Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

By William Teach February 17, 2016 – 7:46 am

As you remember, close after the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader and many others proclaimed that no Obama nominee would be considered. Many Republican supporters were concerned that the elected Republicans in the Senate would backslide. Is this about to happen?

(The Hill) Freshman GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Tuesday that his party risks being seen as “obstructionist” in a fight over Supreme Court nominations with President Obama.

The remarks from the North Carolina Republican are the first crack in GOP unity since Saturday’s stunning news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, whose passing has put the tilt of the court in question. Scalia’s successor seems likely to determine whether its majority will lean liberal or conservative.

Republicans are under enormous pressure to block any nominee from Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly put out a statement after Scalia’s death stating that the vacancy should not be filled until a new president takes office.

Yet the GOP also faces enormous risks with its strategy if it turns off independent voters already irritated by Washington’s dysfunction.

Of course, they face enormous risk if they do not block any Obama nominee, and simply rubber stamp the pick. Tillis had this to say right after Scalia’s passing

“We are in midst of a great debate about the future of our country, including the future make-up of the highest court in the land, which makes decisions that affect the lives of all Americans,” Tillis said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the uninhibited expansion of President Obama’s administrative state and his penchant for executive orders that contort the rule of law suggest an utter contempt for our nation’s system of checks and balances.

“It is highly likely that the President will nominate someone who shares his views and will rubber-stamp his unilateral actions, which run counter to the original intent of our Constitution. This is why it is incumbent upon the Senate to assert its co-equal authority in the constitutionally prescribed process of determining the make-up of the highest court. I firmly believe the voice of the American people should be heavily weighted in that decision and their voice will soon be heard on Election Day. Given the current circumstances, the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy would be best left to the next President.”

Then you have this (from the Hill article)

On Tuesday, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared to back away from that position, arguing it was at least possible a hearing could be held on an Obama nominee.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions. … In other words, take it a step at a time,” he told reporters, according to Radio Iowa.

IMO, Republicans shouldn’t have stated that there would be nothing done in the Senate when Obama nominates yet another hardcore Leftist who rules by whim and politics instead of law and the Constitution. Let Obama have his hearings. They can take it very slow during the Judiciary committee and full Senate hearings, and ask questions that expose the person, showing they’re not the right person for the job. Then take a vote and all vote “nay”. That is where concern should be. Will the GOP hold strong in the face of elected Democrats, the White House, and the leftist media putting pressure on the Republican Senators to confirm?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee? »

Posted in GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful wooded area that would be perfect for a solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on needing a teacher discipline database.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Cheney: “Trump Sounds Like A Liberal Democrat”

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 10:30 am

Via Twitchy, we see two story threats. First we have

Not so much. As Jonah Goldberg noted in responding to many, well, let’s charitably call them idiots, Saddam was a big supporter of Middle East terrorism. He paid families to send their kids off to be suicide bombers in Israel. There were numerous terrorism training camps within Iraq, many which were found during the 2003 invasion. He celebrated 9/11. He tried to kill George HW Bush. He harbored Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and, let’s not forget Al Qaeda member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The 9/11 Commission mentioned all the terrorism and terrorist support by Saddam. In all fairness, this didn’t mean he actively supported al Qaeda, but, he did support terrorism. We could discuss this ad nauseum, but, at this point, you surely know the whole story.

Which leads to this (video at the link)

He does. He’s reminding me of what James Delingpole calls “watermelons”, who are environmentalists who are “green on the outside, red on the inside”, a reference to all the socialists/communists and their supporters who decided to move into environmentalism as the Soviet Union collapsed. Trump seems red (Republican) on the outside, but is apparently blue (Democrat) on the inside. Why do so many of his positions end up having Dem endings? He wants to build a border wall? Yay! And once the wall is built he’ll give “touchback” amnesty, for which the touchback will never happen? Boo. Now he’s going 9/11 Truther and talking up Saddam Hussein. He’s yammering about the Iraq War in the exact same manner as Democrats.

Read: Cheney: “Trump Sounds Like A Liberal Democrat” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Climate Action Is As Easy As Trading Your Mercedes For A Tesla

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 8:19 am

Seriously, it’s that darned easy! (via Climate Depot)

Senator Whitehouse: “…I don’t want to leave the impression that mankind must suffer in order to make these changes. The changes in consumption can actually be enjoyable and beneficial. If you trade in your Mercedes for a Tesla, your quality of life just went up.”

This was from the Munich Security Conference, on Feb 13, 2016, in which he surely took a long, fossil fueled flight. One has to wonder if Whitehouse has purchased a Tesla himself. A base model Tesla S will cost you $70000 to $75000, putting it well in the range of the upper end luxury car buyer, rather than your average middle class consumer. Whitehouse’s comment surely tells you this is all about your betters telling you what to do. The “rich kids” won’t worry about suffering.

You can ask Senator Whitehouse if he’s traded in whatever type of fossil fueled vehicle he owns for a Tesla on Twitter.

Read: Good News: Climate Action Is As Easy As Trading Your Mercedes For A Tesla »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 8:00 am

We’ve seen this act back in 2008, where any criticism of Hillary was treated at sexism, even if it came from reliable leftist news sources. Well, it’s back with a bang. Or, is that a bark?

Anyhow

(The Hill) Women serving in the Senate say Hillary Clinton is being subjected to an unfair, sexist double standard on the campaign trail.

Criticisms of Clinton’s tone of voice have become prominent in recent weeks, stirring strong feelings among Senate Democratic women who say they too have had to battle the stereotype of the shrill female.

“She’s often judged by a double standard,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the dean of the Senate women.

“Many of we women feel that there’s a double standard. What’s being said about Hillary is what women have heard for centuries. You’re too loud, you’re too aggressive, you’re too pushy. Why do you want the vote?”

But, um, she is shrill. She is loud. She cackle’s. She laughs at inappropriate times. As for being too aggressive and pushy? I haven’t heard that one before.

Wanting the vote? It’s now sexist to ask why she wants people to vote for her? That’s a new one. And rather disturbing.

Female lawmakers were particularly galled by recent statements by Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward, one of the nation’s most respected journalists, characterizing Clinton’s tone as “screaming.”

“She shouts. There’s something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

She does shout. And, here’s something to consider, which will surely be deemed sexist: if women like Hillary, Mikulski, and the other mentioned in the story want to be treated equally, don’t want to be called delicate hothouse flowers, to say they are empowered, they need to be able to roll with the blows and suck it up, rather than devolving into whiners.

Of course, really, this is all about creating a situation where any criticism of Hillary is deemed to be sexist, because, let’s face it, she has a lot of issues, which will be right in your face if she wins the primary. Benghazi, her home-brew server and all the secret information contained on it. Her lack of successes while Secretary of State.

This is much like when any criticism of Obama was deemed to be racist. Voting “present” for almost half the votes while in the Illinois general assembly? Racist. Wearing mom jeans? Racist. Not allowing him to eat his waffle? Racist. And Hillary will be the nominee, no matter how much Democrats feel the Bern, because the game is rigged via the super-delegates.

Oh, and don’t forget, if you dare ask Hillary why she wants to be President, that’s sexist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

“Much Of Today’s Science Is Basically Astrology”

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 5:12 pm

Let me point out once again that I am no fan of coal. I’m not buying this who “clean coal” thing, and besides being dirty, coal production damages the actual environment, not too mention the health problems to those who work mining coal. That said, we need a viable replacement, especially in terms of cost, before doing away with it. This opinion piece is very supportive of coal, as written by Mark I. Pfau, a professional geologist, who’ll certainly be dismissed as a dupe of fossil fuels companies and his information dismissed

Climate change is cause of climate change

It is a fundamental tenet of debate that your argument fails when your underlying premise fails. So far this year four guest columns (Russ Doty, Jan. 1; Dick Barrett, Jan. 5; Michael Ober, Jan. 6; and Gary Aitken, Jan. 20) have all argued the need to end Montana’s coal industry to fight climate change. Dick Barrett decries “misinformation” on the part of Colstrip supporters, but misses the point that the purveyors of man-caused climate change are the roots of all climate misinformation. The long reality is that climate change is caused by, well, climate change; not the burning of fossil fuels by man.

Mr. Pfau provides some actual facts, something Warmists hate, before getting to

Much of today’s science is basically astrology; drawing interpretations to support a predetermined objective largely established by government and the science funding machine. When government-funded science has a solution which means more taxes (carbon), more unelected government regulations (Environmental Protection Agency), agency refusal to release the science behind their decisions (EPA, NOAA, NASA), abdication of science to the United Nations, and the de facto nationalization of the energy industry; then we should all be very afraid.

It warms my heart that more and more people are starting to understand what the whole ‘climate change’ movement is about, and actively speaking out on it. I’ve been saying this for damned near a decade.

Read: “Much Of Today’s Science Is Basically Astrology” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a see that will soon swallow all coastal areas, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watcher Of Weasels, with a post asking “where do you see the economy going?”

I forgot to mention Sunday that this week is Asian’s week.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Fiji First To Ratify Paris Climate Pact

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 9:16 am

Remember how the Paris climate meetings were meant to be the first step in stopping dire ‘climate change’, and we were doomed if no agreement was made? And how important the resulting agreement was? Huh

(Climate Home) Fiji, a volcanic archipelago of over 300 islands, has become the first country to ratify a new global warming accord.

The country’s 50 lawmakers unanimously confirmed the first global pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions on Friday, the Pacific Islands News Association reported.

The Paris climate change meeting ended on December 12th. So, it has been over two months, yet Fiji is the only nation that has ratified the pact? Would this also be the same Fiji which has lots of airports, just completed a massive new terminal in 2015 to accommodate all the tourists they country says should come vacation, and plans to build another airport?

For all the hoopla surrounding Paris, nations sure seem to be in no hurry to actually ratify the pact.

Read: Fiji First To Ratify Paris Climate Pact »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Congress Should Rubber-stamp Anyone Obama Nominates For Supreme Court

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 8:15 am

The NY Times Editorial Board actually makes a few salient points in their editorial, but, it is the lead that should be noticed first

When Antonin Scalia was named by President Ronald Reagan to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1986, the Senate considered the nomination for 85 days, then voted to confirm him. The tally was 98-0.

That unanimity was by no means a measure of widespread agreement with Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Rather it was the Senate’s customary acknowledgment — at least until recently — that the president had fulfilled his constitutional duty and selected a clearly qualified person for the post.

It is by no means a coincidence that the NYTEB starts off this way: they are demanding that the GOP led Congress rubber-stamp whomever Obama nominates, who will certainly be a hardcore leftist applying their political beliefs, activism, and international law in deciding cases, rather than American law and our Constitution.

Thirty years later, and within hours of the news that Justice Scalia had died, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, rejected that practice outright. It would not matter if President Obama nominated the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself, they appeared to suggest — there will be no confirmation hearings until Mr. Obama has packed his bags and moved out of the White House. Mr. Obama promptly replied that he planned to send a nomination to Congress shortly.

On this, the NYTEB might have a point: the GOP Senate should give the person a hearing, all the better to expose just how unqualified and left leaning the person is, then take a vote and say “No.”

Senators are free to vote yes or no on any nominee. But not to vote at all is an enormous insult and grave disservice to millions of Americans awaiting justice.

It might make sense if the left wing judges were interested in applying the Constitution to their votes. Rarely do any of the current ones vote against their left wing Social Justice Warrior beliefs. That said, there is precedent to delay delay delay. We’ll see what happens.

Read: NY Times: Congress Should Rubber-stamp Anyone Obama Nominates For Supreme Court »

Posted in Current Affairs | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Decides To Run Against Operation Iraqi Freedom

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 7:44 am

Can someone check the calendar and see what year it is?

(Breitbart) Trump said, “The Iraq war was a disaster. It was a mistake. We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, thousands of lives, wounded warriors who we love all over the place. What do we have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Iran is taking over Iraq as sure as you’re sitting there. And that’s the way it is. We get nothing. They get the oil, they get everything. We get nothing. So it was a huge mistake. Whether people like it or not. and I’m the only one with the vision to have said don’t do it. And I wasn’t even a politician when I said that.”

He added, “Something’s going to have to happen with the party or we’re going to lose yet another election. I’m not even doing it to win election, I’m doing it out of common sense. The war was a horrible thing. If we’re not going to admit that, you’re going to have yet another election where the Democrats are going to win.”

This is surely in response to Trump’s comments during the Saturday night debate, which somehow saw the Iraq war come up. He’s doubling down. Or, is that tripling down? Because Trump has had the Left wing opinion on Iraq since late 2003, around the same time Democrats decided they were going to use the war to attack President Bush. He sure failed to convey his opposition during the long debate over Resolution 1441, approved by the United Nations and the US Congress, giving Bush clearance to engage in a military operation against Iraq if Iraq failed to allow weapons inspectors in to do their job. Saddam Hussein played his games, and lost.

And, yes, Donald, WMD was found in Iraq. And, a major point was about denying Saddam WMD. Also, free the citizens from a brutal dictator. And other measures. But, really, do we need to relitigate Operation Iraqi Freedom? No. We don’t. Apparently Trump does. He thinks this is a winning issue, despite Bush being out of office for 7 years, despite Obama having done serious damage to the gains won in Iraq. Notice that Trump doesn’t attack Obama.

As noted in the WMD link, this “demonstrates that Trump’s political philosophy is actually a hodgepodge of far-left talking points that he imbibed when he was sucking up to the Clintons, their friends, and the other progressives he rubbed shoulders with in New York.” He hasn’t given up those far left talking points. If you read the transcript of the debate Saturday night, and from the Fox News Sunday show, would you think they were made by a Democrat or a Republican?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Decides To Run Against Operation Iraqi Freedom »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove