Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Mike Lee for SCOTUS?

Mike Lee for SCOTUS?

Crazier things have happened

While the Merrick Garland nomination is stalled in the Senate, conservative think tanks are busy at work on a 2017 SCOTUS nominee contingency plan. Their man? Senator Mike Lee.

While campaigning in Utah last month, Senator Cruz floated the idea of Lee for SCOTUS, saying, “he would look good there.” No word yet on whether Trump would nominate Lee for SCOTUS though.

Sen. Lee would be the absolutely best case scenario for strict constructionists, constitutionalist, conservatives, and libertarians alike.

Not only did Lee made Heritage’s SCOTUS wish list, he has a great reputation with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

James Hohmann of The Washington Post dug into the Mike Lee for SCOTUS campaign:

1. He has the right pedigree: Six years ago, fueled by tea party anger, he toppled Sen. Bob Bennett at a GOP state convention. His father, Rex Lee, was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. After graduating from Brigham Young University Law School, the senator clerked for Samuel A. Alito Jr. when he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and then again after Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court. Lee was an assistant U.S. attorney in Salt Lake City and general counsel for then-Gov. Jon Huntsman before running for office himself.

2. He’s incredibly young: Lee is just 44. That means he could squeeze four or more decades out of a lifetime appointment.

3. He is dependably conservative. Grass-roots leaders are adamant that future GOP nominees have a long paper trail to avoid confirming stealth moderates. They still feel burned by David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens.

Lee would be a SCOTUS appointment dream come true, but first Republicans have to win the White House. It would also be helpful if they didn’t kill down ballot races that would have a bearing on confirmation. And then they still have to kill the Garland nomination once and for all.

But a girl can dream, right?

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Only people who know and understand the Constitution should be on the court. The court isn’t a place for creating law, advocating for unconstitutional programs or promoting political activism. It isn’t about being a “wise” (insert your special snowflake status here). Those, who are on the court who don’t conform to these standards, should be removed.

conservative tarheel | April 7, 2016 at 2:44 pm

hey … works for me …
I would love to see
Cruz and Lee in the Supreme Court …

You forgot Roberts as a stealth candidate. Though indications are that in his case it is not politics but blackmail.

Can Lee be blackmailed?

    RodFC in reply to RodFC. | April 7, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    In debates Trump has already suggested Bill Pryor or Diane Sykes. The campaign is suggesting he will come out with a short list soom.

    I think Sykes first, because a woman would help shore up his “women problem”. Plus after Wisconsin, I think it would give him great pleasure to nominate the ex of a radio show there.

After two terms as POTUS, Cruz could join Lee on the Supremes!

Good all around…!!!

Subotai Bahadur | April 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm

I think that as an exercise in contingency plans it makes sense.

However, 1) we do not know that the Republican Senate will not confirm Garland before the election. They don’t do that messy opposition to the Democrats thing. The main reason that they have not confirmed Garland up to now is because it would cause a massive Republican disaster in any putative November election. However, the GOPe seems to want a loss in November, so that may not remain a factor. If they drop in their candidate of choice over those selected by the primary voters, they may figure they have nothing more to lose anyway and give in on Garland.

2) There is the period between the election and the inauguration [Nov. – Jan.]. Just as the Republicans deliberately passed the Criminal Omnibus spending bill in December 2014 giving Obama more than he asked for, and did it deliberately before they took over the Senate; the GOPe can be assumed to be willing to submit to Obama the moment that the threat of immediate electoral retaliation is gone. They assume that everyone will forget by any putative 2018 election.

They will be wrong.

Sarah Barracuda has blood in her eye… Fights back against Cruz’s tactics against voters themselves:

Furious Sarah Palin unloads on former pal Ted Cruz as a ‘half-term’ US senator with no achievements

Tom Boggioni
11 Mar 2016 at 13:58 ET

Sarah Palin, who has been credited with helping launch Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s national career by endorsing him in 2012 has had a change of heart since throwing her presidential endorsement to New York billionaire Donald Trump.

Writing on Facebook, the former half-term governor of Alaska took a slap at Cruz — who is shaping up to be Trump’s last standing rival for the nomination — by calling Cruz a “half-term” U.S. senator lacking in any semblance of legislative “success” since he traveled to Washington D.C.

In the course of her diatribe, she also described Cruz as a career politician while knocking him for calling Trump’s fans “low-information voters.”

“Calling GOP front-runner supporters ‘low information’ disengaged voters, Ted Cruz’s insinuation reeks of all the reasons America knows ‘the status quo has got to go,’” she wrote. “The arrogance of career politicians is something at which the rest of us chuckle, but Cruz’s latest dig strays from humorous into downright nasty.”

“Where’s information on any Cruz success whilst in his short, half-term U.S. Senate seat, proving his resume’s advantage over another career politicians’s lawyerly executive inexperience that includes never having created a single private sector job,” she continued before equating Cruz with President Barack Obama by adding, ” but boasting of his constitutional law teacher creds? (Remember America experimented with that resume before; how’d that work out for the country?)”

Palin also took a dig at former nominee Carly Fiorina for flip-flopping on Cruz when she bestowed her endorsement on the Texas senator this week.

“Info on consistency with his big endorsement this week, as Carly tells it like it is so very recently? ” Palin wrote, adding this quote from Fiorina: “Ted Cruz is just like any other politician. He says one thing in Manhattan, he says another thing in Iowa. He says whatever he needs to say to get elected, and then he’s going to do as he pleases. I think people are tired of a political class that promises much and delivers much of the same.”

citation: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/furious-sarah-palin-unloads-on-former-pal-ted-cruz-as-a-half-term-us-senator-with-no-achievements/

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 7, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Just the predictable T-rump sucker’s thread-jack attempt.

    The thread is about Mike Lee as a SOCTUS nominee.

    It isn’t about Mr. Establishment, Sarah Sell-out, or the crazy cat lady’s twit.

    Pooor old daft LYING thing that she is.

      The Cruzstapo is on the job.

      Well done, Herr Rags.

      Your inner Nazi is in full bloom.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

      How interesting…

      Stating the obvious truth is now subject to Godwin’s Law, and gets you called “nazi”.

      The brave new world of T-rump culture, without the slightest self-awareness or reflection on “1984”.

      It won’t work on me, of course. I’ll just stick it back in your eye.

      Heh…!!!

        Your behavior is the truth, Herr Rags.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 7, 2016 at 6:20 pm

          Telling the truth is the truth.

          I can live with that…

          Milwaukee in reply to VotingFemale. | April 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm

          Rags, you probably understand things about truth. Such as truth is objective and verifiable.

          You probably understand that God, the Creator of the Universe, is truth and beauty and love.

          Rags, I’m sure you understand that defaming a man’s character is contrary to truth, while stating verifiable facts about a man’s character, is reciting facts, and not lying.

          Unfortunately, too many this day and age want to talk about “My truth”. You have your feelings, you don’t have your truth. It might be true that some comment was offensive to you, it doesn’t mean that the speaker meant to offend.

          I do believe that Ragspierre consistently makes comments which lead me to trust his judgement, or his sanity, or his understanding of truth. Rock on Rags, rock on.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 7, 2016 at 11:57 pm

          Thank you, my friend. I don’t know any other way, by long habit and a commitment to integrity.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to VotingFemale. | April 7, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Please stop shouting.

Come convention time, Trump will be prepared to do battle with the GOPe’s Cruzstapo Jackbooted Goons:

Twitter Feed:

Voting Female
@VotingFemale

Team Trump Prepares To Take On the GOPe Goon Squad

dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/tru…

#NYprimary

#nra #maga #tcot #pjnet pic.twitter.com/FcUxBQyrvs

“Not only did Lee made Heritage’s SCOTUS wish list, he has a great reputation with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.”

He has a great reputation with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle- right up until the moment he’s nominated. Or have we all forgotten the battle for the highly regarded on both sides of the aisle John Ashcroft to be confirmed as Attorney General? A whopping 8 of 50 democrats crossed over to vote for a man with a great reputation with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

NC Mountain Girl | April 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

At least Senator Lee isn’t from either Harvard or Yale, he hasn’t taught in any law school and he isn’t already a federal judge.

The current court may be the least diverse in history in terms of education and prior legal experience, which may explain why it seems to be increasingly elitist. Consider this:

All eight Justices attended either Harvard or Yale, though Ginsburg transferred to Colombia for her final year.

Five of the eight had federal judicial clerkships following graduation- three with Supreme Court Justices.

Five of the eight have held political appointments in the Federal government, often rotated with time at a DC based law firm when their party was out of power.

Four of the eight were law professors,

All eight were a federal appellate judge before their nomination to the Supreme Court. Four served on the same circuit- the DC Circuit

Only three have five years or more experience in private practice.

Three Justices have never practiced in the private sector, period.

Only three have significant experience in state court.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | April 7, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    “The current court may be the least diverse in history in terms of education and prior legal experience, which may explain why it seems to be increasingly elitist.”

    Very true, but due to today’s priorities, all the right boxes are ticked: Both “genders” are accounted for, and there is some “diversity” in religion. That they were all extruded from the same universities doesn’t matter bit no sirree. /s

Morning Sunshine | April 7, 2016 at 4:52 pm

I like Mike Lee. I was instrumental to getting Bob Bennett out and Lee in. Besides, Lee called my 12-yo son when he (Lee) found out my son was terribly disappointed that he was not at the “meet Sen Lee” mtg that turned out to be with his office staff. It was so cool that Lee would call a 12-yo boy that missed out on meeting his hero.
That being said – I think Lee is doing a great job in the Senate. I hate this idea that we have to take the good senators out to give them other things. I think we should keep Cruz, Lee, Paul in the Senate where they can be a rock solid conservative pillar in that cess-pool. Now, it looks like Cruz is the best bet for pres, Let’s keep Lee in the senate a while longer. He promised us only 2 terms in the senate (but then, so did Hatch).

I have to view all the traditional so called conservative think tanks and publications with quite a bit of skepticism these days.

Wasn’t Heritage the think tank that recommened obamacare style health reform and a personal mandate to buy insurance as a “conservative” idea ??

Between that and how all these eggheads are too stupid to support any new ways of thinking ala Trump, it is difficult to trust their judgment as sound and certainly not determinative on any important political choice.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 7, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    No, you stinking, lying SOS. What you apparently “have” to do is ATTEMPT to trash ANY conservative, conservative organization, or anyone else who is not a full-tilt T-rump sucking myrmidon.

    You haven’t a conservative notion in your Collectivist, crap-packed skull, as you’ve been forced to admit time and again.

    At the same time, you’ve ALSO been outed as a DECLARED Hellary voter if your little yellow god is not anointed the GOP nominee.

Twitter Feed:


Rudy Giuliani has officially endorsed @realDonaldTrump

#NYprimary #CTprimary

#copolitics #nra #maga #tcot #pjnet

Retweet:

POLITICO New York
@politicony

Rudy Giuliani has officially endorsed @realDonaldTrump in the 2016 presidential race

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/04/8596040/report-rudy-giuliani-endorses-trump

http://pic.twitter.com/firpLI3246

12:37pm · 7 Apr 2016 · TweetDeck

15 Retweets 8 Likes

Jeffrey Tobin pegs Cruz’s New York Values comments as old time anti semitic code words used by anti jewish bigots and racists.

“[I] think the New York values thing is a big problem,” Toobin said. “Let’s be honest – remember what Ted Cruz said. He said New York values are about money and they’re about the media. That’s an anti-Semitic trope from a hundred years. It’s been around for a very long time. Everyone in New York, everyone in the whole country understands what he was saying. And that’s a big problem once you get to New York, not just among Jewish voters, but among people who don’t appreciate those kinds of stereotypes. Trump is going to hammer away on it. And Cruz can try to explain it away, but you can’t explain what you said when its meaning is obvious.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/07/cnns-toobin-cruzs-new-york-values-comments-an-anti-semitic-trope-from-a-hundred-years/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/07/gop-rep-peter-king-any-new-yorker-who-votes-for-phony-cruz-needs-their-head-examined/

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 7, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Ah, the Collectivist LOVES them air Collectivists.

    ANY old source of puure bullshit for the Bierhall Bullyboi Bigot, Gari Butt Boi Britt.

    As constant as the Northern Star. If a star was made of dog feces.

      Don’t blame me for Cruz hanging out with racist pastors in Iowa.

      Cruz was introduced at a rally in Iowa by a Pastor who told the assembled Cruz supporters that gays should be killed. Who immediately thereafterbintroduced Cruz who said nothing. The Pastor never said whether he wanted to throw them head first off of tall buildings like ISIS does so I guess not quite as bad as ISIS.

      So given that, it should not be a surprise that Cruz would use anti semitic racist dog whistle code words like New York Values to these same racist Iowa evangelicals.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm

        Only dogs hear dog whistles, you moronic pooch.

        Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 4:11 am

        You are a great big liar. There’s not a word of truth in that comment.

        Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 4:23 am

        I know Britt the liar couldn’t care less, but in case anyone else is wondering:
        1) In the speech Britt is talking about, Swanson did not advocate killing gays. To the best of my knowledge he has never done so, but I have not familiarised myself with the fellow’s oeuvre so I can’t guarantee it; I do know he didn’t do it on that occasion.
        2) He did not introduce Cruz “immediately thereafter” that speech, or even the same day. There was no reason for Cruz to comment on it, or even to be aware of it. (Nor was there anything in it that Cruz should have commented on, had he been aware of it.)

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 12:04 am

    Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. Chief Justice John Marshall read the new Constitution to allow for a vibrant and progressive federal government. Louis Brandeis understood the need for that government to regulate an industrializing economy. Earl Warren saw that segregation was poison in the modern world. Scalia, in contrast, looked backward.

    His revulsion toward homosexuality, a touchstone of his world view, appeared straight out of his sheltered, nineteen-forties boyhood. When, in 2003, the Court ruled that gay people could no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex, Scalia dissented, and wrote, “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” He went on, “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a life style that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

    There’s your Collectivist slime-merchant, Jeffery Tobin.

    There is no lie you will not tell to further the Collective, is there Gaghdad Bob?

    Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 4:14 am

    Tobin’s almost as full sh*t as you are. Everyone knows what New York values are, and it has nothing to do with Joos. Living in NYC one has merely to look around to see NY values, and they are not American values. As one of my high school teachers put it, cuturally the Hudson is as wide as the Pacific.

Reporter Geraldo Rivera agrees Cruz’s New York Values was coded racist anti semitic dog whistle:

“Geraldo Rivera: I don’t think Cruz breaks 15 percentage points, Bill. I think he’s going to get routed in New York and deservedly so. Aside from the stinking anti-Semitic implications that I see in that whole New York values money and media coded message that he put out there pandering to those Iowa voters. Here me out, he also voted against Hurricane Sandy relief, he also voted against compensation for the 9-11 victims. This is a man whose interests are absolutely antithetical to New York. He’s going to get routed.”

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Yep. More citations of Collectivists in support of the Collective and their Collectivist candidate.

    There can be no doubt about Butt Boi Britt’s politics.

Here is the you tube video of the Pastor at the Freedom conference calling for the killing of gays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN1IXDrXgV0

Just watch it and tell me if that isn’t a hate filled racist bigot speaking. Nobody could watch that video and see anything but a hate filled racist bigot LEADER of the Iowa Freedom Conference 2015.

It was a three day conference and Cruz attended the next day to give a speech. Cruz was introduced by the very same hate filled racist bigot pastor who the day before called for the killing of gays. Trump did not appear at this conference. Cruz and some other presidential candidates did.

Old Millhouse argues Cruz didn’t know he was attending a racist hate filled event at the time he appeared. Even if that were true, which is doubtful in my opinion since Cruz is more than comfortable with hate speech himself, Cruz has had 5 months to learn about it and denounce it. HE NEVER HAS !!!!

Combine this FACT (see video) with Cruz at the very same time in Iowa using himself racist antisemitic dog whistles about “New York Values combined with media and money” and it is quite easy to understand exactly what Cruz was saying and to whom.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    “Just watch it and tell me if that isn’t a hate filled racist bigot speaking.”

    OK, stupid. That isn’t a “racist” at all. What a moron.

    Is he a bigot? Well, he believes what he’s read in the Bible, which says what it says.

    Does that make him “hate filled” (sic)? Certainly to SJW. OTOH, he may be motivated by love for his fellows and his belief that a homosexual life-style is destructive.

    When did T-rump call out his comments?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend