Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett CONFIRMED

 

The White House • October 26, 2020

BREAKING: Senate Confirms Amy Coney Barrett After a unanimous vote by the Judiciary Committee last week, the Senate just confirmed Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become the 115th Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.   “Having confirmed her to the Circuit Court in 2017 with bipartisan support, the Senate has already undertaken a thorough and rigorous review of her record,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said after President Trump made the nomination last month.   Throughout Justice Barrett’s career, she has faithfully upheld the U.S. Constitution as written. The American Bar Association gave Barrett its highest rating, and she has an impressive track record across the legal profession—as a judge, professor, and litigator.   Most important, she will bring a valuable new perspective to our nation’s High Court: Justice Barrett is the first mother of school-aged children to become a Supreme Court Justice. She is also only the fifth woman ever to serve.   As the mother of a child with special needs, she understands the issues and concerns confronting our nation’s most vulnerable people.   Justice Barrett is the only current justice to have a law degree from a school other than Harvard or Yale. She graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law School in Indiana.   Justice Barrett has made her philosophy clear: She will not legislate from the bench. “Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society, but courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” she said during her confirmation hearings.   “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people,” she added.   One letter—written by Justice Barrett’s former law clerks—calls her approach principled and independent-minded. “Judge Barrett taught us that a good judge will not always like the results she reaches; a good judge goes wherever the law leads,” it says.   Justice Barrett is the very model of a sympathetic yet impartial judge, according to her colleagues at Notre Dame Law School. She is exactly the type of person whom the American people deserve to have sitting on their Supreme Court.   “If we are to protect our institutions, and protect the freedoms, and protect the rule of law that’s the basis for the society and the freedom that we all enjoy—if we want that for our children and our children’s children—then we need to participate in that work,” Justice Barrett said.   🎬 WATCH: Why Justice Barrett accepted President Trump’s nomination

Trump vs. Chief Justice John Roberts: Trump is in the Right

President Trump recently slammed the “Obama Judge” who stuck down his order to block the mobile mob along (which media have called “the migrant caravan) the United States’ southern border. In a rare move, United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rebuked the President for his criticism of the federal judiciary:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

It’s understandable that the Chief Justice wants to counter any disparaging condemnation that independent judges have gone rogue. Certainly, no one wants to believe that one branch of government has abandoned its responsibility to impartial governance.

However, that’s exactly what is happening under the Trump Administration: social justice activism from the bench. Federal judges write their orders imposing sweeping outcomes, the rule of law and supremacy of the United States Constitution be damned! No one should delude themselves into believing that the federal court system is rigorously, unabashedly transparent and unbiased. John Roberts’ unforced error on forced judicial activism has opened up the much-needed debate.

Trump rightly punched back:

Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country … We need protection and security.

The President of the United States is not just chief executive to enforce the law, but he is charged with the supreme responsibility of protecting the rights of citizens and securing our nation’s borders from foreign invasion. Progressive attorneys and liberal judges need to revisit Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution if they have a problem with the President’s role.

Indeed, many of these judges are acting like “Obama judges” (not just the ones appointed by Obama): desperate progressives shoring up a Big Government, anti-constitutional legacy at all costs. President Trump has been repeatedly frustrated and delayed because of this rogue judicial supremacy. Trump issued the exact same travel ban as Obama, relying on the previous order, which targeted the same countries; yet Trump faced months of litigation as lower courts aided and abetted the legal version of “The Resistance”. All of this legal posturing is about re-litigating and defying Trump’s 2016 victory, and it’s nothing short of sickening.

This encroachment of the courts against executive power is not a new concern, either.

During the first months of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln engaged in so-called extra-legal measures in order to save the country. He conscripted an army without Congressional approval, and he suspended habeas corpus (a legal right which requires that an arrested party to be brought before a judge to determine whether they should be detained or released) in Maryland. Virginia had already seceded from the Union, and if Maryland broke away, too, the federal seat of government in Washington DC would have faced siege from all sides.

The United States Supreme Court formally intervened in 1861. Slave-owning Chief Justice (and Democrat) Roger Taney ruled against Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in Ex Parte Merryman. The very partisan justice contended that the President had no authority to hold individuals indefinitely during times of war. However, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution clearly outlines that the habeas corpus writ can be suspended during such times of national crisis. In the end, Lincoln ignored the corrupt ruling which had interfered with his legal executive authority. President Trump should consider following Lincoln’s example and disregard the decision undercutting President Trump’s order to suspend asylum rules for the greater good of the country.

Yet there’s more to Trump’s bold defiance to Chief Justice Robert’s brazen, unjustified defense of the so-called independent judiciary.

Indeed, we have Obama judges, and even judges before that, who have become comfy and arrogant in their power. They are issuing widespread rulings to impose their views on how the world should work, what the government should get away with, and not get away with, and how the United States Constitution can mean whatever they want it to. Enumerated powers has turned into expanded judicial tyranny, and it’s hurting our country.

This progressive impulse afflicts federal judges of all rankings and background, whether installed by Republicans or Democrats. Power tends to corrupt, and absolutely power in the hands of life-long judicial appoints has corrupted a once-august institution deemed to serve as a check and balance against government overreach.

John Roberts has no right to talk. When Obama publicly chastised the United States Supreme Court for the Citizens United decision, Roberts said nothing. He upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate, even though it clearly violated the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Roberts even joined with the bare majority to strike down the duly approved and enacted initiative process when the state of California clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Furthermore, contrary to Roberts’ partisan assertion, Trump did not attack the independence of the judiciary, but rather he attacked its clearly un-independent, incessantly partisan, anti-constitutional record—and he’s right to do so. Unlike the unelected, unaccountable elites in our country, Trump says what many of us are thinking, and without reserve or recrimination.

Indeed, we have an Obama-nized judiciary, one which seeks to fundamentally transform this country, ignoring the Constitution and upending the civil republicanism envisioned by the Framers. Fortunately, President Trump has a more constitutionally conservative Senator majority at his disposal for the next years. This majority ensures the rapid confirmation of constitutionalist jurists who will not only slow down but reverse the judicial tyranny tearing our country apart. While conservatives await the timely retirement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they should welcome John Roberts’ removal. Trump is making America Great Again, but that includes making the Supreme Court Constitutional Again, a reform which the some of members defiantly resist.

From Borked to "Kavanaugh-ed": The SCOTUS Nomination Circus

Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan nominated a pre-eminent legal mind and unabashed constitutionalist Robert C. Bork. A Yale Law School professor with impeccable credentials, including a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Bork faced an unprecedented buzzsaw of contention and condemnation not just from Democrats, but the press and Hollywood.

US Senator Ted Kennedy read a smear-filled speech against Bork’s confirmation, infamously referred to as “Robert Bork’s America.” Ironically, Kennedy’s tirade against Bork referenced policy decisions implemented by Democratic politicians, including forced segregation, the retraction of civil rights, and police abuses against citizens. Reagan’s Republican Party didn’t handle the media and political onslaught, and Bork’s confirmation failed and not just along party lines. The stark failure of a pre-eminent jurist to receive a seat on the Supreme Court demonstrated that Republican measures to appoint conservative, constitutional originalists to the United States Supreme Court would face not just a double-standard on extreme vetting, but an unprecedented assault on their character and their personal lives.

Thirty years later, with President Donald Trump in office, it looks as if Republicans have learned their lesson. Donald Trump overcame the steep media harassment which sought to derail his election in 2016. In fact, the more the media attacked the President, the better his chances grew, it seemed. Part of his winning campaign included the list of conservative jurists whom he would consider for nomination to the United States Supreme Court. Trump knew how to take on the media then, and he put the screws to the media with this list. He shored up support with worried evangelicals, plus he established trustworthy credentials with other conservatives worried about his commitment to Republican principles.

His first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, passed through unsightly lines of questioning from Democratic US Senators. Their unjust determination to stonewall a well-qualified jurist fell apart when the Republican majority nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, simply following the pattern set by former Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in 2013 with appellate nominees. Gorsuch was one constitutionalist replacing another constitutional originalist.

For all intents and purposes, Democrats overplayed their hand. They should not have blocked this nomination, but allowed it to go through and save their political capital for other nominees. This partisan folly has hurt their cause in more ways than they will ever know.

 Now we have Brett Kavanaugh, a United States DC Court of Appeals jurist with a long, stories, respected, pedigree. His well-written political opinions sparked little interest from the Democratic minority. They focused on his private life, then they went after his political associations. From the outset, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he and his caucus would do everything in their power to stop Kavanaugh.

The nomination process is now excessively politicized. The Democrats have destroyed any credibility on this matter. This Democratic attempt to derail President Trump's duly established role as chief executive, and the US Senate's role of "Advise and Consent" has turned into a search-and-destroy circus. Will there be any hope of ending this perverse disregard for the rule of law?

Perhaps. Justice Kavanaugh has displayed an impress judicial temperament. He has demonstrated through solid political research and writing his skill at analyzing law and responding to federal court cases. He has shown proven integrity as a private citizen and public figure. His family contains a long legal pedigree. No matter what the Democrats tried to do, they could not dispute his qualifications.

Now they have resorted to pursuing spurious allegations of sexual misconduct in order to derail this nominee. It is nothing short of disgusting. Christine Ford brings forth these purported sexual assault charges from decades ago, when she and Brett were in high school.  The charges have gone from harrowing to laughable. One accuser stated that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rape. The attorney in charge of another matter, Michael Avenatti, represented washed-up porn slut Stormy Daniels. Those attacks against Trump went nowhere. Avenatti wants in on the corrupt anti-Kavanaugh action, too? Unbelievable.

With the Kavanaugh nomination, a different kind of political maelstrom is emerging. In the past, Supreme Court nominees were "borked", that is slandered heinously by the ideological opposites in hopes of scuttling a terrible nomination. In those days, with Reagan at the helm of divided government. Robert Bork was slammed inexorably because of his consistent constitutionalism, and thus his inevitably conservative views. The Roe v. Wade precedent faced possible overturning with Bork.

That fate awaits that poorly decided decision once again should Kavanaugh become the next Supreme Court justice. His 307 written opinions outline a clearly pro-America, sovereign guidance on a number of issues, including life. Precedents have been respected and rejected in differing number

Borking Kavanaugh didn’t work, in that the Democratic US Senator minority could not attack his political or judicial philosophy with any seriousness this time. The Republican Party conference, or at least the phalanx of conservatives fighting for this latest nomination, now understand the stakes and the depraved lengths to which the Democratic Party will go to shut down future nominees.

This nominee has been “Kavanaugh-ed”, in that the ideological opposition on the US Senate has resorted to every personal, private slander and allegation of impropriety to stop his nomination or scuttle his confirmation. This process was played out to a less extent during Judge Douglas Ginsburg’s nomination hearings. Reagan nominated Ginsburg after Bork, but he withdrew because he “inhaled”. Let’s not forget the “high-tech lynching” that Clarence Thomas endured.

These irreverent, heinous, salacious attacks have hit such a height, however, that they deserve their own moniker. Because of their outlandish nature, however, they will backfire spectacularly. This perverse lawlessness has turned off moderate Democratic voters while engaging Republicans to get out there and vote. Dianne Feinstein may have saved her seat, but she cost her party any chance of winning the House or the US Senate.  Perhaps in the near future, Supreme Court nominees should look forward to being “Kavanaugh-ed”. It almost certainly guarantees the confirmation going forward.

Kavanaugh Coming Through

Kavanaugh Almighty!, by Carol Houghton

We don’t know about you, but we are definitely excited for the upcoming days when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh singlehandedly overturns Roe v. Wade, causes more global warming to happen and places a fully-automatic machine gun in the hands of every middle schooler.

Quick question: If one Supreme Court Justice has as much magical power as the left ascribes to Brett Kavanaugh, why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg incinerated all of us Deplorables already?

The Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh were a sight to behold this week. Deranged lunatics were screeching, howling and bursting into tears in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the inevitability of Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Those insane people shrieked almost continually and at times, it felt like the hearings were going to have to be canceled just for safety’s sake.

Oh, and some civilian protesters showed up, too.

The mainstream media was sure to let us know that there were women on the balcony overlooking the chambers who were dressed in Handmaid’s Tale costumes. Look at all of those ordinary, concerned female citizens turning out to stand up for Roe v. Wade! Why, they’re a veritable plethora of everyday Americans, declared the MSM.

Except… later on in the day, conservative outlets identified them as members of the DC-area Antifa fugly squad. Trust us, those brand-new scarlet and white costumes are the cleanest clothes those “ladies” have had on since November 8, 2016.

Plus, we didn’t know that handmaids are allowed to use cell phones. Paging the Patriarchy Police!

Within the Senate chambers, it was an absolute zoo. The Democrats were howling and screeching like a pack of… oops, we almost said, “monkeys,” but thanks to the media’s coverage of the Florida primaries, we know that monkey is now the new N-word. Let’s just say the Democrat protesters were out of control.

Don’t think, however, that it wasn’t planned that way. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave the Democrat Senators and the civilian protesters their marching orders in a conference call last week. The whole charade was carefully orchestrated, right down to a George Soros-funded leftwing organization paying the protesters from a bag of cash, right outside the Senate building.

Three doctors who were waiting in line, in hopes of getting inside to watch some of the proceedings, saw a dude with a bag of cash handing out money to people. They thought that was weird, so they snapped a photo of the money-man. Sure enough, the woman he was handing cash to was later ejected from the hearing for howling like a… can we say “banshee?” Is the word “banshee” still okay? Can we get a ruling on that?

Twitter sleuths quickly identified the money man as Vinay Krishnan, a consultant for the Center for Popular Democracy. The Center for Popular Democracy is, in turn, one of the anti-Trump groups that billionaire socialist George Soros dumped massive amounts of cash into earlier this year to resist Trump.

The Center for Popular Democracy is almost completely funded by Soros. Thus, the protests that you saw on TV at the Kavanaugh hearings were brought you by George Soros. Thanks, George.

Here’s a fun fact that Mitch McConnell could take advantage of to ensure that such a circus never happens in the US Senate again. You can’t get into a Senate hearing unless you have a pass. You don’t get a pass unless a Senator’s office gives you one.

In other words, every single one of those insane, screaming, howling lunatics (you thought we were going to say banshees again, didn’t you?) was given a pass by a Democrat Senator.

Mitch McConnell could simply change the Senate rules to fix this once and for all. If you have a guest in the Senate chambers that has to be ejected for too much crazy, your office gets no more passes. Period. Problem solved.

And you know it just wouldn’t be an anti-Trump media spectacle without a loony tunes conspiracy theory about white supremacy. Boy, did the Democrats deliver on that promise! One of Judge Kavanaugh’s advisors was seated directly behind him, and she was… OMG, she was flashing a white supremacy hand signal to the cameras for like, totally an hour!

Of course, that conspiracy theory fell apart when it was revealed that the perceived KKK lady was Zina Bash, a Jewish-Mexican staffer of Kavanaugh’s.

Our favorite part of the hearing, however, had to be when Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) had his moment in the shining sun, pulling a campaign stunt to indicate that he’s running against Trump in 2020. “This is my Spartacus moment!” Booker thundered to the cameras.

Oh, boy. Anytime a Democrat tells you how courageous they’re being, get ready to be informed of something banal that doesn’t even vaguely resemble courage to a normal person.

Remember, the Democrats thought that FBI stooge Peter Strzok deserved a Purple Heart for testifying before the House Judiciary Committee – which is part of the regular duties of senior FBI officials. “He’s doing his job! It’s just like being shot by the Taliban!”

Courage to a Democrat usually means making it halfway through a meeting before sending out a fundraising email about how brave they’re being.

Okay, Spartacus Booker! Dazzle us with your courage! We’re ready to swoon!

The Democrats are doing quite a job
obstructing the Kavanuagh Nomination

Booker declared that he was breaking the Senate rules to release classified Kavanaugh documents that Trump doesn’t want the public to see. And even though SPARTACUS BOOKER could lose his US Senate seat for misconduct by BREAKING THE RULES IN REBELLIOUS FASHION, JUST LIKE HEROES FROM DAYS OF YORE (!), he was willing to make that sacrifice for America. That’s how brave SPARTACUS BOOKER is!

Except the documents had already been declassified before the hearing started. It was a nice speech, though, Spartacus. ‘A’ for effort.

And as for the “classified” info that Trump didn’t want the public to know about, it was an email exchange between Kavanaugh and someone else in the Bush White House. Kavanaugh said in the emails that he didn’t want to rely on racial profiling of Arabs in the days after 9/11. Hey, no wonder Trump didn’t want the public to see it!

So, in the end, Spartacus Booker’s big rebellion revealed to the world that Brett Kavanaugh is opposed to racial profiling. You’d think the Democrats would have wanted to hide that.

This was a watershed moment though, because up until we saw the documents, we were unable to learn any of Kavanaugh’s positions on any legal issues. That’s because Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein had been interrupting him for two straight days.

As for Kavanaugh’s real worth as a US Supreme Court Justice, if he’s even 10 percent as conservative as the Democrats and the media assure us he is, it’ll be an improvement over Anthony Kennedy.

Here Comes Justice
Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh: Brilliant, Unforeseen SCOTUS Nominee

President Trump is a superb showman as well as statesman. On his second Supreme Court nomination, he kept the public waiting and his supporters wondering. Before he announced his decision, the Left and their Democratic hordes in Congress raged about the end of Roe v. Wade (and the poorly written, judicial activist imposed gay marriage decision).

I had wanted US Senator Mike Lee. Unfortunately, the fact that he declared his fervent opposition to Roe v. Wade (which should be overturned, by the way) would have hurt his chances of getting the two pro-choice Republican US Senators (Murkowski of Alaska and Collins of Maine) to support him. Beyond that, judges should not declare distinct, fervent opposition to specific decisions or laws early on. Such policy statements undermine the veneer and core of judicial independence.

Ann Coney Barrett would have checked off a number of interests (young, female, staunchly pro-life and pro-First Amendment). She would be the perfect replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Thomas Hardiman would have been the logical choice, since he had already been vetted, ending up runner-up to Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is an excellent choice, although an option I had not considered seriously until the increasing number of reports the day before indicated that he was the likely nominee.

Ann Coulter brought him to the forefront multiple times over the past week. She argued consistently that he was the best candidate for advancing the “America First” agenda.

Indeed, Kavanaugh’s record on “American First” is a proud pedigree worth looking at more closely:

1.       Agri Processor Co., Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, Kavanaugh dissented, writing that illegal aliens do not count as workers in a labor union because they are not citizens.

2.       Fogo de Choa (Holdings) Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Kavanaugh dissented again, ruling that American companies do not have a right to import foreign workers.

3.       American Meat Institute, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture et al., Kavanaugh concurred with the majority ruling, that the United States is justified in supporting American economic interests versus foreign competitors.

Note that Kavanaugh is not afraid to be a losing dissenter, while his predecessor was more interested in being in “the majority”. This judicial vetting process that led to Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the first time to my knowledge that the President, the political class, and the public at large applied an immigration litmus test. It’s disconcerting in a limited sense that popular interests have become so central in the selection of federal judges. Still, the highest court in the country should not shy away from shoring up the nation’s borders and securing the sovereignty of the nation. The rule of law is at stake, especially in the blue bastions of resistance like California and New York. This country needs a federal judiciary ready to challenge this regional rebellion.

Other factors make the Kavanaugh nomination noteworthy.

He worked for the Bush Administration. He helped with the Florida recount which flipped the state into the red column in Election 2000. That record should invite support from the  GOP Establishment while outraging from the Left. The GOPe wouldn’t reject a nominee who had not only worked with W., but was later nominated by W. for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

As with Gorsuch, Trump listened to the people and considered the best interests of the county, not the comfort of the political power-brokers. Reports indicated that Majority Leader McConnell wanted Raymond Kethledge (or Thomas Hardiman) for an easier confirmation. When the populist uproar over Kethledge reached a boil (his past decisions suggested weakness on immigration), reports quickly tumbled out that Kethledge was out of the running. This process played out last year, when Trump had favored Judge William Pryor. His record on First Amendment issues, especially religious liberty, was shaky, though. National grassroots groups had registered their complaints to good effect.

Unlike previous Republican Presidents, Trump welcomes the political fight for good nominees. 

Kavanaugh, the rock-steady constitutional originalist, has courted controversy before. When Bush 43 nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals, but he wasn’t confirmed for three years! In the minority at the time, Senate Democrats pulled ever stop to stop him and other Bush-era judicial nominees. 

Eventually, the “Gang of 14” allowed some appointments to move forward, thus averting the nuclear option to quash the filibuster for federal district and court nominees. Kavanaugh likely got confirmation because of this brokered deal at the time. Trump could have but didn’t choose a “consensus” choice. Kavanaugh has a definitive, controversial, and consistently conservative record.

Trump’s nominations continue to be refreshingly principled, a contrast to the last Republican president, George W. Bush, who didn’t want to confront the US Senate gridlock. John Roberts had a thin judicial record, and some of his decisions have hurt the country. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired Bush first nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers: a liberal nominee with no discernible record or judicial experience. Bush’s choice came from weakness, simply because the White House wanted to avoid a senatorial showdown. Trump doesn’t flee from the fight.

In fact, the Kavanaugh nomination guarantees trolling against and feckless opposition from the Democratic Senate minority. Kavanaugh worked with Kenneth Starr during the prosecution of President Bill Clinton. Expect to hear the Clintons mentioned in the press, with reminders of their perennial corruption. Kavanaugh’s strong record supporting life, the Second Amendment, and religions liberties will also inflame the Left. Of course, Red State Democratic US Senators will be caught between their caucus leaders and the Deep Red Wave coming in November. This will be fun.

Last of all, this nominee has support from divergent sections of the ideological spectrum. A liberal professor in a liberal news rag rated him a top-notch nominee. Conservatives love him. Libertarians are jittery about the Fourth Amendment, but they have little else to complain about. The Brett Kavanaugh appointment is nothing short of brilliant, if unforeseen (at least for me).

How the US Senate Finally Handed President Trump a Major Victory

There are plenty of reasons to be furious with the Republican "led" Congress in Washington.

The biggest swamp creatures, including Mitch McConnell, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have stymied Trump--and our--agenda for the last ten months. They attack the President rather than working for Americans' best interests.

But one bright spot has emerged and the US Senate has given President Trump a major victory.

Jake Novak for CNBC reports:

President Donald Trump should give special thanks to two U.S. Senators this Thanksgiving weekend. One is still serving in the Senate, the other recently retired. One is a Republican. The other a Democrat.

Late last week, Grassley decided not to honor a Senate tradition of holding up hearings for judicial nominees who aren't cleared by their own home state senators. That tradition is known as the "blue slip courtesy" born out of time before nationwide communication technology when a given state's senators had access to much more information about nominees than their colleagues from the rest of the country. Grassley correctly noted that Democrats were now trying to use the blue slips tradition to replace the filibuster, and he's having none of that. 

So happy that Judiciary Chairman Grassley is putting the proper process ahead of the partisan bickering and bigotry of the Democratic minority. These antiquated measures were permitted for too long. The same goes for the time-honored filibuster tradition. It should only be used if US Senators actually get off their butts and talk a piece of legislation to death.

And that brings us to the Democrat who provided the initial generous source of President Trump's solid triumph: Former Senate Majority Leader, and Democrat, Harry Reid. Reid is a major reason this good fortune has befallen President Trump because Reid was the one who killed the filibuster rule for judicial nominees in 2013. And when he killed it, it was gone for good.

There were a few Democratic US Senator who slammed then-Majority Leader Harry Reid for killing the filibuster for federal district and circuit court nominees. The truth is, however, that the measure needed to go. During the Bush Administration, the Democratic minority (until 2007), went out of their to block qualified, well-vetted and well-informed nominees to the federal bench. The most notorious case was Miguel Estrada of California. US Senator Dianne Feinstein blasted the nomination because Estrada had no substantive scholarship or leadership to justify the appointment. The truth is that he was a well-qualified constitutional conservative, and the Democrats feared his incredible potential influence if confirmed.

Novak also points out that Reid's impatience worked even more for Republicans, since when they gained the majority in 2015, they stalled everyone of Obama's judicial nominees, and there was nothing the newly-imposed Democratic minority could do about it.

In fact, President Trump has twice as many vacancies to fill as President Obama faced in 2009. This is real winning. And there's more to this story:

But this isn't just about sheer numbers, it's about ideology too. While President Trump and conservatives have diverged in matters of policy several times over the past year, the judicial nomination process is decidedly not one of them. The nominees sent to the Senate from the White House are more conservative and even younger than what we saw during President George W. Bush's two terms in office.

Young conservative confirmations will ensure a long-lasting imprint on the federal judiciary and prepare a strong bench of candidates for the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the most important appointments has been Neil Gorsuch, cut from the same perfect ideological cloth as the late Antonin Scalia. The Democrats showed how out of touch and desperate they are by going after this nominee with all their political capital. They should have waited, since replacing one conservative with another would not have altered the balance of the court.

Instead, the plunged ahead and attacked Gorsuch with everything imaginable. They went so far as to throw up unprecedented assaults to this nominee, and thus gave the GOP majority the justification to kill the filibuster rules for all federal nominees.

More winning for the country!

Sure, the tax reform and Obamacare repeal bills may be jeopardized by internal spats between the GOP and the White House. But real history is being made in the courts all thanks to a bad bet made by Senator Reid and remarkable cooperation between the Trump team, Senator Grassley, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. While the fights with other senators like Flake et al may grab headlines, these judicial confirmations will have a much bigger impact.

Final Reflection

One key point in Novak's article is that the press is ignoring this unparalleled victory for the President and the Republicans. One other article, which I wrote about and shared with Townhall.com and Barbwire.com, featured that this country is going to be substantially more conservative for the next generation because of the rapid and rising number of judicial confirmations under the Trump administration.

Indeed, this is great news for taking back our country, for making America great again. We need judges who respect the Judeo-Christian ethic of our nation, men and women who honor the timeless values and traditions which make Western Civilization possible, and have made the United States the most prosperous, blessed nation on earth.

We should be glad for some substance of pro-Trump leadership in the US Senate, and this victory may explain in growing measure why Trump went along with supporting Luther Strange in the contentious Alabama US Senate special election primary earlier this year. Also, the US Senate, feeling the heat from the conservative grassroots across the country, are pressuring more members to get the President's agenda going forward. The US Senate's decision to repeal the onerous Obamacare individual mandate, for example, is a response from a rest conservative base and independent electorate which want the Swamp drained and the rights of American citizens retained.

The US Senate has made one key victory happen, but there need to be more victories very soon--which includes the final resignation of Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell.

So Much Winning: Gorsuch Just Like Scalia (Even the LA Times Said So)

The Los Angeles Times is just the West Coast version of the liberal New York Times.

They want to print the news that fits ... their narrative.

Yet even then, they can't help but recognize that his appointment of Neil Gorsuch was not only a big win, but that he is in every way just like Justice Scalia.

Scalia and his successor Gorsuch (Credit: Daily Signal)

Isn't this incredible!

Check out what I found in the Wednesday, June 28th edition of the LA Times:

You know the liberal media is in a tailspin when they have to acknowledge that their most hated target, President Donald Trump, is fulfilling his promises to the American People.

Specifically, the above commentary points out that most justices are not easy to pinpoint when it comes to their governing and judicial ruling style.

All of that has been pushed aside over the past two months. Commentators not realize that Gorsuch is in every way like Scalia. He is issuing conservative, constitutionalist opinions, based on a clear, erudite understanding of the rule of law.

For example, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court let stand a decision which would allow states to record same-sex parents on the birth certificates of children.

What?!

Who dissented in the opinion? Alito, Thomas ... and Gorsuch!

He is a clear, distinguished, constitutionalist voice on the United States Supreme Court, and he is not afraid to dissent with the minority view if needed. He also issued concurring opinions on the travel ban, as he though that the whole executive order should have been upheld.

So much winning! SO MUCH WINNING!