FINALLY – RESPECT RETURNS FOR THE CONSTITUTION!

Gloriosky, Zero, I feel good all over!
For younger readers, a favorite exclamation by Little Annie Rooney to her dog Zero. Her adventures were chronicled in a comic strip which began in the 1920s and lasted forty years.
I thought it an appropriate sentiment for the events of April 6 and 7 which brought about the return to Constitutional authority. From here on in, judges and Justices will be confirmed by majority vote and a super majority will not be, and should never have been, required, had the Constitution been observed.
In agreement with me is no less a Constitutional authority than Democrat stalwart Joe Biden:
As long as I have served … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they’ve done,…This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, Biden conveniently ignored the Democrats’ use of the 60 vote rule when it benefited them, but he was correct on the basic point. The Constitution specifies a super-majority for only a limited list of Senate actions.  [E.g., ratification of treaties, overriding Presidential vetoes, approving constitutional amendments.] Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison indicated in the Federalist Papers a clear belief in majority rule, with Hamilton stating that “the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” [Emphasis added.]
OTHER TAKE-AWAYS FROM THE PAST MONTHS.
President Trump 
We have a President who values the Constitution and one faithful to his campaign promises. There is no reason to believe that he will not continue to appoint from his list of potential nominees, individuals who believe in interpreting the Constitution rather than using the Court to “enact” what cannot be obtained by the votes of citizens.
Here is a simple test to apply: whenever you read of a decision by a federal court that does not make sense, Google the name of the judge rendering the decision. 9 times out of 10, he or she will be an appointee of either Obama or Clinton. We pray our President will be able to redress their excesses in the next 4, or better yet, 8 years.
The Moral Bankruptcy of the Democrat Party
The Democrat party has proven beyond cavil that it is morally bankrupt. Neil M. Gorsuch has impeccable credentials, hailed not only by conservatives but by many liberals as well. In fact, he was nominated by a former Solicitor General in the Obama administration.
Yet, on April 7, all but 3 Democrats voted against his confirmation, including all 12 senators who, in 2010, voted for his confirmation as a federal circuit judge. Among those 12 were Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy. In that same 2010 vote, also voting for Gorsuch, were  Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden.
For the past months, the Democrats have told the world that Gorsuch was biased in favor of powerful litigants against the “little people” and cited results of cases they claimed supported that argument. But they never disclosed that in most, if not all of those cases, the result also was supported by judges appointed by liberal Democrat presidents. That is, plain and simple, dishonest.
But they learned well that lies work. In 1987, they slandered and defeated nominee Robert Bork, at the time, the most outstanding constitutional scholar not on the Supreme Court:
… in an unprecedented campaign of slander, causing the verb “bork” to enter our lexicon as a synonym for ‘calumniate.’ The late senator Edward Kennedy’s gusher of lies about “Robert Bork’s America” is a notorious part of this story. Less well remembered is that …then-senator Joe Biden, chaired the Judiciary Committee hearings that converted a distinguished public servant and scholar into a villain … To its shame, on October 23, 1987, the Senate defeated Bork’s nomination 58–42. …Judge Bork …  was the first and only justice to be rejected because he promised to practice an apolitical jurisprudence that takes its bearing from neutral principles of judging; because his foes and friends alike understood that he would be both upright in his devotion to those principles and influential as a spokesman and practitioner of them. … [Emphasis  added.]
Imagine Ted Kennedy lecturing anyone on morality?
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 would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens …[Emphasis in original.]
I state again –  this is not the Democrat party of JFK or Adlai Stevenson. The Left has hijacked that party and denigrated its values. It is now the party of the Left, undeterred by truth, logic or decency.
Pertinent Facts Not Published
I did not expect the mass media to supply facts which destroy the Left’s claims.
But I was disappointed that pertinent facts were not disseminated to the public by conservative columnists and other media.
Some did inform us that the Left’s claim [that there was no precedent for denying Merrick Garland’s confirmation] was a lie. Joe Bidenin 1992 enunciated the principle that presidents should not fill Supreme Court seats in an election year and the Democrats would stall any such attempt until after the next inauguration. His words:
Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention …It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.[Emphasis added.]
Very few commentators pointed out this key fact: in anticipation of a Hillary victory, Harry Reid planned to remove the 60 vote rule for the Supreme Court so a simple majority would govern.
I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told ‘em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again …They mess with the Supreme Court, it’ll be changed just like that in my opinion [Reid snapping his fingers together.] So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that. [Emphasis added.]
Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to my knowledge, was the only one who cited even more Democrat leaders, thinking HIllary would win, committed to removing the 60 vote requirement, including Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine and Senators Amy Klobuchar and Sheldon White house.
NRO’s Bench Memos: Ethics and Public Policy Center April 3, 2017. [Whelan, who as a young man clerked for 9th Circuit Judge Clifford  Wallace and for Justice Scalia, is well worth reading.]
Appalling Ignorance of the Role of the Supreme Court
One has to read these accounts to see how ignorant Senators Feinstein and Franken are about the duties of a judge. A judge is not there to fight for the” little guy” or to prejudge specific cases.
But the prize goes to California Senator Kamala Harris [previously featured in Archive Issue 16]
who tweeted:
Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination.
Imagine – a  judge who believes in “legalisms”, who thinks his job is to apply the law!  And Senator Harris claims that should disqualify him.
Nor was ignorance confined to Democrat senators.  I heard one law professor “expert”  opine that Republicans were more committed to ideology than Democrats, with only Justice Kennedy an exception. Absolute nonsense – Justice Souter often ruled against conservative positions.  Justice Roberts inexplicably cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare on grounds specifically disavowed by the Obama Administration. Even Justices Scalia and Thomas did not agree on certain rulings.
However, the four Democrat appointees have voted as a bloc on liberal issues. They do not even have to show up for the argument; their votes are known.
RINOs Hold Firm
A pleasant development, the RINOs stayed the course!
For that, we can thank His Smarminess,  Senator Schumer.  His blatant misrepresentations incensed Senators Hatch and Graham who previously had wanted to retain the 60 vote threshold. Without so much as acknowledging Reid’s promise to eliminate the 60 vote requirement for a Supreme Court Justice had the Democrats won, Schumer stated:
… It’s hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support,… They won’t have 60 votes to put in an out-of-the-mainstream nominee.
The liberal definition of “mainstream” is unique – ACLU Ginsburg is “mainstream,” Roberts and Alito are not; abortion-on-demand is “mainstream” although 75% of Americans are against it.​

One caution: Senator Hatch, on TV after the nuclear option vote, lamented it was a sad day that they did away with the 60 vote requirement.  No, Senator, it was not. It was a great day that restored Constitutional majority rule.

The Real Issue
What really drove the Left’s obstruction of Justice Gorsuch was not the Garland issue. It  was their obsession with abortion which has driven what they have done with judicial appointments over the past 3 decades, starting with Bork.
Bork’s was also the first nomination to the Court in which the politics of abortion truly poisoned the process of selecting our highest judges. It is no exaggeration to say that, but for the Court’s disastrous decision in Roe v. Wade, Bork’s confirmation would have been smooth sailing. But the evident threat of originalist jurisprudence to the preservation of the abortion license, so treasured by the Left and so obviously the product of judicial usurpation, made the defeat of his nomination an absolute imperative to the Bidens and Kennedys of the Democratic party.[Emphasis added.]
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336096/judge-robert-h-bork-rip-editors
And that fanaticism continues.
Guarantee: No one with a heart can view this one minute video and still support abortion.
The mass media will never show it. Caveat: it juxtaposes the words of Obama, Pelosi and Boxer with the reality. It is brutal.
CONCLUSIONS
A big two days for America- Thank you Mr. President and the majority of the Senate.
Remaining barriers? The dishonesty of the Left and of the mass media (propagandists not reporters) and the disinterest of too many of our people.
Another procedural goal? Remove the artificial 60 vote requirement for legislative action.
Hope going forward? The courage of the President and us, his supporters, to do what is morally right despite the prevalent, often violent, censorship to silence us.
Finally, this heart-warming picture of prayer in the White House for President Trump’s nominee as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, succeeding Antonin Scalia.

The photo… shows Trump, his two eldest sons, Vice President Pence and wife Karen, Reince Priebus, and Justice Scalia’s widow Maureen and son Fr. Paul Scalia, among others, praying with nominee Neil Gorsuch and his wife Marie Louise in the White House. The photo was taken shortly after Trump announced Gorsuch as his pick to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first…. Facts are stubborn things…Don’t be afraid to see what you see.
– Ronald Reagan

 

Dick Coleman

Richard M. Coleman served as National Co-Chair, Lawyers for Reagan-Bush ’84 and really does miss RR. A graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, Dick is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, and a past president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and of the National Caucus of Metropolitan Bar Leaders. A professor on the faculty of Pepperdine University’s Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution for 17 years, he received Pepperdine’s Excellence in Teaching Award. He has hosted TV forums on legal and financial topics and written and spoken extensively on political issues.

© Richard M. Coleman 2018