Mitch McConnell's gamble is about to pay off — big time
By: Frank Cannon
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a politician place a more consequential wager (and win) than the one Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did in 2016.
After Justice Antonin Scalia passed away that February, President Obama swiftly nominated Merrick Garland to take his place on the Supreme Court. Scalia, a solid conservative, would be replaced by a progressive, and the makeup of the Court would be decisively shifted in the left’s favor. The media and progressive activists lauded Garland’s credentials and urged McConnell to confirm him immediately.
McConnell understood that he had a choice to make. In Article II of the Constitution, the Senate is granted the authority to provide “advice and consent” to the president on judicial nominations. Perhaps in a slight to Senator Harry Reid, who had eliminated the judicial filibuster for non-Supreme Court judicial nominees in 2013 and made the process much more partisan, McConnell decided to strip Obama of the Senate’s “consent” and hold off on considering a Supreme Court nominee until after the presidential election.
McConnell drew fire from the media and outrage among pundits and activists on the left, but he held the line knowing the future of the Supreme Court — and the outcome of a number of issues conservatives cared deeply about, such as abortion, guns, and free speech — hung in the balance. His resolve helped drive incredible turnout among a Republican base that understood the election’s considerably high stakes. And based on exit polling, it is not an overstatement to say that McConnell’s decision to delay filling Scalia’s seat was a deciding factor in the election of President Trump.
Republicans tend to be risk-averse in politics, which is why McConnell’s wager was so impressive. He certainly took a big risk. Had Hillary Clinton won, with Justice Kennedy closing in on retirement and the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees hanging by a thread, we would likely now have a 6-3 court in the progressives’ favor, locking in the left’s domination of the judicial branch for at least a generation. Instead, thanks to McConnell’s bold stand, a solid 5-4 conservative-majority Supreme Court is now within reach. The significance of this difference cannot be overstated.
We saw over the last few days why controlling the Supreme Court is so important. Every branch of conservatism was rewarded with major decisions. Social conservatives gained an important victory in NIFLA v. Becerra, which protected the free speech rights of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Immigration and national security hawks cheered the Court’s ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the administration’s travel ban. And limited government conservatives were no doubt pleased with the result of Janus v. AFSCME, which blunted the power of public sector unions, arguably the largest promoter of big government policies in the country.
Now, with Justice Kennedy retiring and with President Trump having a second opportunity to pick a Supreme Court justice, these decisions may represent just the first conservative victories of many more to come, as long as Republicans again hold the line and stand strong against pressure from the Democrats and the media.
McConnell and Senate Republicans should pay no heed to Democrats who are hypocritically arguing in favor of “precedent” and “norms” that Republicans should wait until after the election to consider a new Supreme Court appointment. Democrats already showed in 2013 they care little about “precedent” when they obliterated the norms surrounding lower court nominations. If the roles were reversed, Democrats would undoubtedly nominate and confirm the most progressive Supreme Court Justice possible as quickly as possible. As President Obama once infamously told Republican leadership, “Elections have consequences.”
President Trump has the opportunity to cement an incredible legacy when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. He could be the president who is ultimately responsible for overturning (or at least severely weakening) Roe v. Wade as well as restoring a strong respect for our Constitution to the judicial system. And the effects of this change to the Court could very well resonate many decades or more into the future. But let the history books show: none of this would have been possible if not for Mitch McConnell and his courageous 2016 gamble.
Frank Cannon is the president at American Principles Project. Follow him on Twitter @FrankCannonAPP.
Arizona governor meets with Sen. McCain following missed resignation deadline
May 31, 2018
Gage Skidmore / CCL
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) met with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) at his home earlier this week, fueling speculation that the pair may have discussed the senator’s possible successor ahead of a crucial election deadline. If McCain resigned before Wednesday at midnight, the governor’s appointed replacement would only stand until a special election this November — but if McCain refused to resign ahead of Wednesday night, his successor would hold the Senate seat until 2020.
The deadline has officially passed, and McCain remains in office, bolstering the chances that Republicans will retain their Senate majority following midterm elections this fall.
Holding out until the endMcCain was diagnosed with brain cancer in July 2017 and hasn’t attended a legislative session since December. This truancy has encouraged some longtime political detractors to demand his resignation.
“I think that anybody’s who’s not able to do their job should step aside and allow the process to continue in Washington D.C. because there is such important work that has to be done,” State Sen. Kelli Ward (D), who is running for Arizona’s other Senate seat and lost to McCain in a previous election, told MSNBC. Of course, Ward distastefully demanded McCain’s resignation just hours after he announced his terminal cancer diagnosis.
Still, when Gov. Ducey and his wife called on the McCains in an unscheduled visit so close to the momentous Wednesday deadline, observers couldn’t help but to hazard a guess as to the purpose of their meeting. However, even if the lawmakers discussed McCain’s potential successor, they likely won’t reveal their plans to the public.
Unhealthy obsession?When asked about the meeting and McCain’s resignation ahead of the Wednesday deadline, Ducey spokesperson Daniel Scarpinato scolded reporters and questioned their “obsession with this when there is no issue.”
Scarpinato further excoriated the media and questioned their curiosity with McCain’s political future in a follow-on email to The Hill. Explaining his frustration, Scarpinato wrote:
John McCain is our senior senator. He and the governor work on a variety of issues together. Like others, the governor wanted to spend time with Senator McCain, and it was a great visit.
To anyone who uses this as an opportunity to speculate or fan the rumor mill: Washington DC’s obsession with this when there is no issue to be discussed is disgraceful. John McCain is our senator until 2022, and the governor is looking forward to him returning to the U.S. Senate.
Passing the torchNow that Ducey has the power to appoint someone to the Senate who will remain in office until 2020, many Americans are wondering just who the governor has in mind to follow in McCain’s giant footsteps.
Washington insiders have suggested that Cindy McCain, the senator’s wife, is an early favorite among his closest allies.
Other names are being floated around, too. McCain’s close friend, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods (R), and former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R) have also been offered up as potential successors.
But whoever the governor selects will likely require approval from McCain himself. A source within the Arizona GOP told The Hill, “Ducey has always enjoyed, from the first time that he ran for office for state treasurer in 2010, a very respectful relationship with Sen. McCain.”
As a result, the Republican insider surmised: “I can imagine the governor would entertain that this is a man, a hero, a patriot who deserves every consideration for a recommended appointment, whether that is Cindy McCain, Grant Woods, or somebody else.”
Dr.Rick Rigsby - Make An Impact(MOTIVATION)
BREAKING: Supreme Court Swing Vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Announces Retirement
Chip Somodevilla / Staff / Getty Images
June 27, 2018
On Wednesday, in a move that had long been rumored by Republicans and long dreaded by Democrats, Justice Anthony Kennedy — the swing vote on the Supreme Court — announced his retirement. Kennedy’s replacement by an originalist could dramatically shift the balance of power on the court, and make Chief Justice John Roberts the new swing vote.
Here was Kennedy’s letter announcing his retirement:
Democrats and members of the Left have immediately shifted into panic mode, suggesting that Kennedy’s retirement will end with the overturning of the egregious Roe v. Wade decision. That could result in pro-life legislation in a wide variety of states — assuming, of course, that Roberts does not move to protect Roe. This retirement also comes at a time when the Supreme Court has handed down a spate of close 5-4 decisions benefiting First Amendment protections, disappointing Democrats.
The war over Trump’s next nominee will be brutal; it’s been generations since an actual swing vote retired. Prepare for the worst political warfare of the last several decades.
ICYMI: Trump Taps State Farm Team in Remaking Federal Courts
“They recruited the best and the brightest to serve their state, and now the Trump administration is nominating these lawyers to serve as a federal judge or to a senior administration position.” - Scott Will, RAGA Executive Director
The Daily Signal writes:
The staffs of state attorneys general have become fertile ground for President Donald Trump to pick appeals court judges, as the president has shifted the federal judiciary in a direction more in line with respecting state authority.
At least six circuit court judges nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate have been state solicitors general or deputy attorneys general. Such officials are the litigators on behalf of a state—typically on the front lines of legal fights, while the state’s attorney general is the public and political face.
Call them a farm team.
“Republican state attorneys general have defended the rule of law at every turn,” Scott Will, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association told The Daily Signal. “They recruited the best and the brightest to serve their state, and now the Trump administration is nominating these lawyers to serve as a federal judge or to a senior administration position.”
“It takes a very sophisticated lawyer [to] work in an attorney general’s office, and there is a deep bench of talent,” said John Malcolm, head of the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation.
“The Trump administration cares about state sovereignty and federalism, and many of these [nominees] are steeped in state law; some went on to become judges,” Malcolm said. “A solicitor general is litigating the most complex legal questions, and they are usually drawn from the top legal talent in a state.”
Trump also tapped current and former staff of state attorneys general, some who went on to become state judges, for lower district court judgeships.
About RAGA: The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) is the only national organization whose mission is electing Republicans to the Office of State Attorney General.
True the Vote
Published on May 11, 2018
Catherine Engelbrecht shares an update on the IRS lawsuit and lays out True the Vote's plans for the days ahead.
Trump 2020 Perfect Vision - Trump Bus at the SCTPConvention
Star Coaches Inc
The Word And Phrase Guide the Progressives & Democrats are using here in The Villages ... What they say about Progressives vs Conservatives. Suggested reading... Keep up and learn the different moral concept issues on all sides.
Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view". ... Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups and companies can also produce propaganda.
How the Democrats will lose in 2020
February 28, 2018
President Trump is not a particularly popular president.
His job approval rating has not crossed 50 percent for a single day of his presidency. He’s currently riding as high as he ever has in the RealClearPolitics poll average — and that’s 41 percent.
Statistics guru Nate Silver estimates that “the approval rating at which an incumbent candidate goes from being an underdog to a favorite for re-election is somewhere in the high 40s.”
Furthermore, Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives in 2018 — they’ve been dramatically outperforming their poll numbers in special elections.
And there’s always the possibility that the economy will tank: America has experienced an economic downturn at least once per decade for the past several decades, and our last serious downturn was in 2009.
With all of that said, Democrats can still find a way to blow this.
They could blow this in the same way they blew 2016: by picking a candidate based on intersectional concerns rather than capacity to unify Americans, and by slandering half the country.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t the best candidate for president on the Democratic side of the aisle. Then-Vice President Joe Biden polled better. So, in fact, did loony Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Clinton’s poll numbers rarely cracked 50 percent and often veered toward 40 percent. And, of course, she was egregiously brittle, supremely inauthentic and tremendously off-putting.
Yet the Democratic establishment had determined that it was, in fact, her time — with the emphasis on her. Clinton was a woman; her rivals weren’t. We’d just elected the first black president.
It was time for Clinton to break the glass ceiling. And so, the Democrats picked one of the most polarizing figures in American history to carry forward President Barack Obama’s legacy.
That was Bad Decision No. 1.
Then there was Clinton’s campaign. Clinton spent most of the campaign absolutely bewildered by the fact that a boorish, ignorant reality television star was running neck and neck with her.
She could have taken that as a referendum on her own shortcomings. Instead, she took it as a referendum on America’s shortcomings.
America, she believed, is filled with racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. America is a basket of deplorables. If it weren’t, wouldn’t she have been up 50 points?
Of course, Clinton lost.
And all indicators suggest that Democrats intend to copy her playbook.
The single most dangerous candidate to Trump’s re-election is, again, Biden. Despite the fact that Biden is a pathological liar with a history of gaffes challenging Trump’s own, Biden is a popular figure; he’s got blue-collar appeal.
But Biden is also an old white man, and the Democratic Party believes that President Obama’s coalition can only be replicated by a member of an intersectional minority.
Democrats also think that Clinton was too moderate for her own good — and so, now they’re attempting to oust Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in favor of someone more radical. Thus Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
Good luck, guys.
But Democrats have an even worse problem: their obvious disdain for Americans who didn’t vote for them. Nowhere has that disdain been more evident than in their treatment of gun owners after the Parkland massacre.
Democrats have cheered gun control advocates who question the decency of Second Amendment supporters. They have slandered legal gun owners as uncaring nasties more concerned with preserving pieces of metal than children’s lives.
They might as well call gun owners deplorables.
Good luck with that one, too.
The dirty little secret of 2016 is that President Trump didn’t win the election — Clinton lost it. Democrats could easily do the same thing in 2020 if they insist that Americans must be taught a lesson for their 2016 heresy.
Ben Shapiro, 34, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.