Neil Gorsuch Was Unanimously Confirmed in 2006 by the Very People Criticizing His Nomination Now!


Is it true that Gorsuch was approved by unanimous consent by the Senate for a court of appeals seat in 2006? Absolutely, and here’s the proof!

CLAIM

Judge Neil Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006.

RATING

TRUE

ORIGIN

On 31 January 2017, President Donald Trump announced his nomination for the Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia: federal appellate judge Neil Gorsuch.  Almost immediately after the announcement, Democratic senators began to voice their opposition to President Trump’s nominee:

schumerComments such as those reproduced above were seen as hypocritical by some supporters, as Gorsuch had been confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals more than a decade earlier with very little opposition. Conservative web outlets published articles saying that Gorsuch had been confirmed for his current position unanimously and had enjoyed the full support of Democratic senators at the time, including Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

That Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the Senate is completely true. According to the a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations made by President George W. Bush, Gorsuch was confirmed in an “en bloc voice vote” on 20 July 2006.

A Denver Post article published a month before Gorsuch’s 2006 confirmation detailed the Denver judge’s career and noted that he faced little opposition and was considered a shoo-in. In fact, only one Senator, Republican Lindsey Graham, questioned Gorsuch during a twenty-minute Senate committee confirmation hearing:

Denver native Neil Gorsuch seemed headed toward easy confirmation to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after gliding through a 20-minute U.S. Senate committee hearing on his qualifications.

Only one senator on the 18-member Judiciary Committee attended the hearing, a signal the nomination is not controversial.

“I have nothing but good things to say about Mr. Gorsuch,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the sole senator at the hearing. Graham worked with the Columbia-, Harvard- and Oxford-educated Gorsuch at the Department of Justice.

Gorsuch’s actual confirmation was also non-controversial. However, stating that Gorsuch received the full support from all quarters may be slightly disingenuous, as individual votes were taken by voice and were not tallied:

Gorsuch’s nomination was approved on a voice vote. Individual votes weren’t tallied because the nomination wasn’t deemed controversial.

Biden and Schumer, however, were members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 and, as far as we can find, raised no objections to Gorsuch’s confirmation back then.

Another Congressional Service Research report, this one concerning the appointment process of for U.S. Circuit and District Court nominations, noted that although circuit court nominations require a simple majority vote, most nominees are by custom confirmed unanimously:

Customarily, most circuit or district court nominations have reached confirmation under the terms of unanimous consent agreements. On this procedural track, the Senate by unanimous consent not only takes up nominations for floor consideration, but also arranges for them to either receive up or-down confirmation votes or be confirmed simply by unanimous consent. If a roll call vote is asked for, a simple majority of Senators voting, with a minimal quorum of 51 being present, is required to approve a nomination. 

During the 109th Congress, for instance, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of confirmation during eight roll call votes. Two other nominations (Gorsuch and Bobby Shepherd) were confirmed by an en bloc vote

Confirmed by the Liberal’s favorite source: Snopes.com

 

Follow: The Roediger Report 

RRlogo

{The America First Network} on Facebook!

Hillary ‘LOVES’ the idea of appointing Obama to Supreme Court – End Of The World As We Know It!


Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said she “loves” the idea of appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court if she’s elected president.

At a campaign event in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton told the crowd the next president may have to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices.

When one attendee mentioned Mr. Obama as a contender, she absolutely lit up with excitement by the recommendation. 

“Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow,” Mrs. Clinton said. “He may have a few other things to do, but I tell you, that’s a great idea.

“I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor,” she added. “So he’s got all the credentials, but we would have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed. Clinton doubled down on her desire to have Barack Obama on the Supreme Court arguing that it is a “fascinating idea.”

In an interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer, Clinton said it “it would be worth the effort” to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court because “he is a brilliant writer [and] he taught constitutional law.”  

Asked if she had “given more thought” to nominating Obama to the Supreme Court, Clinton said, “Well, I have no idea that he’d ever be interested but it was a fascinating idea and if I’m so fortunate enough to be president and get the opportunity to get to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, which I hope I do, then I would certainly talk to him about it. It would be worth the effort. We know he is a brilliant writer, he taught constitutional law so I think it’s worth a try.”

 

Why I’m Not Voting for Ted Cruz – SHOCKING | The Educated Voter – Mike Grayson


On September 8, 2015, Ted Cruz showed up at the Kim Davis rally, unannounced and uninvited.   He walked into the jail and was stopped by a deputy.  The deputy told him that Kim was in the back with her attorney and Mike Huckabee, and he would need to wait in the lobby.

Ted became irate and attempted to bully the deputy and said, “Do you know who I am?” which was heard by all who were present.  At that point Governor Huckabee steps in and says it’s OK for Ted to join them.  He explained to Ted that all of the speakers had been scheduled and he would not have an opportunity to speak, but he could have a photo op with Kim inside the jail.

CruzDavis

Ted was then told that when he exited the jail he was to turn LEFT and go stand with the elected officials, because Davis, her attorney and Governor Huckabee would be right behind him and were scheduled to talk to the press, which were off to the right.  CRUZ SAID HE UNDERSTOOD AND PROMISED THAT HE WOULD NOT DISRUPT THE RALLY.  The campaign staff was in the building and they all heard Cruz say this.

Mike Huckabee’s Political Director, Jim Terry, was concerned that Ted wasn’t going to cooperate and pulled Aaron Chang, who had organized the rally, off to the side and told him to make sure that Ted didn’t try to go to the press and disrupt the rally.  So when Ted exited Aaron was waiting.
When Ted exited he turned RIGHT with the intent of talking to the media, BREAKING THE PROMISE HE HAD MADE JUST MINUTES BEFORE!  Governor Huckabee and the campaign staff were astounded at his behavior at a rally he was neither invited to or scheduled to speak at.
 
Aaron stopped Ted, in full view of the cameras (video below).  Aaron (in the red shirt) told him that Davis, the attorney and Governor Huckabee were coming out and that he should go over and stand with the elected officials because they had a schedule to keep.  Ted then attempted to bully Aaron with the tactic he had just used in the jail.
 
If you watch the video you will see Jim Terry exit with a cell phone to his ear.  The reason he was on the phone was that he was trying to defuse the situation, giving instructions to the rest of the team to not allow Ted on the speaker’s platform or in the media pit. Ted  was out of control at this point. He tried to side step Aaron but was stopped.  He finally relented.

 

But it wasn’t over.
 
Ted and his companion then go to over to the steps leading up to the speaker’s platform but Jim Terry was there waiting for them.  Jim stopped them and once again Cruz tried to bully his way onto the platform. Jim stood firm and once again Ted relented.
 
But it still wasn’t over.
 
Then, when Davis, her attorney, and Governor Huckabee were speaking on the platform, Ted goes over behind the cameras and tries to get their attention so that they rotate the cameras 180 degrees, off of the speakers and toward him! It was a desperate and deliberate attempt to disrupt the rally and take the focus off of Kim Davis and put it on himself.
 
When all of this failed, Ted retreated with a forlorn and dejected look on his face, where I am told that his companion rounded up some of the media to take pictures.  The next thing we know Amanda Carpenter (the Communication Director for Senator Ted Cruz), publishes an article in the Conservative Review condemning Governor Huckabee as selfish.  The Cruz campaign made a deliberate attempt to make Gov. Huckabee look bad, when in fact Cruz was the villain.
 
CruzSELFISHclaim
 
People from the Cruz campaign then began spreading that Cruz was a victim and was very sad about what happened.  They were pushing the false narrative that Cruz was blocked by Governor Huckabee when he showed up unannounced, not on the speaker schedule, just minutes before the Governor, Kim and her attorney were scheduled to meet with the press. He wasn’t a speaker. He wasn’t on the schedule.  This link shows just one Tweet our of many, that propagated that false narrative.
CruzSAD
 
Perhaps what is most disturbing about this incident is that Ted Cruz didn’t really support Kim Davis in the first place. On the Sunday prior to the rally he was interviewed by NPR and said, “State officials cannot ignore a direct judicial order” meaning that Kim Davis was required to do what the judge had ordered.  You can draw your own conclusion, but mine is that he wanted the free press so that he could be viewed as a defender of religious liberty.  The link to his response is below.
Then, I spent a week in Iowa helping to organize and campaign for Gov. Huckabee as his National Grassroots Chair.  I was told, first hand, by people in Iowa that the Cruz campaign was telling them not to vote for Mike because he couldn’t win.  
Then I saw the “Voter Violation” mailers being sent to Iowa voters by the Cruz campaign which was an appalling campaign dirty trick and drew the ire of the Iowa Secretary of State.
 
Then, the Cruz campaign sent out instructions to tell their caucus speakers to tell everyone that Carson was dropping out of the race.  
I have also heard by many in Iowa that Rafael Cruz was speaking all over the state telling people that Governor Huckabee supported Common Core, which they knew was false.  
I wasn’t surprised when in South Carolina, the Cruz campaign was forced to pull false ads directed at Marco Rubio.
 
Those are the reasons why I will not be voting for Ted Cruz in the Texas GOP Primary.

 

Source, Mike Grayson: Why I’m Not Voting for Ted Cruz 

More great commentary on MikeGrayson’s Blog 

Experts Agree Trump Muslim Ban Constitutional and Warranted…


Constitution-1

While the liberal media has condemned Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants as “disqualifying” and “toxic,” former President Barack Obama may have only himself to blame as President Trump succeeds in putting his plan, or some version of it, into action.

In his efforts to work around Congress, Obama has made the aggressive use of executive power, particularly on immigration, an increasingly effective and politically accepted presidential tool. While legal scholars are divided on whether Obama has accelerated or merely continued a drift of power toward the executive branch, there’s little debate that he’s paved a path for his successor.

Depending on who that is, many Obama backers could rue the day they cheered his “pen-and-phone” campaign to get past Republican opposition in Congress. The unilateral steps he took to raise environmental standards, tighten gun control measures and ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, serves as precedent for moves they won’t cheer.

“You know the great thing about executive orders, I don’t have to go back to Congress,” Trump said recently at rally in Manassas, Va.

“We’re unsigning a lot of executive orders, especially his order that basically lets anybody they want just pour into our country,” Trump said. “That’s going to end.”

And Trump’s plan is backed by much precedent and long standing legal definitions.

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Any such blanket action based on a person’s religion would be unconstitutional if applied to U.S. citizens, scholars agree.

But courts have given Congress and the president wide discretion when it comes to immigration.

No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said it is naive to think the country would never again resort to such harsh measures, particularly during wartime.

“That’s what was going on – the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens,” Scalia said on a visit to Hawaii in 2014, describing the mood in America following Pearl Harbor that led to the internment camps. “It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality.”

“I don’t actually think it would be unconstitutional. The president has a huge amount of discretion under the immigration statute,” said Eric Posner, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. The same protections given citizens do not apply to people who are neither American nor in the United States, Posner said.

Posner pointed out that the Supreme Court “has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants.”

He said while the court hasn’t ruled specifically on religious discrimination, “it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from this general rule.”

Courts have upheld the denial of visas to enter the country to Marxists and people born to parents who were not married, among many categories. The Supreme Court has never struck down an immigration classification on the basis of race or any other reason, said Temple University immigration expert Peter Spiro.

We asked Stephen H. Legomsky, of Washington University School of Law, who was chief counsel at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency under President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013. Most recently the professor served briefly as senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security on immigration issues.

He referred to the plenary power doctrine that “states that the courts should show exceptional deference to Congress when it legislates in the field of immigration,” Mr. Legomsky told Law Blog. It was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the late 1880s when justices upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act, a federal law that suspended immigration of Chinese laborers.

Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA—one of the top First Amendment scholars in America—says about this proposed ban that there are no limits on Congress’s power over immigration, per the Supreme Court’s earlier cases (even though he also called Trump’s proposed policy an “abomination”). Prof. Eric Posner of the University of Chicago is less confident in predicting an outcome, but says the ban would probably be upheld by the courts.

There are legal challenges that have been raised by some lawyers, but all of these fail. Some say it violates the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution, but that says only that people seeking federal office cannot be denied public office because of their religion.

In fact, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell cites this provision of federal law:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

“I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the ‘plenary power doctrine’ to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.”

He noted that, “at this point, the precedents counsel in favor of the constitutionality of such a rule.”

Posner pointed out there even is a precedent for Trump’s idea.

“In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissible people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who ‘who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.’ While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court – as far I know – ruled it unconstitutional.”

He said it’s clear, “The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter. But any honest answer to a journalist’s question about whether Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration is unconstitutional should start with the plenary powers doctrine, and observe that it would be an uphill battle to persuade the Supreme Court to abandon a century of precedent.”

He said it’s unfortunate that scholars – “who certainly know better” – are telling journalists who don’t like Trump’s ideas what they want to hear.

“Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional,” he said.

The high court has reaffirmed the doctrine in a 1972 ruling denying entry to a self-described “revolutionary Marxist” from Belgium who sought a temporary visa.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog that Mr. Trump’s plan “may be a very bad idea, but under the plenary power doctrine it may very well be constitutional.”

It doesn’t appear that Mr. Trump would have to get congressional approval before advancing the Muslim ban, said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. Congress has already given the president broad powers to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens as immigrants” if their entry would “be detrimental” to the nation’s interests.

 

Please Follow: The Roediger Report

RR Trump Constitution

The America First Network on Facebook!

 

Join the Trump movement go to our Facebook Group:

Deplorable Us For Trump!