Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

While You Were Focused On The Electoral College Vote, The Senate Filled The 7th Circuit Coney Barrett Seat

While You Were Focused On The Electoral College Vote, The Senate Filled The 7th Circuit Coney Barrett Seat

Trump’s 54th appointment to a Court of Appeals, a legacy to last a generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWt7rnDNDE

It’s full steam ahead for Mitch McConnell filling the few remaining federal judicial vacancies.

Today the seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated by now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett was filled.

This is Trump’s 54th appointment to a Court of Appeals. It’s hardly a substitute for reelection, but it is a lasting legacy for a generation.

For the historical record:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Judges are immensely important, but when elections mean nothing, judges’ decisions mean nothing to the Junta rigging the elections.

Our elections are rigged. Are country is run by a Junta.

Blaise MacLean | December 15, 2020 at 8:40 pm

Will I be excused for thinking “So what? What difference will it make?”

After all the work to get constitutionalists on the bench, they end up joining with the leftists.

Yay. Another judge who can duck meaningful cases and damn our republic. Exciting.

Now that Biden (or Harris) is going to be the new Pres, we need all the judges that can get confirmed before January. Biden has made it clear that he will attack our free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. We need judges who will prevent him from destroying those rights.

    Court packing. Will it be limited to the supreme court?

    alaskabob in reply to OldProf2. | December 15, 2020 at 9:28 pm

    Present track record suggests all those important issues are so old rule of law. That old dry document of negative constraints on the government is gone. We will now have a permitted bill of rights that conforms to the needs of the State,by the State, and for the State. SCOTUS will be blinking so much that their eyelids will look shut. To maintain order and domestic tranquility something had to go.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to OldProf2. | December 15, 2020 at 10:48 pm

    Yes! And it is the only reason I feel obligated to give those RINO Senators a bit of slack.(In truth I do it very reluctantly.)

    mark311 in reply to OldProf2. | December 16, 2020 at 10:22 am

    Source please

    artichoke in reply to OldProf2. | December 16, 2020 at 11:42 am

    Yeah let’s have some more judges who tease us and just almost protect our rights, but somehow when it matters they switch sides.

    I don’t think I trust any judges who attended law school. They’ve had the principle baked out of them.

    When a Junta runs your country, judges are either a quaint window dressing, or they are malignant tools of the Junta.

    Just look at mcconnell. The rat couldnt wait to turn on us.

      “Junta”–You keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

        stablesort in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 16, 2020 at 6:25 pm

        Junta applies pretty well when the government makes a pretense of an election and the courts do nothing about it. Or do you believe you have a say in this government?

        merriam-webster

        “a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power”

        A mostly peaceful revolution; as they said of the riots, looting and arson all year long.

    barnesto in reply to OldProf2. | December 16, 2020 at 1:58 pm

    Biden and Harris aren’t going to be installed as our de facto dictators. Doesn’t matter what McConnell says or does. It’s not official until it’s official and there’s plenty on the dockets that can turn the tide.

    This rampant fraud cannot be left to stand. One way or another it won’t. The results aren’t going to be pretty, but here we are.

It just doesn’t matter. The law is whatever the swamp wants and all these judges have shown, they’re woke and unable to rule on the rule of law. The Federal judiciary , FBI and DOJ have about 3 weeks with me to regain a semblance of authority or trust. Sorry for the black-pill, but it just doesn’t matter anymore if the system gets away with installing Biden/Harris.

caseoftheblues | December 15, 2020 at 9:12 pm

After all the dodging and the total ignoring of real justice and the hyper focus on the minutia in order to provide cover for corruption and fraud excuse me if I dont get excited about any judge in any court or if I refuse to hope that they will ever do the right thing…stand up for we the people or the actual intent of our Constitution.

Will this be trickle-down jurisprudence from the Social Club of The United States?

After the Dems complete the coup and steal Georgia’s Senate seats, they’ll pack the Court. Oops, there went Amy’s legacy.

This may seem off topic, but really, it’s related. Does anyone know of an online petition site that allows sharing with Parler? I’ve looked and so far all they have is Facebook and Twitter.

If Americans continue to play by the rules, we are gonna get hosed and trashed.

The hideous freak congress dude, from New Jersey, spoke the voice of the socialist democratic party as though he was indwelt of Pelosi, Schumer, et al.

The courts will do NOTHING to deter the coup and fraud that is being perpetrated against America by derelict subversives.

J’Obiden is a mental defective with organic brain disease and yet we are supposed to believe that Americans elected him?

O’Biden’s neurological dysfunctions were brutally obvious during the O’Bama’s second campaign with Joe throwing back his head and laughing like a San Francisco doper with a fresh load of LSD and a magic umbrella to protect him from the actual world.

Reverend Wright needs to enjoy some payback-prophesy and find out what it is like on the other side of his rhetoric. I don’t know what God is going to do but it is pretty clear what Americans need to do.

That’s right, don’t leave a single one for the communist pedophile to fill.

Excuse me while I laugh

As if it matters

Hollow victories now, and if the Georgia voting is done same way as November all cou ld be lost in a flash.
And we have found out courts are not our friends.

Filled with another treasonous GOP bastard.

Doesn’t matter, if this judge ever has the temerity to stray from the orthodoxy, those Trump put on SCOTUS will show him the path to redemption!

I should care? Why?

Lefties and Dems can file any old thing they feel like filing and do in any court that they happen to like. They can file against Executive Orders; they can file against cancellation of EOs; they can file to impede foreign policy; they can file to elevate candidate Trump’s campaign rhetoric to the status of settled law. They can file these wherever they want, they can get their cases heard, and they win these cases.

The GOP can’t get a judge to give them the time of day. I admit that I thought it was a great thing to be able to seat so many judges who have actually read the Constitution. But ultimately, it didn’t matter One. Dang. Bit.

The Supreme Court just told us that it won’t follow the law because, if it did, millions of Americans would find out that they are idiots. Instead, they’re going to frustrate the votes of the non-idiots.

This is just GOPe extended to CourtsE: “Look who we have now; just wait a year and see what we do then.”

Aside from some very small enclaves, justice isn’t available anymore, especially here…

Could you please get that ugly woman’s mug off your emails? Yeah, the one that was supposed to do so much for SCOTUS and vote righteously.

McConnell and the GOP idiots following him think this meaningless crap about judges will save them from being known for all the anti Trump stabbing in the back they have done and are doing. They think we won’t care about there globalist open borders legislation they are passing with the democrats now that they think Trump is gone.

Look at what they have done with the DOD bill and how they want stimulus for globalist corporations but not a dime for the working middle class. Look how they all voted for Lee’s open borders to India legislation.

These judges don’t mean didly squat for all the reasons stated by the commenter above.

Tell me why after McConnell throws in the towel on contesting electors and stabs Trump in the back yet again that anyone in Georgia should vote for the GOP senators?

In 2015 I was ready to dump these feckless lying arses in the GOP. The Trump came along. I changed my mind. These bought and paid for GOP party will NEVER get another vote from me. From dog catcher to President I will NEVER vote GOP again once Trump is out of office.

Everything in DC is against us. I know that a lawyer won’t ever say this; the problem is that we have too many lawyers in government. Judges weren’t supposed to be lawyers, now they are all lawyers. And see what we get. Similarly, Congress. Trying to improve it isn’t patriotism, it’s stupidity.

Divorce.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to artichoke. | December 17, 2020 at 6:32 am

    In my view, having lawyers write law is like letting foxes into the henhouse. The result has been such a jumble of laws, regulations, rules, ordinances, and other things, that one cannot even die without an attorney getting their cut.

Senators should not let any candidate get away with the “no hints” lie. The only acceptable nominee should be honest and open like Bork was, not deceitful as the notorious predecessor of “ACB.”

Anyone unable to rehearse a cogent argument against old abominations like Roe v Wade and the poisonous fruit of that case or more recent insanities like Bostock should not receive consent.

But, of course, so far there is no indication that a sufficient number of Republicans would have the guts to do that.

By the way, this is not outcome-oriented, it is simply testing if the candidate is able to reach the correct constitutional conclusions if confronted with a hot button issue case. And if they cannot even show that little backbone they are clearly unfit for a role as a judge.

    Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 16, 2020 at 3:45 pm

    If a nominee did what you want, and gave her opinion about a case that’s likely to come before her, then when it did come she’d have to recuse herself. Is that what you really want?!

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | December 16, 2020 at 6:19 pm

      Sounds illogical. If I have a strong opinion and tell you what it is, I can’t rule on it… but if I have the same strong opinion and just avoid telling you what it is, no problem?

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | December 16, 2020 at 7:01 pm

        That’s how it works. If you don’t tell anyone about your opinion then you can pretend not to have made up your mind about it in advance. If you’ve made your opinion public that becomes hard to do.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 16, 2020 at 9:18 pm

      As far as I can tell neither Roe v. Wade, Casey, nor even Bostock is likely to come before any judge.

      What you probably mean is if a very similar case comes before them they’d have to recuse. That does not make any sense at all. Unless you mean to tell me that judges need to recuse from every case where there is precedent and they said something like “I’d be bound by precedent”?

      I may be wrong. Maybe precedent states that a judge needs to recuse from a case of murder because they have at some time stated that the law prohibits murder. I doubt it somehow.

      I’m not talking about asking about a specific case that is already before a judge, mind you.

        We are likely in the next few years to see a case come before the court that will ask it to overturn Roe and Casey. A justice who openly said that she believes those cases to have been wrongly decided, and that they ought to be overturned, would likely have to recuse herself.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 17, 2020 at 10:01 am

          Thanks for the link.
          The question of recusal is not easy, because obviously there are instances where having proposed a theory does raise questions about impartiality. However, if the theory isn’t too far out there and just about the correct interpretation of the law I don’t think it can justify recusal.
          Especially not of a Justice, because there is a very limited number of Justices and these are the only ones that can wield the authority of the Supreme Court as a body.

          Propositions and their simple negation should trigger the same response because of (appearance of) bias. So declaring Roe v. Wade has been decided correctly or incorrectly should trigger the same response. And, at least in the case of Supreme Court nominees, saying Roe is precedent is only technically true. No court is bound by its own precedent. Because a false interpretation of the constitution does not amend the constitution Justice Thomas certainly makes a compelling argument that Justice must not uphold precedent that in their judgment is a wrong application of the Constitution.

          What I am saying is there is a need to change the practice. I do assume we agree that currently, the practice is the Ginsburg standard that allows candidates to evade questioning about certain legal positions they hold.
          Because the nomination and consent procedure is supposed to convey legitimacy I tend to think that the Senators are justified to ask how, exactly, a nominee thinks the constitution applies to certain controversial issues. An answer to these questions –sufficiently disconnected from actual live cases– should generally not trigger recusal if the question of law later comes before the confirmed justice.
          It seems to me that should hold true, mutatis mutandis, for lower court judges as well.

          There is no easy solution to the problem, however. I give you that.

          (It would not be that much of a problem if the power of the judicial branch were more in line with what was originally intended. But in recent history, especially during the last four years, we have seen individual judges usurping the plenary power of the President by issuing nationwide injunctions about foreign policy and protecting the border. As long as judges think they are supreme kings and queens testing their views is sorely needed.
          Of course, any judge issuing a nationwide injunction that is not explicitly authorized to do so by law should ipso facto be impeached and convicted. In today’s political clime that, sadly, will not happen.)

        See Scalia’s recusal in Elk Grove. That’s not quite the same, because he had commented on the very case that ended up coming before the court. But it’s similar enough to raise the question.

        Felix, have a read of this. I think you’ll find it informative.

Can we stop saying these are Trump’s selections, please? They aren’t. They are Mitch McConnell’s picks and they’re coming from the Federalist Society. Trump has had no input in to the process from what I can tell. He’s been shoveled the same cast of characters, who are loyal to McConnell.

And if you support McConnell, you should rethink that position. He’s in bed with the Chamber of Commerce and the CCP. His father-in-law is a Taiwanese shipping magnate, who needs CCP support to make his billions. His company has and still does work with the Chinese military. He gave Mitch $25 million for marrying his daughter.

Mitch also took money from Dominion before tanking the election integrity bill.

Mitch gave Trump zero recess appointments.

Mitch let 147 appointments hanging in limbo as he put judge after judge on the bench.

The list goes on, but you should get the point. Stop supporting McConnell and the rest of the GOP They don’t support you.

THIRD PARTY with Trump as its head. The GOP will then be destroyed in one day.

Well it was a nice try but sad that all “appointed” federal judges and courts…….. don’t seem to want to enforce any laws or punish law breakers WHEN THEY ARE DEMOCRATS…

A pox on scotus and all ‘federal’ judges and courts… either the USA is a Republic based on LAWS … or it ISN’T

Rolling over, like Rand Paul, with protests that “sure seems like election was stolen so we better fix ‘that’..” and ACCEPTING a fraudulently selected ILLEGAL POTUS is NOT acceptable.

EVER.

time to refresh the tree of liberty

Sorry, this doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore.

many of the posts here seem to presume that the dems/leftists will abide by the ” law ” or by the decisions handed down by “jurists/judges “–they will not as they have demonstrated clearly over the last twelve or so years–their minions are allowed or encouraged to loot/riot/assault with impunity, with no consequences, with no penalties whatsoever–do you really believe, after stealing this election in such a blatant fashion, they will ever be concerned with the law of the land again?

every aspect of your individual ” freedoms ” is now subject to re-interpretation/denial/theft with no civil recourse available to you

make no mistake, they do not seek consensus–they will seek and demand compliance–we all need to plan and act accordingly

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend