“The only way we work with Trump is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.” ~ Chuck Schumer, a jerk
The Party of No
Rachel Maddow interviewed Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat hack from New York, who promised he will do all he can to keep Donald Trump from appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
Maddow said it is a stolen Supreme Court seat. It was Obama’s to fill, she claimed.
Obama filled two seats and he put hard-left Justices in place who will legislate from the bench. The empty seat was at the end of his presidency and was not a stolen seat. There is precedent for this when the seat comes available at the end of a presidency.
Senator Schumer and the Democrats plan to be the party of “NO”
Barack Obama’s Pick Would Have Changed the Nature of the Court
Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the court, another justice who would legislate from the bench. The majority on the bench would then be justices who do not follow the Constitution and believe the Constitution is a “living document.” Justice Ginsberg has said she prefers the “South African Constitution”.
It would forever change the nature of the court and the Constitution.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
While serving in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Merrick Garland has stood with the EPA almost 100% of the time!
Garland’s Leftist Bias
Garland ruled in favor of the EPA and the environmental lobby and usually wrote the court’s opinion as well!
In 2002, in the American Corn Growers Association v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down an EPA haze rule.
The ruling upheld the goal of the 1999 rule that requires states to cut emissions for returning parks to “natural visibility.” But the court determined requiring states use the best available technology to do so was overly burdensome and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, which granted more flexibility for states.
Garland was the lone dissenter, arguing that The Clean Air Act delegates authority to the EPA to make such judgments on reducing pollution. the Texas Tribune reported.
The haze rule would have forced business to “spend millions of dollars for new technology that will have no appreciable effect.”Garland wrote the opinion upholding the Endangered Species Act in the “hapless toad” case.
In the case of Rancho Viejo v Norton in 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service had determined that Rancho Viejo’s construction plan was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad, which the Secretary of the Interior listed as an endangered species.
The government presented their case under the Commerce Clause.
Roberts said that he doubted that “regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of his own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating ‘commerce…among the several states’.”
Garland is a loon.
The EPA constantly uses the Endangered Species Act to steal and control private land.
In 2004, he sided against the EPA in Sierra Club v. EPA when they were going to act reasonably because Garland wanted them to act immediately.
Garland won’t only vote against our Second Amendment, he will be the EPA’s best friend, especially in the case of the Clean Power Act.
SCOTUS Blog, a non-partisan legal site that focuses on the Supreme Court, also chronicled Garland’s consistent pro-environment and mostly pro-EPA record on the bench.
There are other cases as well.
