Dead Cats: SCALIA, 02/15/16, (19)21: James Brody


SCALIA: WILL – Consequential jurist; SHAPIRO – “Scalia’s Death Could Mark End of Constitution”; WASHINGTON EXAMINER – Scalia’s last focus; O’NEIL – BO to nominate; COOKE – A tough fight; DRUDGE LINKS 2/14/16.

GOP: MURRAY – Trump’s America; AP – Debate summary.

LEADS: GOLDBERG – Progressives & Gov’t; McCARTHY – Huma; HANSON – Hillary’s dead campaign.

END NOTES: Suicide at Barnes?

Help for Veterans

Valley Forge Park has 5.4 empty miles and money to build huts for guys who suffered 200+ years ago. Room for vets??????


We at Valley Forge Patriots & Citizens for Liberty are trying to help.  We are asking for donations of food, gently used warm clothing and blankets.

If you have anything you would like to donate and you are going to our Feb. 3 event at King Of Prussia Vol. Fire House , please bring it with you.

If unable to attend that event (but, you really, really should!), feel free to contact Janet Warnsdorfer at or (610) 469-3268.



Irony – Cruz and others GOPers want the next president to make the appointment; Hillary has already promised the job to Obama . . . but he won’t take it because there’s no plane . . . and Hillary’s offer gives him a conflict of interest because she may need him to pardon her . . .

George Will, NRO: “A Jurist of Colossal Consequence”

“. . . America’s most interesting and potentially consequential argument about governance is not between conservatives and “progressives” but among conservatives. It concerns the proper scope of the judicial supervision of democracy.

“Scalia worried more than some other conservatives do about the ‘counter-majoritarian dilemma’ supposedly posed by judicial review — the power of appointed justices to overturn the work of elected legislators. Many Scalia-style conservatives distill their admiration into a familiar phrase of praise: ‘judicial restraint.’ Increasing numbers of conservatives, however, reason as follows:

Democracy’s drama derives from the tension between the natural rights of individuals and the constructed right of the majority to have its way. Natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of Independence; majority rule, circumscribed and modulated, is constructed by the Constitution.

“But as the Goldwater Institute’s Timothy Sandefur argues, the Declaration is logically as well as chronologically prior to the Constitution. The latter enables majority rule. It is, however, the judiciary’s duty to prevent majorities from abridging natural rights. After all, it is for the securing of such rights, the Declaration declares, that ‘governments are instituted among men.’

“Scalia’s death will enkindle a debate missing from this year’s presidential campaign, a debate discomfiting for some conservatives: Do they want a passive court that is deferential to legislative majorities and to presidents who claim untrammeled powers deriving from national majorities? Or do they want a court actively engaged in defending liberty’s borders against unjustified encroachments by majorities? . . .”


Also – Ben Shapiro, Big Govt: “Antonin Scalia’s Death Could Mark End of Constitution”

Scalia’s philosophy of jurisprudence is well-known and shaped two generations of conservative thinkers: the Constitution ought to be interpreted according to its original meaning. This shouldn’t have been a groundbreaking notion given that most legislation is interpreted according to those rules, but because leftist jurists have spent a century chiseling away at the meaning of the Constitution based on their personal political beliefs, Scalia’s reinvigoration of traditional interpretive methodologies made him a historic figure. Scalia’s brilliant, passionate writing style made him author of some of the most famous dissents in Supreme Court history, and channeled the modern conservative frustration with the continuing abandonment of the Constitution.

“Scalia’s jurisprudence also reminded conservatives that there is no substitute for proven Constitutional originalism. Most conservatives ignored that when they greenlit the appointment of cipher John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a point I made when he was appointed. But Scalia provided a consistent reminder that Constitutional philosophy matters. It isn’t just a game of doing whatever you want politically. Constitutional jurisprudence is about recognizing the limits of the federal government – and recognizing the limits of the politicization of the Court itself.

“In the end, Scalia’s death could mark the end of the Constitution itself. . .”

Washington Examiner: “Scalia, a great jurist, sharpens focus one last time”

“. . . His death is not only a blow to the republic, but also a reminder of how deathly serious the 2016 election really is.

“Perhaps in spite of himself, Scalia became something of a popular icon. It is hard to imagine other justices getting the sort of reaction he did during oral argument in 2012, when he wondered aloud whether Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate might be similar to a government requirement to buy broccoli. He helped make such phrases as “argle bargle,” “pure applesauce” and “jiggery-pokery” famous in his opinions.

“When dissenting — and he was very prolific with dissenting opinions, being often the clarion voice of constitutional textualism in an epoch of dirigiste liberalism — Scalia at times would openly mock his colleagues, as in one opinion where the majority (in his opinion erroneously) ruled on what constituted a ‘fundamental’ part of the game of golf.

“Scalia enjoyed speaking in public, and more than once his appearances outside the courtroom raised eyebrows. Of the Citizens United decision, which weakened campaign finance laws and upheld the right to spend money on political speech, he excoriated those who would blame the court for any resulting problems. “I don’t care who is doing the speech,” Scalia said in a forum with Justice Stephen Breyer. “The more the merrier. People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”

“Scalia had a clear philosophy of the judiciary that was based on interpreting laws as they were written and passed. He was critical of judges’ eagerness to divine legislative intent through other means, an issue that came up in the recent King v. Burwell decision, also related to Obamacare. In one famous 1987 dissent, he listed more than a dozen potential reasons why a legislator might have proposed or voted for something, including a desire to mend fences (or burn bridges) with other legislators, drunkenness at the time of the vote, or anger at his own wife. It was not the court’s place, he said, to judge laws based on such considerations.

“Scalia’s pet peeve was the modern tendency to frame every perceived wrong as something that had to be unconstitutional. He believed that in constantly ascribing new and hidden rights to a document that did not contain them, justices were turning the Supreme Court into a super-legislature that dictated cultural norms, rather than a true judicial panel. . .”

Tyler O’Neil, PJM: “Obama Breaks Tradition, Will Nominate Supreme Court Successor to Scalia”

“. . . “I plan to fulfill one of my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor, in due time,” Obama declared in a statement Saturday evening. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.” Obama emphasized, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously and so should everyone— they are bigger than any one party, they are about our democracy.”

“No lame duck president has nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year for eighty years, a fact which both Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz mentioned in the Republican presidential debate Saturday evening.

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) said that ‘it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.’. . .”

Charles CW Cooke, NRO: “Fighting against Obama’s Scalia Replacement Will be Tough, Conservatives Had Better Be Ready”

“I am of the view that the Republican majority in the Senate must hold the line against President Obama as he seeks to replace Justice Scalia. This is not because I believe that the president has “no right” to nominate a new justice — he does — and it is not because this is an election year and that there is something legally different about election years. Rather, it is because President Obama has a bad record on judges, and because there is no good reason to think that his instincts will change now. If one believes that advocates of “living constitutionalism” are effectively enemies of the rule of law — and I unreservedly do — one has every reason to be terrified by the prospect of another “living constitutionalist” making it onto the bench. Admirably, Antonin Scalia spent his life arguing for the proposition that a free society “treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated.” Lamentably, President Obama seems to believe quite the opposite. That, of course, is Obama’s prerogative. But I see no good reason that the Senate majority (which claims to agree with Scalia) should indulge him in his folly. As we are always being told, “elections matter,” and in 2014 the Scaliaites won the day. If they do not want another Sonia Sotomayor on the bench, they do not have to put another Sonia Sotomayor on the bench. . .”

Antonin Scalia – Drudge Links (02/14/16)

SCALIA FOUND DEAD IN TX Cause not immediately known… Secluded ranch frequented by celebrities… Court, national politics plunged into turmoil… MCCONNELL: Vacancy will be filled by NEXT president… Dems Fundraise Off Death… 5-4 TILT THROWN INTO CHAOS… Man of strong opinions… ‘I am an originalist. I am not a nut’… Decades on Supreme Court… Was set to decide first major abortion case in 10 years; Voting rights, affirmative action, immigration… MORE NRA: Gun rights now in jeopardy… Big battle between Obama, Republicans looms…

GOP . . .

Charles Murray, WSJ: “Trump’s America”

“There’s nothing irrational about Donald Trump’s appeal to the white working class, writes Charles Murray: they have every reason to be angry

“If you are dismayed by Trumpism, don’t kid yourself that it will fade away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course that the country has taken, and its appearance was predictable. It is the endgame of a process that has been going on for a half-century: America’s divestment of its historic national identity.

“For the eminent political scientist Samuel Huntington, writing in his last book, ‘Who Are We?’ (2004), two components of that national identity stand out. One is our Anglo-Protestant heritage, which has inevitably faded in an America that is now home to many cultural and religious traditions. The other is the very idea of America, something unique to us. As the historian Richard Hofstadter once said, ‘It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.’

What does this ideology—Huntington called it the “American creed”—consist of? Its three core values may be summarized as egalitarianism, liberty and individualism. From these flow other familiar aspects of the national creed that observers have long identified: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free-market economics, decentralized and devolved political authority. . .”

AP: The Debate – “The Latest: Cruz, Trump offer closing arguments to SC”

“GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) — The Latest on the 2016 presidential race, with the focus turning to South Carolina and the Republican debate on Saturday night (all times local):

“10:58 p.m. – Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says South Carolina has “a critical choice to make” when it votes in its state primary in one week because “our country literally hangs in the balance.”

“Offering his closing argument at Saturday’s debate, Cruz took subtle aim at his chief rival: businessman Donald Trump.

“Cruz asked the crowd, ‘Do you want another Washington deal-maker who’ll do business as usual, cut deals with the Democrats, grow government, grow debt and give up our fundamental liberties.’

“Earlier in the debate, he attacked Trump’s record on conservatism.

“Trump used his closing argument to note that ‘politicians are all talk and no action’ and says that he’s different because he isn’t controlled by special interest and lobby groups.

“He said: ‘I’m working for you, and I’m not working for anybody else.’

Lots more at

LEADS . . .

Jonah Goldberg, NRO: Progressives Can’t Seem to Stick to Any Principle . . . Except More Government”

“. . . Bernie Sanders is the most typecast presidential candidate of my lifetime. What I mean is that I can’t remember another presidential candidate who I could more easily imagine in a different setting. For instance, there’s a Starbucks near me in D.C. where old Reds take time off from yelling at clouds to get together and tsk-tsk the newspapers and talk about how much they hate Fox News. I wrote a big chunk of Liberal Fascism there (if they only knew!). I’d eavesdrop as they’d rail about Israel, billionaires, and their sciatica. Bernie Sanders could join them tomorrow in dirty Bermuda shorts, black socks, and tennis shoes, and seem perfectly at home there as they kept bringing up the overthrow of Allende as if it had happened last week. I could also think of a dozen other settings where he wouldn’t stand out. I could see him in a bathrobe walking down the promenade in Santa Monica. I could see him yelling at kids crossing his lawn on the way home from school. “Young men!” he’d shout, shaking his fist, “Shame on you!” Sanders’s familiarity is interesting because it makes him charming, but not altogether likeable (sort of like how critics used to say, a bit unfairly, that Sarah Jessica Parker was sexy but not pretty). I suspect I would find Sanders utterly tedious if I had to sit and converse with him for very long. But as a politician he’s compelling like a basset hound dressed up in a Prussian military uniform, he takes himself so seriously and that makes him endearing. . .”

Andrew McCarthy, PJM: “Huma Abedin and the Tangled Clinton Web”

“. . . Last autumn, according to the Washington Post, the State Department’s inspector general (IG) issued subpoenas to the Clinton Foundation. The IG’s office has authority to investigate wrongdoing at the Department, including criminal wrongdoing. Its conclusions may be referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, and may also result in other forms of disciplinary action against government officials found to have committed misconduct. The subpoenas served on the Clinton Foundation reportedly focused on two areas of inquiry: (a) Clinton Foundation projects that may have required federal government approval during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state; and (b) Clinton Foundation records pertaining to the employment of Huma Abedin.

“Ms. Abedin, a longtime Clinton confidante, served as Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief-of-staff at the State Department and is now vice chairwoman of Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign for the presidency.

“For about a half-year toward the end of Abedin’s tenure at the State Department, which coincided with Secretary Clinton’s own departure from the State Department in February 2013, Abedin was given a highly unusual and ethically dubious arrangement. She was permitted to work simultaneously for the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation, and even in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton in order to manage the secretary’s transition back to the private sector (notwithstanding that Mrs. Clinton had a job waiting for her at the lavishly funded Clinton Foundation, from which she would oversee her 2016 campaign-in-waiting).

“Ordered Liberty readers will recall that Ms. Abedin has been the subject of controversy. Several years ago, five House conservatives asked State’s IG to investigate how Abedin managed to receive a security clearance despite extensive family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to an al-Qaeda financier whose “charity” was designated a terrorist organization by the government. . .”

Also – Andrew McCarthy, NRO: “The Democrats’ Likely Nominee Appears to Be a Felon — This Is Not Business as Usual”

“Competing Democrats debate each other one night. Republican rivals take their shots at each other a couple of nights later. An air of frenetic normalcy sets over primary season: The country is $20 trillion in the red and under heightened terrorist threat, yet pols bicker over the legacy of Henry Kissinger and the chameleon nature of Donald Trump – another liability the mogul is marketing as an asset. It is business as usual.

“Except nothing about the 2016 campaign is business as usual.

“For all the surreal projection of normalcy, the race is enveloped by an extremely serious criminal investigation. . .”

Victor Davis Hanson, PJM: “Hillary Clinton’s Dead-End Campaign”

“. . . 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. . .”



One of my favorite B&N clerks remarked that she had a library of 450 books but got rid of most of them after she bought a Nook . . . in a different conversation I encouraged her to read The Forgotten Man and I pulled a copy from the B&N shelf so she knows exactly what to download . . . She’s also a Sestak supporter . . .


About jamesbrody

Psychologist, photographer, biker, and writer posing as a political activist.
This entry was posted in Conservative, Impeachment, Loubris, Pennsylvania, TEA Party and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s