NV) noted how difficult the political climate was for judicial nominees to be confirmed during an election year in 2008. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) even went so far as to say that the Senate should block any future Bush nominations to the Supreme Court in 2007. Even then-Sen. Barack Obama was part of the failed push to filibuster Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which the White House says he now regrets.

Sen. Reid even penned an op-ed in the Washington Post about how this would be unprecedented obstructionism etc. etc., which no one should take seriously since Reid is out in January of 2017. He can literally say whatever he wants without any repercussions or consequences. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal editorial board compiled a “greatest hits” list from Senate Democrats on judicial nominations, which prominently feature Reid:

After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority. 

This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. Obama was cheering him on all the way.

Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”

It’s impossible to know what Mr. Reid really believes, because whatever he claims to believe at any moment is whatever will maximize his own political power.

The Journal also noted the egregious ethnically -based 28-month long filibuster of Miguel Estrada, a Bush appointee, who Democrats feared would be a prime Supreme Court nominee if he were confirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Estrada would later withdraw his name from consideration. The GOP should hold the line, but as mentioned before, what happens when it looks as if Hillary is going to win the election, with a Democratic Senate, who could then fill that vacancy with a hard core liberal. It would complete the liberal America’s task of waiting for a time when they could yank the Court to the left. What’s the secondary protocol? Moreover, would GOP Senators go for hearing and possibly confirming a centrist Obama nominee, in which they would face the wrath of the party base? Then again, who knows what parade of horribles come from the legal Pandora’ box a Clinton nominee would most likely open. 

RELATED:  The remaining Supreme Court justices are dealing with Antonin Scalia’s death in surprising and dramatic ways.

Barack Obama Won’t Attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s Funeral

HotAir.com:

Unless the Scalia family asked him not to attend for some reason, which I’d guess is unlikely, what’s a good excuse to miss it? Biden will be there, as will various Supreme Court justices past and present, so security will be tight regardless. Says Chris Hayes, “Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should go to the funeral, you should go to the funeral.'”

Obama will pay his respects on Friday at the Supreme Court building, where Scalia will lie in repose.

When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that “the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he’ll be joined with the first lady when he does that.”

When asked whether Obama’s Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia’s life and service…

Four out of the past seven funerals for a Supreme Court justice has either had the president or vice president in attendance.

Former President George W. Bush attended the funeral for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

He’s not going to golf while the rest of D.C. is saying farewell to Scalia. Right?
 
As noted in the excerpt, including the upcoming service on Saturday, the president or VP will have attended only four of the last seven funerals for a justice. What’s not noted, though, is that six of those seven had already retired to private life when they died. Of the previous six — Rehnquist, Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell — only Rehnquist was a sitting justice when he passed, and Dubya made a point of attending his funeral. Scalia, of course, was also a sitting justice, but Obama won’t be there. How come? If he doesn’t respect the man, he could and should respect the office.

Wonder what the odds are on whether or not Barry would've attended...say Ruth Ginsburg's funeral, if she had passed away instead of Scalia? Again, who said this guy wasn't divisive?

RELATED:  Lesbian Nominated to Head Puerto Rico Supreme Court

Barack Obama Won't Use Recess Appointment To Nominate Supreme Court Justice

NPR.org:

The White House says the president will not move to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia while the Senate is in recess this week. 

In an interview with ABC News, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would would wait to announce his nominee until Congress returns from its break later this month. In an email to NPR, Schultz said the White House had ruled out a recess appointment "this week." 

"At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution," Schultz told ABC.

Of course, it's more complicated than that. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Saturday that the vacancy "should not be filled until we have a new president." That means an Obama nominee could languish until a new president takes over in January.

With that prospect, pundits began considering the possibility of Obama bypassing the Senate and appointing a justice temporarily when Congress was out of town.

I'm pretty certain that the most divisive President in history would love to appoint another far-Left justice to carry on his Godless agenda and do his bidding. But Barry's team knows damn well that that could turn around and bite him in the ass....so it's all about strategy now.

RELATED: President Trump would make liberals regret Obama's executive overreach

Mitch McConnell: Senate Will Not Vote On Scalia Replacement “Until We Have a New President”

Lifenews.com:

In excellent news for the pro-life movement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said tonight that the Senate will not take up a vote on a replacement for deceased pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the presidential election.

Such a promise prevents pro-abortion President Barack Obama from selecting a third pro-abortion Supreme Court justice to follow Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, both of whom are thoroughly committed to unlimited abortions and upholding Roe v. Wade. As the Washington Examiner reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday said the Senate would not hold a vote on any President Obama replacement for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but instead would wait until a new president takes office — setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown in Washington.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said in a statement.

Democrats will undoubtedly push for the nomination and a confirmation vote for a new left-wing judge.

“The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Twitter. “The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.”

No way you can let the most divisive and polarizing President in history pick another Supreme Court justice without putting up a serious fight. No way.

RELATED:  On the Vacancy Question, Learn from Justice Scalia

ATDH: In The News 2/14/16

Will GOP candidates Take the Stop Fed Ed Pledge?

Disney Lawsuit Reveals an H-1B Visa System that Heavily Favors Outsourcing Companies

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Hold Wide Leads in South Carolina

If Republicans Block Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination, He Wins Anyway

Schumer Slams Obama Budget Cuts to Anti-Terror Funds

Major Cases Heard by or Scheduled for the Supreme Court

Chris Wallace Confronts Bernie Sanders on Wall Street, Health Care in Big FNS Interview

Trump: George W. Bush Didn’t Keep us Safe on 9/11, Lied Over WMDs in Lead Up to Iraq War

Obama Has 8 Days To Make A Recess Appointment To Supreme Court For Rest of the Year

Conservative of the Week: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Age: 79

Claim to Fame: stalwart of constitutionalism on the Supreme Court for 30 years, passed away in his sleep during a hunting trip in Texas, this past Friday.

Why He's the Conservative of the Week: a strict constitutionalist, a legal genius, a man who wasn't afraid to speak his mind even when he wasn't in the majority of decisions and best of all, a Supreme Court justice who pissed off a lot of liberals with his scathing dissents, there was no more principled man than Antonin Scalia.

The first Italian-American Supreme Court justice, Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, winning confirmation by a 98-0 vote. Immediately, the Jersey-born and New York-bred Scalia would prove to be an aggressive questioner from the bench who relished pointing out what he saw as the logical fallacies of arguments made by attorneys. Known for his wit, brashness and sarcasm, Scalia readily advocated an “originalist” constitutional interpretation that hewed to the words of the document and the meaning they had at the time of adoption. He disdained the concept of a “living Constitution” whose meaning could change as society evolved and different justices took the bench.

Scalia called the 2015 decision that legalized gay marriage a “threat to American democracy,” said a 1992 abortion-rights opinion “cannot be taken seriously,” and predicted a 2008 ruling favoring Guantanamo Bay inmates “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
In 2002, Scalia blasted a decision that invoked the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment to bar executions of mentally disabled killers. “Seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members,” Scalia said in his dissent. Scalia was a heavy influence on Justice Clarance Thomas and often sparred with Justice Ruth Ginsburg, his polar opposite on the bench.

The leading conservative on the Court, Scalia leaves behind a wife, nine children and a legacy for mainstreaming of conservative ideas about ­jurisprudence—in particular the principles of originalism ­(interpreting the Constitution as the framers intended it rather than as an evolving document) and textualism (that statutes must be ­interpreted based on their words alone).