THE LIBERAL WING OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OPERATES MORE AS AN ADVOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT POWER THAN AS A PROTECTOR OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

On January 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case Biden vs. Missouri. The formal issue before the High Court in that case as set forth on SCOTUSblog was “whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocking a federal rule that requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption.”Missouri and other States filed a direct challenge to the autocratic Harris-Biden Administration’s demand that all Health care workers—22 million as of April 5, 2021, whose medical facilities participate in Government funded Medicare and Medicaid programs, according to the Government census report—accede to Government demands that health care workers obtain COVID-19 vaccinations.The States contested this broad Government mandate against liberty and the rule of law. Missouri, in its Brief, stated at the outset, that the “Secretary of Health and Human Services’ sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for healthcare workers threatens to create a crisis in healthcare facilities in rural America. The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate. But for the district court’s preliminary injunction, last year’s healthcare heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.” The Government for its part, argued that its mandate is a response to “an unprecedented pandemic that has killed 800,000 Americans.”The Government retorted that “the Secretary of Health and Human Services exercised his express statutory authority to protect the health and safety of Medicare and Medicaid patients by requiring healthcare facilities that choose to participate in those programs to ensure that their staff are vaccinated (subject to medical and religious exemptions).”Does the Government have this broad legal authority? Is the exercise of that authority consistent with the Constitution, or is it a direct infringement of it? Is the Administration truly concerned about the health of Americans or is it using the Pandemic merely as a convenient pretext to take control of the States and the people?The unstated but underlying issue, in this case, is whether the Harris-Biden Administration is engaging in an unprecedented power grab to exert control over the States and the American people.One expects this from an autocratic Government and an autocratic Congress, controlled by the Pelosi and Schumer stooges.That leaves the American people with one Branch of Government to place constraints on unlawful moves of Congress and the Executive Branch. And that Third Branch of Government is the U.S. Supreme Court.Unfortunately, the High Court consists of a few people, who don’t seem to concern themselves with defending the Nation and its people from the throes of autocracy and, hence, tyranny. One such person is Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. For whatever reason, Justice Sotomayor asserted—didn’t ask the attorneys for the Government or for the State of Missouri—during oral argument, that 100,000 children have been hospitalized and are on ventilators.As reported in the National Review, Sotomayor claimed that“‘We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.’” This was a grossly inflated figure. In the same article, the National Review pointed out that,“The current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations with Covid in the U.S. is 3,342, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services released on Friday. The average number of children admitted to the hospital per day with Covid was 776 as of Tuesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”Why did Justice Sotomayor make such a spurious claim during oral argument? She must have known that a straightforward declarative assertion could be and would be fact-checked as, in fact, it was. The legacy Press itself jumped on this falsehood. Fox News points out that even the Washington Post said the claim deserved “four Pinocchios” for the “absurdly high” figure.We suspect that Justice Sotomayor knew that her remark was unsupported, and that she was not acting as a neutral Justice, attempting to elicit comment from the Advocate for the Government and the advocate for Missouri, but was herself operating as an Advocate for the Government.This behavior on the part of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is not only shameful, it is dangerous to the well-being of the Republic and the Constitution. A decision in this case will be forthcoming, but there are other High Court decisions expected  in the weeks and months ahead.Any decision of the High Court involving an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has major repercussions for the Nation. No decision is more important to the well-being of the Republic than those involving the Bill of Rights.A decision in the Bruen case is expected in early Summer if not sooner. The Bruen case is the most important case on the Second Amendment since the Heller case of 2008 and the McDonald case of 2010. Given the nature of the issue before the Court, constricted and restricted as the Roberts’ Court made it, the Bruen case is unlikely to have an impact beyond the jurisdiction of New York. Nonetheless, the American people can expect that Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will take the opportunity to draft opinions that hearken back to the Stevens and Breyer dissenting opinions in Heller, in a shameless attempt not only to denigrate Bruen, but to weaken Heller.Likely the outcome of Bruen will be supportive of the Second Amendment, but it won’t be as far-reaching as it could have been in support of the Second Amendment—as far-reaching as the issue in Petitioner’s Brief sought: whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the domain of one’s home.The three Liberal-wing Justices will likely reassert their false argument that the right codified in the Second Amendment is always subject to Government restraint and constraint and that, notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, the Government has the lawful authority to place stringent checks on the exercise of the right as it sees fit. For Justices like Sonia Sotomayor and others, the American citizen’s ownership, possession, and utilization of the right codified in the Second Amendment is more akin to a glorified “privilege,” than a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

LEAHY DEFIES GRASSELY BY HOLDING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OBAMA’S THIRD U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: MERRICK GARLAND

"And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT SENATE DEMOCRATS ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STRUGGLE TO CAPTURE A FIFTH SEAT, LIBERAL-WING MAJORITY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, TO RIP APART THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat-Vermont, Ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, held an open hearing on Merrick Garland’s nomination. This hearing is the one Leahy had alluded to last month.No, this wasn’t a confirmation hearing on Obama’s third appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Charles Grassley, Republican-Iowa and Chairman of the Committee, didn’t preside over the hearing; nor did he appear. No other Republican member appeared. No member of the Committee, Republican or Democrat, should have appeared because Senator Grassley didn’t sanction a hearing on Garland—any hearing. Yet, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Patrick Leahy, held a hearing anyway. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Chairman of the Committee. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican-Kentucky.Senator Leahy admitted: “I can’t convene a confirmation hearing,” adding, “We’re in the minority.” The “minority” Leahy refers to include: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons. They all pressed for Garland’s nomination.Why did Senator Leahy hold a hearing against Senator Grassley’s wishes? What did Leahy and other Judiciary Committee members and members of the Democratic Party hope to carry out?Senator Leahy and other Democratic Party members of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing not simply to air personal grievances. They did so to push a personal agenda—one inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Senator Leahy and the Democratic Party Senators virulently oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Understand, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary doesn’t merely consider U.S. Supreme Court nominations, Appellate Court nominations and District Court nominations. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has other important roles. “The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the consideration of nominations and pending legislation.” Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee draft legislation to obstruct “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” They draft legislation to defeat the Second Amendment under the pretext of serving the citizenry. They hoodwink the public. The goals they aim toward do not serve Americans’ sacred rights and liberties. They watch Americans’ behaviors, habits, and actions to control and constrain Americans. They treat Americans like wayward children. These Legislators are deceitful. They lure us in with pious words. They are America’s betrayers.So, who appeared at Leahy’s unsanctioned, May 23, 2016 “open hearing?” Those whom you would expect: Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons appeared. They all support and press for Garland’s confirmation; and they all oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS CLEAR, CATEGORICAL AND CERTAIN. THEY DARE TO SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS, PROCLAIMING:  AMERICANS DO NOT NEED AND OUGHT NOT HAVE FIREARMS.

Leahy’s position on the Second Amendment is no secret. For years Leahy pushed Obama’s antigun agenda. The New York Times reported on Leahy’s strategy in 2013. It said, “The view of Mr. Leahy, a Democrat . . . is crucial because the work of his Judiciary Committee will be central to advancing any new gun legislation.” The Committee “will hold hearings on potential gun legislation this month [January] proceed[ing] with Mr. Obama’s request to push legislation that includes a renewal of an assault weapons ban, a limit on magazine size and universal background checks.”Sheldon Whitehouse also signals hostility toward the Second Amendment. During Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican-Oklahoma tried to get her to issue an opinion on whether gun owners have a fundamental right to bear arms.” She wouldn’t make a pronouncement.” Sheldon Whitehouse came to her defense. He said, “he was worried that the judge had been pushed too far, perhaps, in a lobbying way, to expound on an issue that is probably going to come before the Supreme Court. He suggested that a message was being sent that nominees need to signal how they will rule on gun-rights cases. He called it almost unseemly to seek commitments on future cases.”As you might expect, U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a charade. Leahy isn’t kidding anyone. If Garland received a confirmation hearing, he would say nothing to reveal his antipathy toward the Second Amendment. We know U.S. Supreme Court candidates hide their personal jurisprudential and philosophical predilections during confirmation hearings, as coached, to avoid offending anyone, thereby strengthening their chance at confirmation. Justice Sotomayor hid her antipathy toward the Second Amendment at her confirmation hearing. Judge Garland would do so at his confirmation hearing, were one scheduled. Senator Grassley isn’t planning one. For, if a confirmation hearing were in the offing, Senators Whitehouse, Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer and others would come to his aid, lest he reveal his aversion toward the Second Amendment. Senator Grassley certainly knows this.Thus, Senator Leahy’s intimation that confirmation hearings are effective at eliciting truth is dubious and disingenuous. At the May 23, 2016 hearing, Leahy asserted, “what bothers me is because he [Garland] does not have a hearing and they’re not allowing him to have a hearing, his record is being smeared by outside groups, some of these Pacs, and others. Senate Republicans are denying a distinguished public hearing and a fair opportunity.” "No," Senator Leahy. Judge Garland's record as revealed in our letter to you isn't a smear. It's the plain, unadulterated truth--truth the American public would not learn at a public hearing. That's why Garland won't receive a confirmation hearing; and that's why Garland shouldn't receive one. No person deserves a seat on the high Court who does not respect, in fact, revere our Bill of Rights--all Ten Amendments. Obama and the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats’ Trifecta bet is: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland. Obama is two for three. He aims for all three. For these three the Second Amendment is an anathema. Obama knows this. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have considered them. He wouldn’t have considered them if they were merely neutral on the Second Amendment, much less a proponent of the Second Amendment. Obama wants fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court who share his hostility toward the continued existence of our Nation's Second Amendment. Ranking member Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also want fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. These cohorts of Senator Leahy willingly support and do their part to promote Obama's antigun agenda.If Garland secures a seat on the high Court, the liberal-wing gains a fifth vote. The liberal-wing then has its majority. The liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court strenuously opposes the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment.Let’s consider Senator Dianne Feinstein’s position on the Second Amendment. Does the American public truly harbor any doubt? Feinstein’s resentment toward the Second Amendment is well-known, her remarks against gun ownership, legion. She took personally the failure of her bill to ban over two thousand types of firearms but continued undeterred. Charles Schumer also attacks the Second Amendment with passion. In 1994, then “Representative” Schumer, with the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat-Ohio,  “introduced a ‘kitchen-sink’ bill that covered everything from licensing to lists of weapons to be prohibited. It proved politically ahead of its time.” Richard Blumenthal uses sporadic shooting sprees to couch attacks on the Second Amendment. He said, “he hoped that the latest [2014 Santa Barbara] shooting would ‘provide an impetus to bring back measures that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are severely troubled or deranged, like this young man was.’” Blumenthal’s remark may sound sensible. But, the remark carries dangerous implications. Millions of American’s would lose their Second Amendment rights. Even if Legislators carefully tailored a law, can Americans trust the federal government to interpret the law narrowly? Not likely! Consider, too, the difficulties in defining English words. How do we define the word, ‘severely,’ as a modifier for the word, ‘troubled’? How do we define the word, ‘deranged?’ Medical doctors don’t use these words. They are not medical terms of art. Lawyers don’t use these words either. They aren’t legal terms of art. They are rhetorical words. They merely suggest but point to nothing.Before we exclude a group of Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights, give the matter thought. Millions of law-abiding Americans may lose their Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” simply because their doctors prescribe an antidepressant for them.What can we glean from Al Franken’s record on the Second Amendment? Franken is cagey, but his contempt for the Second Amendment is obvious. Sure, he sounds like a supporter of the Second Amendment. He says, “Minnesota has a long tradition of gun ownership, and I support Minnesotans’ right to own a gun for collection, protection, and sport. I also believe that the Second Amendment protects that right against both the federal government and the states. But the right to own a firearm is not one to be taken lightly. I believe Minnesota has struck the proper balance, for example, by requiring background checks and live firearms training for carry permits.” Let’s parse one phrase in that passage.We ask, “what does Al Franken mean here by ‘proper balance’ as applied to law-abiding Minnesota residents?" What does Al Franken mean by 'proper balance' as applied to all law-abiding Americans? Franken means strict gun control Consider: Al Franken “voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.” In 2008 Franken said he supports a federal ‘assault weapons’ ban but then oddly claims he supports the Second Amendment. The claim means nothing. It’s a trick. Antigun zealots employ it, continuously, to keep proponents of the Second Amendment at bay, guessing. But Americans recognize the ploy. Antigun zealots won’t rest until the Second Amendment ceases to exist. Franken reiterates antigun sentiment through rehearsed talking points, lacking substance.Senator Klobuchar sponsored an antigun bill, heralded by Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” Klobuchar suggests she, too, supports the Second Amendment. But, she doesn’t. She asserts, “I would do nothing to hurt hunting”  but she also says she voted for bans on “assault weapons” and on “high-capacity magazines”—those magazines holding over ten rounds.Senators Klobuchar and Franken don’t understand their actions belie their words.Senator Richard Durbin fiercely attacks the Second Amendment. His distaste for the Second Amendment is as virulent and venomous as Feinstein’s.To his shame Senator Durbin defends U.N. efforts to repeal our Country’s unique and sacred Second Amendment. He voted, “no,” on “Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State’s International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.” Previously cited. Senator Vitter, Republican-Louisiana, pointed out, that SA 2774 “is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens’ guns.” Previously cited. Plainly, the UN’s bold attack on America’s Bill of Rights doesn’t offend Senator Durbin. He supports UN efforts to undermine our Bill of Rights.Last, let’s not forget, Senator, Chris Coons position on the Second Amendment. Coons urges President Obama to use executive action to undermine the Second Amendment. Imagine, Coons would sacrifice the Second Amendment and Congressional Article 1, Section 1 Legislative authority to the U.S. President simply to continue a partisan antigun agenda.

A PANEL OF GARLAND SUPPORTERS GATHERED TO BUTTRESS ANTIGUN JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND’S NOMINATION

Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Leahy and fellow Senate Democrats on the Committee contacted associates of Judge Merrick Garland. The panel comprised a former jurist, a law professor, an appellate law attorney and former judge, and a former U.S. Attorney.Each spouted the usual praises: “wonderful judge,” “eminently qualified,” “wonderful human being” “engaged and committed parent,” “sharp, analytical mind,” and so on. Fine traits, yes wanted of all who aspire to sit on the high Court. We have heard them before; we hear them now, constantly. But Judge Garland’s finer qualities aren’t in dispute. His judicial record is.The hour-long hearing comprised a multitude of flowery pronouncements, empty oratory, and, from the Senate Democrats, spiteful insults, criticisms, and whispers.Senator Feinstein piously declared a concern over a Supreme Court constrained, “for a substantial period of time” by a “tie,” “a four to four position.” Senator Leahy says the failure of the high Court to act on cases—given the present 4 to 4 tie—places the Federal Appellate Courts “in limbo.” But Leahy’s statement isn’t true. Feinstein’s remarks and Leahy’s lay bare an agenda, underscored by their assertions. They seek a five to four liberal-wing majority on the high Court. They say consistency among the Circuit Courts is necessary, but is it?Do we want consistency if U.S. Supreme Court rulings weaken Americans’ rights and liberties throughout the Country? Do we Americans want consistency among the Several States if U.S. Supreme Court rulings reflect foreign law antithetical to our traditions and values, and inconsistent with our Bill of Rights? Wouldn’t Americans find judicial rulings peppered and laced with alien jurisprudence and philosophy singularly bizarre? Wouldn’t Americans detest U.S. Supreme Court opinion that undermine their rights? Is not the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s philosophy and jurisprudential approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making worth preserving? If so, Senator Leahy’s remark we need a “fully functioning [nine Justice] Supreme Court”—with a five-to-four liberal wing majority—is to wrongheaded.Tie votes are not necessarily a bad thing. If a tie vote occurs, the decisions of the Appellate Courts remain valid. Yes, conflicts in the Circuits exist absent a U.S. Supreme Court decision. But conflicts always exist. The high Court hears only a handful of cases. A liberal wing majority would decide cases contrary to the well-being of the Bill of Rights. A liberal wing majority would also canvass cases to hear—cases involving matters best left to the States under the Tenth Amendment. Consider the remarks of Justin Driver, Professor of law at the University of Chicago. He clerked under Judge Garland from 2005 to 2006. Driver said, “The [U.S. Supreme] Court views itself as articulating general applicable principles, not merely resolving a dispute between a few parties.” How do we square that remark with Professor Driver’s other assertions? Professor Driver asserts, Judge Garland “avoids grand sweeping pronouncements, and keeps the opinions narrow,” that Judge Garland “is measured in his approach to the law,” and that “he honors existing precedent”?How might Judge Garland’s jurisprudence as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit translate to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment issues? A fifth liberal-wing vote would weaken or overturn, outright, the Heller and McDonald case holdings?

A QUESTION ABOUT IDEOLOGY ON THE SUPREME COURT

Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee self-righteously assert a hostility toward ideology. They proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court must remain pure, empty of “politics.” Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court, as the third Branch of Government, is, a political institution. Politics exists in the third Branch no less so than in the other two. Ideology, too, exists. Ideology is not necessarily a bad thing. Ideology defines every person. Each jurist espouses an ideology, and that ideology suffuses each jurist’s decisions. Judge Merrick Garland expressed his ideology toward the Second Amendment in the Parker and Reno cases.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND MUST NOT SECURE A SEAT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

We know Judge Garland’s position on Second Amendment issues. We looked at his record. With Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the high Court—a jurist who espouses a philosophy hostile to the Second Amendment—the assault on the Second Amendment continues. The Arbalest Quarrel amply shows Garland’s hostility to the Second Amendment in multiple articles.The conclusion is plain. If Judge Merrick Garland secures a seat on the high Court, we know he would undermine the Second Amendment. The high Court’s liberal wing would have a majority and would undo Justice Scalia’s legacy.If Judge Garland sits on the high Court as Justice Garland, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a sacred individual right, will come under renewed assault. Protection of our sacred rights and liberties ought to take precedence over presumed Senate protocol. Senator Leahy doesn’t think so, despite his remarks. He insists a confirmation hearing for Garland is proper. Perhaps for him, not for us. Leahy doesn’t speak for most Americans; neither does Hillary Clinton.In a May 24, 2016 editorial, the Wall Street Journal editorial staff said, “Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court [in Heller] for being ‘wrong on the Second Amendment.’” The editorial staff also said, “Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller. . . . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a ‘future, wiser court’ overturn Heller.” Previously cited. The editorial staff added, poignantly, “If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals with get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.” Previously cited.Senator Leahy and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee want a jurist on the high Court who represent their ideology—one antithetical to the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton won’t disappoint them if elected U.S. President. Judge Garland is their man. He isn’t ours.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SENATOR KIRK CAN’T WHITEWASH MERRICK GARLAND; THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

Editor's note: this is a revision of an earlier version of this article. The revision includes new material.Senator Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, urges Republican colleagues to “man-up” and just cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, whose views on America’s Constitution, according to Senator Kirk, are “a lot like Justice Scalia.” Really? But that's what he said as noted, with approval on the liberal web blog, "Think Progress," in a March 18, 2016 article titled, "Republican Senator says Colleagues Should 'Man Up' And Vote On Merrick."Yet, not even Obama has the audacity to suggest that Judge Garland’s ideology and jurisprudence are even remotely like that of Justice Scalia; and Senator Kirk's attempt to shame the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary through Kirk's use of the term, 'man-up,' is nothing more than a child's dare or is otherwise incoherent. Indeed, the mainstream New York Times admits that, ideologically, Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.” See, the NY Times article published, March 17, 2016, titled, “Where Merrick Garland Stands: A Close Look at His Judicial Record.” And, we know that Justice Kennedy, the “swing-vote,” stands ideologically well to the left of Justice Scalia. So, who is Senator Kirk kidding? Indeed, how is it that a United States Senator, a Republican at that, would support Obama’s call for Senate action on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place? Might there be something about Senator Kirk that doesn’t quite ring true?We were curious about Senator Kirk’s own position on the Second Amendment. So, we checked. What we have found is disconcerting to say the least but does much to explain Senator Kirk’s support of Obama’s nominee for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.It turns out that NRA gives Senator Kirk, the Republican, a rating of “D.” See, "Mark Kirk on Gun Control." Senator Kirk does beat Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders candidly, exuberantly remarks that NRA currently rates him, “F.” But, a “D” rating by NRA, no less than an "F" rating, is hardly cause for celebration. Such a dismal rating by NRA is definitely not something a Republican U.S. Senator to be proud of. Senator Kirk does, understandably, prefer to keep that fact quiet -- spoken in whispers, if at all. In fact, in 2010, NRA rated Kirk “F,” according to the weblog, "sunlightfoundation." Not surprisingly, Senator Kirk supports the Brady Bill, and was, apparently, the only Republican who voted for the 2013 ban on rifles that are considered "assault weapons” by antigun groups. Perhaps, Senator Kirk ought, himself, to “man-up,” and admit to the American public he is a hypocrite who is deliberately leading both the American public and Congress astray by urging his Republican colleagues to cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.The Christian Monitor, in a 2013 article, titled, "Obama's quiet ally: Who's behind gun control bill no one is talking about," is on point in calling  Senator Kirk, Obama’s “quiet ally.”  But, even The Christian Monitor could not have envisioned, at that time how portentous its 2013 'quiet ally' reference to Senator Kirk would be. For, three years later Senator Kirk is now, in fact, lending his support to Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland; and, in so doing, actively defying Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, and, in fact, going to war against the Republican Party, by operating in the background as Obama’s “quiet ally.”Senator Kirk’s assertion that Judge Garland is of the same ideological bent as the late Justice Scalia is an abominable lie. Senator Kirk certainly knows the assertion to be untrue and he is unashamedly fomenting an outrageous lie. Apparently, it is okay, though, to assert a bald-faced lie to the American people to accomplish a desired goal.Republicans like Senator Kirk, who infect the Republican party with schemes poisonous to the well-being of the Republic and destructive to our sacred Bill of Rights, give cover to Obama, who can then plausibly and piously argue: see, even Republicans understand I intend to safeguard Americans’ Bill of Rights, and that I will, especially, safeguard and defend Americans’ Second Amendment right through commonsense actions and commonsense nominations and appointments to the federal courts. One thing is clear: if Judge Garland secures a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the tenuous balance that existed for some time between the Court’s right-wing Justices and the Court’s left-wing Justices will be lost. The Court will swing violently to the left and that will be reflected in the Court’s decisions.Consider what one reviewer in a recent NY Times article, published March 18, 2016, -- titled, “What Do You  Need to Be a Justice?” – had to say. Ian Millhiser, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the author of the article, said, in his NY Times Op-Ed, “Some of the court’s worst decisions were the product of rigid ideology. But many are rooted in the fact that the justices in the majority lacked what President Obama said he was looking for in a nominee: ‘an understanding of the way the world really works.’”An “understanding of the way the world really works?” Millhiser took that quote from the SCOTUSblog, which posted certain remarks of Obama, supporting his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Explicating one of three points he was looking for in his nominee, Obama said: “. . . a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.” Obama also says that anyone he nominates to the U.S. Supreme Court "will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity," and that the person he appoints will be someone who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role." On a cursory inspection this may all sound reasonable and noble. But how much of it rings true? And, further, is there anything in Obama's remarks that, on deep reflection, do not suggest something ominous. Let’s analyze and extrapolate what Obama is really saying here.A perusal of Obama's remarks illustrates an inconsistency. He plainly states, in his remarks, that he wants a person who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role, someone who will not legislate from the Bench. But, that singularly critical and, in fact, correct point, is at odds with the third point he makes, although obliquely, namely that he seeks a person who holds a certain philosophy, akin to Obama's own, suggestive of utilitarian ethical concerns which, then, if acted upon  may very well amount to adjudicating a case on the basis of social theory irrespective of legal constraints. So, Obama is saying that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should not be decided merely through an application of America’s own case law; its own history; its own case law precedent. Rather, those who sit on the high Court should decide a case in terms of how a decision impacts the lives of people who reside in this Country, whether they are here legally or not. By extension, he is asserting that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should also take into account how a decision impacts people globally. He is saying that the U.S. Supreme Court should take into account the manner in which  U.S. Supreme Court decisions reflect multicultural values. This last point entails a consideration of and belief in utilitarian ethical systems along with notions of moral relativity.So, Obama is asserting and maintaining that a U.S. Supreme Court decision should encompass a worldwide perspective, and not simply one that reflects our Nation's values, manifested in our unique Bill of Rights, our unique history, our own culture, our own legal precedent. Obama is arguing for a cosmopolitan approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama is, then, definitely, espousing enacting law -- legislating law -- from the Bench, not merely interpreting law -- the latter of which is the high Court's principal duty and responsibility.The Judicial authority of the U.S. Supreme Court does not encompass the Legislative Authority of Congress as set forth with particularity in Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and, neither the Legislative authority of Congress nor the Judicial Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court encompasses the Executive authority of the President of the United States as set forth with particularity in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The demarcation of duties and responsibilities of each Branch of the Federal Government is established by and codified in the Constitution, and the duties and responsibilities of one is never to cross over into the domain of the other. But, Obama has deliberately and unconscionably argued for expanding the legislative functions of Congress into the domain of the Executive Branch and now suggests that the Judicial Branch of Government ought to do the same. In fact, Obama has himself used the power of the Executive Branch to unlawfully encroach into the Legislative arena, either by failing to execute the laws of Congress -- which we see in his adamant refusal to enforce existing immigration laws and which we see through his unlawful use of executive directives to curtail the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and which we see in both his callous indifference to a citizen's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and in the expansion of police and intelligence activities into areas that clearly transgress Congressional enactments.Obama has, apparently, no reservation about using the Office of the Chief Executive to make law, thereby transcending Constitutional authority to faithfully execute the laws, whenever he feels compelled by his personal morality and multicultural propensities and political philosophy to override the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And, he demonstrates the same contempt for the Separation of Powers Doctrine when he pompously suggests the U.S. Supreme Court should inject utilitarian ethics and multiculturalism into its decision-making, thereby uprooting 200+ years of carefully developed and cautiously applied American jurisprudence.What Obama is looking for in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and what he sees in Judge Merrick Garland is someone who shares his personal Weltanshauung -- his personal world view: someone who is prepared to, and who would, upend our entire legal philosophical system by  secreting moral relativity and geopolitical considerations and trans-national, multinational goals and objectives into U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama’s ideal candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court manifests a view for deciding cases also held by the left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer, as laid out methodically and comprehensively in his book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.” Justice Breyer’s jurisprudence is a mélange of laws, values, social mores, and ethical systems that extend well beyond a consideration of our own Constitution, our own laws, our own precedent. Justice Breyer’s  jurisprudence – one reflected in the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court – is an anathema. It undermines our Constitution, our laws. It undercuts the very sovereignty of our Nation and the sanctity of our Bill of Rights.What is noticeably lacking in Obama’s praises of Judge Garland Merrick and in Obama’s recitation of the factors he deems important in an individual who sits on the high Court is any mention of the need to consider how the core of our rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, is to be protected – indeed, that the core of our fundamental rights and liberties ought be protected at all. Apparently, Obama doesn’t consider our Bill of Rights, around which American U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence is built, to be particularly important in this new age, in this new world, that Obama envisions, in which the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ is perceived as a relic, eventually to be discarded in favor of a neo-corporate, financial world union.By the way, in the event anyone believes that Obama does not consider, would not consider, or has not considered the role a Judge's personal philosophy plays in Obama's consideration of a nomination of a person to the high Court, think again. In a February 16, 2016 article, titled, "Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, Voted Against Roberts," appearing in the conservative weblog, "front page mag," the author, Daniel Greenfield demonstrates Obama's clear attention to a Judge's philosophical bent. No one can reasonably attack the ability, intellect, credentials, and integrity of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito; yet, President Obama, as U.S. Senator Barack Obama, has voiced serious reservations for these nominations of President George W. Bush to serve on the high Court, and chose not to support the nomination of either one of them. So, when Obama asserts that, what he is looking for in a person who serves as a U.S Supreme Court Justice is a person whose analysis of cases will, when the need arises, "be shaped by his or her own perspective ethics, and judgment," he is being duplicitous. For, he will not consider a person, as a nominee, whose perspective, ethics, and judgment do not coincide with his own. Otherwise, he would have voted for and supported Chief Justice Robert's nomination and Associate Justice Alito's nomination to the high Court. We know, of course, that the values expressed in America’s Bill of Rights are not universally emulated by many Western Countries. In particular it is abundantly clear that America’s Second Amendment, far from being praised by other Countries, especially those comprising the EU, is often disparaged. But, it is disparaged in part, no doubt, because in no other Country in the World does a nation’s government accept and respect the idea that a nation’s government exists only by grace of the people, of the nation’s citizenry.America’s Second Amendment, however, makes absolutely clear that the federal Government exists only by the grace of the American people. The federal Government does not “own” the American people. We are free citizens in a free Republic, not enslaved subjects residing in an autocratic realm. The federal Government cannot dispense with our Bill of Rights; nor is it permitted to erode the fabric of our Nation’s sovereignty through international treaties and conventions that the American people are little if ever adequately aware of, nor their representatives in Congress ever completely privy to.America’s Bill of Rights – certainly the Second Amendment – is perceived by the left-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court as representing ideas and values no longer reflective of the modern age. But, the founders of our Republic were no fools. They knew that the rights and liberties set down in stone in the Bill of Rights were “constants” that never change, never become obsolete, and must never change or be perceived as obsolete if our Republic is to continue to exist in the form envisioned by our founders. Justice Scalia knew this, respected this, and his decisions reflected that principle – a principle omnipresent in his decisions.Justice Scalia believed that U.S. law must dictate and inform all U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that the Bill of Rights – all ten of them – must never be compromised or be considered relevant only to a bygone era. The left-wing of the high Court does not agree with this. They hold to the idea that Americans’ rights and liberties only have meaning relative to a particular era – that Americans’ rights and liberties are not “constants” applicable to all eras. That idea percolates through their legal opinions, and is often reflected in their own ad hoc and peculiar jurisprudence.The notion that our Bill of Rights transcends all time is considered an aberration and antithetical to the reasoning of the left-wing of the high Court because that notion is not compatible with “the way the world really works” today, as Obama says. All the more reason, then, for the U.S. Supreme Court to hold fast to the principle that Americans’ rights and liberties are “constants,” never-changing absolutes, as our founders perceived them and meant for them to be as applied to the continued existence of our Nation State as a Sovereign Nation State and as a free Republic – never subordinated to another nation or subsumed into a larger political or economic union, like the EU.Americans’ sacred rights and liberties are never to be seen as outmoded. They are never to be cast aside when deemed, by some on the high Court, to be incompatible with the “way the world really works” – with global realities, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, as laid out in his book, and as echoed by President Obama in his praises of Judge Merrick Garland.Judge Garland is certainly not cut from the same cloth as Justice Scalia. If Judge Garland does acquire a seat on the high Court as an Associate Justice, he would definitely fit in with such fellow travelers as Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Certainly, that is what President Obama, and, apparently, one “Republican” Senator, Mark Steven Kirk, would like very much to see.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.