The left doing what it does as only they can

Today’s “classy” Leftist Facebook post reacting to Scalia’s death
"It’s illuminating to have Leftist friends on Facebook. This showed up on my feed when another Leftist friend “liked” it:"

. . . "As I always say, as an old-time Democrat myself, I can envision situations in which I would support abortion.  However, whenever I read modern Leftists on the subject, I am so repulsed by their single-minded focus on killing that I want nothing to do with them or their belief system."

Conservatives, we must be better  than people like this.

Hillary Clinton's Dead-End Campaign

Victor Davis Hanson

"Hillary Clinton may yet win the Democratic nomination—if she is not indicted. After all, it is hard for a New England spread-the-wealth socialist like rival Bernie Sanders to appeal to working-class southern whites, minorities, or the wealthy Democratic establishment. It is still likely that the Democratic Party will find a way to aid an ailing and scandal-plagued Mrs. Clinton, rather than turn over its future to a 74-year-old scold, who for most of his voting life was not a Democrat and whose redistributionist agendas and Woodstock fables about the 1960s make Obama seem centrist in comparison.

"All that said, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign rhetoric is coming up empty—largely because it is at odds with the way she has lived her life and conducted her various careers over the last two decades. Voters, even younger ones, are now sorely aware of those flagrant contradictions." . . .  Via Lucianne

GOP Has A Duty To Reject Obama’s SCOTUS Pick

The Federalist, by David Harsanyi

Republicans should follow Sen. Barack Obama's advice and filibuster the president's SCOTUS nominee.

"Although nothing in his political history suggests magnanimity, Barack Obama may surprise us by nominating one of those moderate-consensus types who would provide some of that national healing he promised us eight years ago. But he’s certainly under no constitutional obligation to do so. He can nominate whomever he pleases in the wake of the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia. And Republicans have plenty of precedent for rejecting his choice.

"They, just like Sen. Obama, can hold nominees responsible for their philosophical positions and records. Sen. Obama unconditionally rejected every George W. Bush nomination to the SCOTUS out of hand because of their ideology. Here he is arguing for the Senate Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Justice Alito:". . .  Via Lucianne

HopeNChange

John McCain threatens to subpoena U.S. sailors held by Iran if Obama administration doesn't hand over investigation findings by end of month

UK Mail
"US Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday he would subpoena 10 US sailors to testify about their brief detention by Iran if the Obama administration does not provide the findings of an investigation into the incident by March 1.

Why were they seen crying? 

Also notice the female sailor at the far right background wearing Islamic head covering.

Code Trump: The Gallop Leftward Continues Lindsey Graham update!

Considering a Donald Trump - Bernie Sanders ticket?

C. Edmund Wright  "Donald Trump is now officially the Code Pink Republican. Or maybe he’s the Daily Kos or Huffington Post Republican. How about the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Republican? I think that fits. Heck, we all saw it and we all heard it. Trump went full left loon on George W. Bush and 9/11, sounding like the most impassioned truther from the left. Did Maxine Waters do his debate prep?

"Trump snarked childishly that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. Apparently Mr. Trump is not intellectually very curious about history. If he were, he would know that 9/11 was dreamed up, contemplated, financed, planned, and practiced on Bill Clinton's watch. This planning and practicing continued during the days of the hanging chads in Florida. 

"And the truth is that the single biggest failure by the American intelligence community was foisted onto the CIA and the FBI by Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick with her infamous "wall of separation" between the two agencies. They had their hands tied behind their backs -- thanks to a Clinton appointee.
"Seriously Donald, is a cheap shot at lowly Jeb worth the worst kind of leftist revisionist history that will no doubt harm the Republican nominee in the fall? Apparently it is. This was simply shameful, not to mention contextually not true."

. . . "If we cede that Bush was at fault for 9/11 -- and Trump just absolutely proclaimed it -- we cannot win. If we cede that it was Bush, and not Fannie and Freddie and not the EPA and not Chris Dodds and Barney Frank (and Jamie Gorelick) at fault, then we cannot win. Trump did this a few months ago, stating categorically that "I don't think the Democrats would have done that." 

"Uh... earth to Donald -- it was the Democrats who did that. How did this escape this supposedly macro-economically gifted mind?"

UPDATE: Trump walks back attack on George Bush.  Rather late, don't you think? You can't unring a bell.

. . . "They lied," Trump said during the debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none."
On Sunday, Trump said George W. Bush "thought there were weapons of mass destruction, maybe, or maybe he didn't." . . .

The preparations for 9-11 that happened on Clinton's watch, Mr. Trump    

Keep in mind:  William Jefferson Clinton, . .  .   served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. 

"The idea for the attacks came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented it to Osama bin Laden in 1996. At that time, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan. The 1998 African Embassy bombings and bin Laden's 1998 fatwā marked a turning point, as bin Laden became intent on attacking the United States.

In late 1998 or early 1999, bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot. A series of meetings occurred in early 1999, involving Mohammed, bin Laden, and his deputy Mohammed Atef. Atef provided operational support for the plot, including target selections and helping arrange travel for the hijackers." . . . Emphases mine, TD

Update: BUSH LIED ABOUT WMDS? TRUMP’S OUTRAGEOUS ACCUSATION

. . . "What Trump said here is what we would expect from a left-wing blogger at the Daily Kos, not from the Republican front-runner for the White House.

""The idea that George W. Bush lied about WMDs is a ludicrous left-wing canard that should be on the ash-heap of history." . . .

Update: Lindsey Graham to “re-evaluate” his support for Donald Trump if he’s the nominee   "But after Saturday night’s debate, the Senator may be ready to defect."

Scalia the Bold Leader for Originalism

Mark. J. Fitzgibbons  . . . "He gave conservatives hope that the Constitution would not be lost for a lack of honesty or standing by principle, the shortage of which are trademarks of Washington and government.

"Scalia understood that American constitutional law is based in the morality that civil society should be structured such that we should do no harm to others. The “we” includes government. The Constitution is structured to limit government’s harm to individuals and our God-given rights. Scalia understood the need for judicial fidelity to that structure. . . Read more:

Who Benefits From A Brokered Convention?

Ben Shapiro

"The Republican race further descends into chaos, more and more commentators foresee the possibility of a brokered convention. The Republican primary process is designed for an establishment candidate – it breaks down when there is no true establishment candidate with the capacity to reach out to the base. The Republicans send 2,472 delegates to the convention. To win the nomination outright, the Republican candidate must have won 1,236 delegates. Only candidates who have won a majority of support in eight different states are eligible for the nomination. That last rule – the eight-state rule, Rule 40 – was designed in order to prevent Ron Paul from making a mess of the 2012 convention.
"This means that there is a high likelihood that there will only be three candidates with that many states. Remember, in 2012, Rick Santorum only won 11 states, while Newt Gingrich only won 2; Mitt Romney carried the rest, and won 1,462 delegates. In 2008, Mitt Romney won 11 states, and Mike Huckabee won 8; John McCain won 1,378 delegates. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich win 8 states, for example." . . . Full article here

NY Times Writer: White Men Propose Denying President His Constitutional Right To Name SCOTUS Nominee

Weasel Zippers    "Can anyone be this dumb?"

Democrats, Trump may be the man for you

Regarding Iraq, Trump should campaign with Bernie Sanders as his campaign manager  . . . "The leading GOP candidate was visibly and vocally incensed as he responded to Dickerson's question about impeachment, 'You do whatever you want, you call it whatever you want.

Did We Just See A Trump-Killer Moment?  . . . "We saw Trump embracing and advocating two related positions that only Ron Paul’s more extreme libertarian conspiracy-theory supporters -- or Michael Moore bomb-throwing Democrats -- had previously adopted. Trump’s 9/11-bombshell was a one-two punch that either won the support of really unhappy Republicans -- or completely put-off conservative Republicans. 
This potential Trump-Killer incident began with Trump once again asserting that he did not support the Iraq invasion in 2003, which he deemed a mistake.  That, in itself, is not a problem.  Many Republicans now see that attempts at nation-building, such as President Bush tried in Iraq, are a mistake.
"But then Trump issued a pair of charges that may well have gone too far.  Maybe way too far." . . .

 But now he -- as a Republican -- has blamed a terror attack on a Republican President.
That may be more than Republican primary voters can tolerate.  That might indeed by the Trump-Killer.

Saturday's GOP Debate: Lies and Liars   . . . "But was the GOP destroying itself last night?  I say no.  The back-and-forth felt cathartic.
"All the debaters are strong after nine debates."

So who was booing Trump in Saturday’s debate?

Europe's Convinced U.S. Won't Solve Its Problems

Obama may be gone, but the American people are the ones who chose him and could support other leftists.

Bloomberg View  . . . “ 'The question of war and peace has returned to the continent,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the audience, indirectly referring to Russian military interventions. “We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good."

"What was missing from the conference speeches and even the many private discussions in the hallways, compared to previous years, was the discussion of what Europe wanted or even expected the U.S. to do.

"Several European officials told me that there was little expectation that President Barack Obama, in his last year in office, would make any significant policy changes to address what European governments see an existential set of crises that can’t wait for a new administration in Washington.

“ 'There’s a shared assessment that the European security architecture is falling apart in many ways,” said Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “There is a growing sense that this U.S. administration is focused on establishing a legacy on what has already been achieved rather than trying to achieve anything more. Yet the problems can get much worse.”

"During the first day of the conference, the U.S. role in Europe was hardly mentioned in the public sessions. In the private sessions, many participants told me that European governments are not only resigned to a lack of American assertiveness, they also are now reluctantly accepting a Russia that is more present than ever in European affairs, and not for the better." . . .

And I have no confidence in our millennials to grasp the significance of what is happening in the world nor the dangers inherent in events. Try to teach them differently and it seems they hear a trigger warning telling them to go to their safe spaces. I do not see this changing until disaster comes to America, something other than the now forgotten 9/11 attacks. The Tunnel Dweller

thefederalistpapers.org/

Pray that this Congress will not let Obama and Democrats fill this Supreme Court vacancy

The timing, in some ways, is awful for conservatives, but in other ways it is perfect.  Do this one thing – let the next president and next Senate fill this seat – and we will begin to trust you again.  Fail, and there is no reason for conservatives to ever trust Washington Republicans again. Bruce Walker 

Don't Let Obama Fill Scalia's Seat   "Congress has frittered away virtually every constitutional power save one:  the power of the Senate to deny presidential appointments to the federal bench.  If Senate Republicans expect conservatives to ever trust them on anything, then they must decline to consider Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia." 

Thomas Lifson; Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments   "Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:" . . .

The impact of Scalia's death on the major court cases to be decided this term   . . . "There are enough Senate Republicans who will be absolutely adamant that no justice be confirmed before the next president takes office so that no matter what some other Republicans may want, there is no chance that Obama will get to name Scalia's replacement - unless the president uses his recess appointment powers (Note: Republicans have foiled several Obama recess appointments by technically keeping the Senate in session.) But with that comforting thought comes the realization that the damage to conservative causes will be significant because of the 8 justice court and the lost voice of a great jurist whose impact on history would only have grown if he lived."

Democrats are fundraising big time over the loss of Scalia

Leading candidates to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court
. . . "Srinivasan is probably the only acceptable candidate to some Republican Senators among the names mentioned above. But regardless of what the makeup of the Senate is after the 2016 election, it's probable that there won't be enough GOP supporters to confirm any nominee named by a Democratic president unless the Senate flips and Dems take control.
"No doubt the president will make competence and temperment secondary considerations to the color of the skin and sex of a candidate. Obama is a slave to "diversity" and we shouldn't expect him to change now.
"Is this the most important presidential election in history? Considering the stakes, it's hard to argue otherwise."

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations    . . .  "When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.' ” . . .

Discussing the import of losing Justice Scalia and his role in the Supreme Court

Volokh Conspiracy: Politico symposium on Justice Scalia

Politico has posted a symposium on the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his legacy, with contributions by numerous prominent legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, Michael McConnell, Gillian Metzger, Geoffrey Stone, my co-blogger Orin Kerr, and others. Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement about the controversial aspects of his jurisprudence, as well as over his tone and style, which sometimes included harsh rhetorical attacks on opposing views.

 

. . . "Scalia was one of the most important and influential Supreme Court justices of the last several decades. His passing is a great loss to the nation.

"His most significant contribution was his powerful defense of originalism in constitutional theory and textualism in statutory interpretation. When he was first appointed to the court, most judges and legal scholars tended to ignore the original meaning of the Constitution, and often assumed that legislative history was a more important guide to the meaning of a law than actual wording of the law itself. Scalia helped change that. Today, both textualism and originalism enjoy widespread acceptance. Some of that support even cuts across ideological lines…. 

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."

Excerpts listed below; read more on each at the link.

The symposium: How Antonin Scalia Changed America

"19 top legal thinkers on the justice’s legacy for the court, the law and the public."

"Scalia was above all a giant in the conservative legal movement, one whose intellectual influence has extended downward through law schools and outward to a newly energized American conservative politics. He stood in defense of gun rights and capital punishment, while resisting gay rights, abortion and affirmative action. And his rigorous attention to the text of the Constitution and of laws has changed the way liberals as well as conservatives conceive of the role of the highest court." Read more...

‘While deriding the very idea of a living Constitution, he did so much to give it life’ . . .  Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School

‘Scalia shaped many, many minds and hearts—perhaps more so than he shaped the doctrine itself’   Dahlia Lithwick, Slate legal writer. . . 

‘Scalia reminded, admonished and scolded his colleagues and the entire legal community that modern law is all about public text’. . . 
William N. Eskridge Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School
‘He transformed the court, as well as the national conversation about the Constitution’ . . . Jeffrey Rosen, President & CEO, National Constitution Center and Professor of Law, George Washington University
‘The best judicial stylist since Oliver Wendell Holmes’ . . .Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law
‘Critics argued that he did not always consistently follow his own methodology’ . . . Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University and blogger for the Volokh Conspiracy
‘Scalia had many great victories in his 30 years as a justice, but the bold effort to reinvent constitutional interpretation was not one of them’. . . Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at The University of Chicago

‘Few justices have done as much to elevate ideas in popular discourse’ . . . Eugene Kontorovich, professor at Northwestern University School of Law

While Scalia was driven profoundly by interpretive principles, he always understood that stare decisis—adherence to precedent—is itself an important part of the Anglo-American legal system, and a constraint on judges. In practice, this means unfaithful interpretations of the Constitution that have become enmeshed in the national system for a long enough time, cannot be completely or immediately reversed, only controlled at the margins and prevented from metastasizing. 

‘He brought originalism to the constitutional mainstream’ . . .
Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law at Columbia Law School
‘Scalia traded the ability to express himself independently for real power’ . . .Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law
‘He helped play a role in the growing polarization of American public discourse’ . . .Daniel Farber, professor constitutional and environmental law at the University of California, Berkeley. Remember: Berkeley

‘On every one of the most controversial issues to come to the court for three decades, it was Scalia who articulated the conservative vision’. . . Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and distinguished professor of law and Raymond Pryke professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law

‘He changed the way the public sees the court and the law’ . . .
Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School

‘Profoundly uncivil’ . . .John Culhane, professor of law and co-director of the Family Health Law and Policy Institute at Widener Law Delaware
"A few examples will suffice. During oral argument on Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that recognized that same-sex couples enjoy a fundamental right to engage in private, sexual intimacy, Scalia caused gasps in the courtroom by asking whether there was also a fundamental right to sit on flagpoles. The metaphor wasn’t lost on anyone. In 2013, he questioned an interpretation of affirmative action that protected only “the blacks.' ”
‘A major influence on how the last generation thinks about law’  . . .
Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at George Washington University Law School
‘He made the job look fun’ . . . Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and columnist for Bloomberg View (where he wrote an article from which this is adapted)

Scalia was one of the best of justices and one of the worst of justices. His philosophy of constitutional interpretation, based on the law as a set of rules that should be applied in accordance with the original meaning of the document, ranks as great.

. . . "Scalia was an original. His stinging dissents will be read, and his humor remembered. More than any other justice in my lifetime, he made the job look fun. In an era of politicized confirmations, someone with a personality like his can’t get on the court—for better or worse. We shall not see his like again."