OBAMA “PISTOL WHIPPED” BY THE SUPREME COURT

Obama’s executive order allowing 4 million criminals to stay in the United States was found to be illegal. The court, on a 4 to 4 vote, left in place  the previous court decision which ruled that the parents who came here illegally (anchor baby parents) are persona non grata. In other words they are illegal, gaining entry into the United States by a criminal act.

As of 2015, about 533,000 undocumented immigrants in Texas — roughly 40 percent of the state’s undocumented-immigrant population — had children legally in the country,according to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute. About 1.17 million undocumented immigrants living in Texas have been in the country for at least five years, including about 222,000 who have lived here for more than 20 years.

Texas and 16 other states initially sued the Obama administration in early December 2014 after the executive action was announced; eight more eventually signed on. Hanen’s decision was upheld twice by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

CLICK HERE  for more details.

 

NO WAY JOSE – EAT YOUR WORDS DEMOCRATS

The Republican lap dogs are once again putting the dagger into the American people. Mind you that the People’s House is controlled by the Elephant party. The Elephant in the Room: Republican National Convention Open Forum 8 ...The appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice must wait until after a new President is sworn into office.  Time for the American people to decide.  We warn McConnell in no uncertain terms that No hearings, No vote is to take place. Look at the decisions during the past four years, the liberals never broke rank. Questions arise why; and the answer is that their agenda is to not follow the Constitution. Breyer, speaking at Yale last week, said “I’ve seen change, The change, I think one of the changes and perhaps the most remarkable change, is the change in the number of cases that require a judge to know something beyond our shores in order to make a sensible decision on the case.”  Pardon us, making a decision on the laws, behaviors and attitudes of foreigners. How did he ever pass the nomination process? Give us a break.

The Democrats are clamoring for a vote, hollering, screaming, spitting, doing anything they can to denigrate the Republicans. These blowhards think that by doing this the Republicans will suffer a backlash in November. The Democrats will call the Republicans obstructionists. Let us set the record straight. Obama and his cadre of criminals are on record, including Biden and Chuck Schumer, to filibuster previous Supreme Court nominees.

President Obama, who is demanding that Republicans vote on his nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “regrets” his 2006 filibuster of a conservative nominee to the court, his spokesman said Wednesday.

To set the record straight read below to see the outing of the Democrat liars.

The media have taken to acting as if this move is unprecedented, and that a senator has never publicly stated he would intentionally block a presidential nomination. Not true. Not only have there been several lengthy Supreme Court vacancies, but there are plenty of past instances when senators refused to confirm a president’s nominations.

Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.

“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”

3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”

The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.

4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.

5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:

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.

6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.

“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.

7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”

“At this time of global turmoil, we don’t need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women’s fundamental rights,” she said.

THE SUPREME COURT FIGHT TO THE FINISH

Two venerable foes enter the Octagon, the Senate and the Anointed One,  the crowd cheering from the peanut gallery, not a person sitting in their seat; clamoring, cheering,  shouting, fists in the air for their man. In the Red Corner is Mitch McConnell, in the Blue Corner is Barack Hussein Obama. The Judges are the audience, the American people; this will be a blood match, Winner take all.

Does McConnell have any swagger in his clinging/clanging bones or will he lie down waiting for the Barack steamroller to flatten him like a wabbit? Soon the outcome will be known.

A DAY OF SORROW – SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA DEAD AT 79

Supreme Court Justice Scalia dead at 79

Think what Obama accomplished with Executive Orders, then think of what he could do with the Supreme Court in his pocket.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the judicial standard-bearer of the conservative movement and the court’s most provocative member, died Saturday. He was 79.

‎His death means President Obama could have an unprecedented chance to try to shift the balance of the court during his final year in office — setting up a Senate battle in the heat of an election year.

Obama said he planned “to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time.”

The U.S. Marshals Service in Washington confirmed Scalia’s death at a private residence in the Big Bend area of south Texas.

The more defining question is “what will happen next.” We now will see what the Senate does. Do they have a backbone or are they a an Obama Rubber Stamp. This fight is going down to the finish. There is no way in hell that the Republicans should take up a vote to fill Scalia’s spot on the court. We are talking war here. Just check the Venezuelan situation by clicking here. Then America will understand the consequences of a Senate vote.gadsdenflag

FROM THE THRILL OF VICTORY TO THE AGONY OF DEFEAT

We are not talking about the devastating loss suffered by the Seattle Seahawks, but the Supreme Court decision legalizing Obamacare. Questions arise about the kingpin who cemented the victory.  Supreme Court justice John Roberts, always smirking, was vilified by the Right for unleashing a socialist scheme on America. But questions remain;  did Roberts know in advance that the Affordable Care Act would be so distasteful to so many Americans that the public would rise up from the ashes and hand Congress over to the Republicans. In hindsight did he do America a favor?

Many conservatives including the New Boston Tea Party were gleeful when the decision came down, for we realized that this was going to be a future albatross around the anointed one’s neck. And it came to pass, the Democrats lost control of Congress. If the ACA was shot down by the court there was the probability that Congress would have remained split. So now we are waging a much bigger war, one that pits Obama and his un-Constitutional edicts against Congress. repeal and Replace is now the Republican message.

However, Obama is facing a much larger problem,  (click)State Attorney’s General have entered the fray; law suits questioning Obama’s carte blanche deferral of allowing illegals to stay here are set for the Supreme Court stage.  And again Roberts will be front and center. Don’t forget Roberts dislikes Obama to such a degree that he weighed in on Obama’s 2010 State of the Union speech. (Very important talkback- click here)Samuel Alito was so taken back by Obama’s lack of decorum that he shook his head in disbelief during the 2010 State of the Union speech. What to expect next is?

Speculation would indicate that Obama’s over reach will be decided by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional which obviously sets up a confrontation with the White House and a possible Constitutional crisis.  We anxiously wait the outcome of this once in a lifetime duel between the two most savvy government branches.  Good luck on this one Mr. President.

OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY TO DO BATTLE AT THE SUPREME COURT

Obama the Robbin Hood President.  Stealing from the middle class then transferring their wealth to the enabled parasite.

America has paid a terrible price for the horrendous mistake made in 2008 and again in 2012. During his eight year term (two to go) Obama has irreparably harmed the United States. One look at the map after the 2014 election will validate this conclusion.

The United States is divided more now than it was fifty years ago. The fault lies with Obama and Holder, two of America’s race baiting duo.  Add in a cadre of Czars and one can see the destructive nature of his administration. Both believe that a Dred Scott environment still exists, that Blacks and Hispanics are second hand citizens. We weigh in that Spain was guilty of murdering millions of Latinos as they colonized the Americas. Why are they then given preferential status?

To rectify their naive and biased way of thinking the two anti-American usurpers want immediate retribution. Obama trashed Zimmerman in the stand your ground affair and then doubled up on the Garner death. And don’t forget Holder is still fuming over the Supreme Court decision regarding North Carolina’s newly enacted voter registration law.  Holder lives in the wrong century still believing that a poll tax still exists.

The North Carolina case, unlike those in Ohio and Wisconsin, is tied to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that struck down the formula used by Congress to decide which states must pre-clear all changes in voting procedures with the federal government. That ruling allowed the Tar Heel State and others, mostly in the South, to act without federal approval.

Back to Obama’s violating the Constitution by allowing millions of illegals to stay in this country by a policy of deferred action. Such policy has never existed on a global scale.  The new Congress set to meet this week will have to address the Obama’s illegal action. We expect this fight to be adjudicated by the Surpeme Court. When they decide that Obama has exceeded his power under the Constitution there will be no excuse to not deport the millions of illegals, specifically those who ran rampant over our borders, invading our country from Central American countries.