Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Thurs. Apr. 20, 2017
George W. Bush Just Stabbed Trump In The Back
George W. Bush famously said he would never criticize Barack Obama when he was President, and he kept his word.But would he extend the same courtesy to Donald Trump?
Former President Bush was a longtime champion of amnesty.
During his time in office, he tried to push a bill through Congress that would have given illegal aliens their citizenship and voting rights.
This led to the Republican base turning against party elites and their handpicked candidates in the 2016 GOP primary.
Trump won the election by presenting himself as a rejection of globalism and the Bush legacy of open borders.
Now Bush is re emerging in the political world to push amnesty, even though Trump opposes it.
Politico reports:
“On immigration, Bush argued that the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that he proposed as president will eventually become policy. “There needs to be a way for somebody to be able to get in line to become a citizen so long as they met certain criteria,” he said.
Bush also signaled some skepticism that Trump would follow through on some of his more controversial proposals, like building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and enacting policies that are often described as isolationist and protectionist.
Echoing comments his own successor, Barack Obama, has made about Trump, Bush noted that presidents often “think one thing going in, and then the pressures of the job or the realities of the world are different than you thought.”
Bush also echoed the sentiments of establishment Republicans like John McCain that the border wall would alienate Mexico.
Politico also reports:
“On Trump’s border wall proposal, Bush similarly said: “The border, the idea of building a wall, I mean, I built a wall. … But it’s not going to be a brick wall all the way across Texas. A lot of times in politics, the rhetoric is different from reality.”
That reality, he said, includes the importance of not alienating Mexico, with whose leaders Trump has publicly conflicted over the wall proposal.
“I think it’s very important for us to recognize the importance of Mexico and the relationship we have with Mexico,” Bush said. “We want Mexico to succeed. It’s in our national interest they succeed.”
The Bush family holds hard feelings towards Trump.
They entered the 2016 campaign fully believing it was Jeb Bush’s birthright as a member of the family to become President.
Trump mocked Jeb on the stump as “low energy” and ran against the Bush legacy of foreign intervention, open borders, and global trade deals.
After Trump won the nomination, neither Jeb, nor his father and brother – the last two GOP presidents – would endorse Trump against Hillary Clinton.
And it was even reported that former President George H.W. Bush cast aside party loyalty and voted for Hillary.
George W. Bush never once criticized the policies of Barack Obama, however, the Bush family may hold personal resentment toward Trump for ruining Jeb’s coronation,
And now he has rebuked Trump’s immigration positions.
Never attacking a Democrat but going out of his way to blast a conservative policy is why the GOP base came to see there was no difference between establishment Republicans – like George W. Bush – and Democrats.
And that is exactly how Trump ended up President.
GRAPHIC — Cartel Violence Kills 10 near Texas Border
MATAMOROS, Tamaulipas — A series of recent gun battles and executions in this border city and in Rio Bravo led to nearly a dozen deaths as clashes with military forces and internal turmoil within the Gulf Cartel is reaching a boiling point.
The violence began last week in the Buena Vista neighborhood of Matamoros when cartel gunmen clashed with military and police forces. As usual, the fighting led to blockades, where cartel gunmen hijacked various vehicles to choke chances of police pursuit down main avenues. In Rio Bravo, troops killed several gunmen throughout the city.
The fighting and a series of apparent executions in both Matamoros and Rio Bravo led to the death of several men who are all believed to be part of one of the various factions that make up the Gulf Cartel.
In the downtown area of Matamoros, authorities responded to a local business where they found four men killed. The four cartel members had all been shot in the head execution-style.
In a separate attack, a team of gunmen killed three men in a second ordered hit. One of the victims was a street-level drug dealer while the other two remain unknown. A local college student was struck by a stray bullet and died shortly after.
In Rio Bravo, Mexican marines killed two gunmen who were fleeing from authorities after they murdered a married couple. The couple was gunned down after getting in a car crash with the cartel gunmen.
Editor’s Note: Breitbart Texas traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities. The writers would face certain death at the hands of the various cartels that operate in those areas including the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas if a pseudonym were not used. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by “J.A. Espinoza” from Matamoros, Tamaulipas and “A.C. Del Angel” from Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Trump Administration’s First Immigrant Detention Center Goes Up in Texas
AP File Photo/Ted S. Warren
AUSTIN, Texas – Texas is set to get its first immigrant detention center under the Trump administration after a private prison company announced that it won a multi-million-dollar contract with ICE.
The GEO group announced in a press release on Thursday that it has been awarded a contract by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the construction and operation of a 1,000-bed detention facility located in Conroe, Texas, which is just north of Houston.
Under the ten-year, $110 million-dollar contract with ICE, GEO is expected to, “design, finance, build, and operate the company-owned Facility.”
“We are very appreciative of the continued confidence placed in our company by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” said George C. Zoley, GEO’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
The GEO group has a total of 23 facilities in the state of Texas which includes correctional centers, detention centers, residential reentries, and youth services.
The largest of the facilities that ICE has a contract for, the South Texas Detention Complex, is in Pearsall, Texas, which can house 1,904 detainees.
The other facilities are the Rio Grande Detention Center, located in Laredo with a capacity 1,900; Joe Corley Detention Facility, located in Conroe with a capacity 1,517; and Ector County Correctional Center, located in Odessa with a capacity 235.
What a war with North Korea would probably look like
224 Shares
Back in 2013 during the last major flare up between the U.S. and North Korea I wrote an extensive analysis on the North Korea wild card and how it could be used by globalists as a catalyst for international economic instability titled Will Globalists Use North Korea To Trigger Catastrophe? As I have warned consistently over the years, like Syria, North Korea is a longstanding chaos box; a big red button that the elites can press any time they wish to instigate a chain of greater geopolitical tensions. The question has always been, will they actually use it?
Well, it appears that under the Trump administration the establishment might go for broke. I have not seen U.S. war rhetoric so intense since the second invasion of Iraq, and all over missile tests which have been standard fare for North Korea for many years. With whispers by Trump aides of a possible 50,000 boots on the ground in Syria, and open discussion of preemptive strikes in North Korea, this time kinetic conflict is highly likely.
Yes, we have see such military pressures and posturing before, but this time feels different. Why is an aimless quagmire war with massive potential global financial repercussions more likely under Trump? Because Trump ran under a nationalist conservative banner, and he will forever be labeled a nationalist conservative even if his behavior appears to be more globalist in nature. Rhetoric is often more psychologically powerful in the minds of the masses than action. Therefore, everything Trump does from now on will also be labeled a product of the “nationalist conservative” ideology; including all of his screw-ups. And, with Trump in office the establishment is perfectly happy to pursue actions once considered taboo, because demonizing conservatives and liberty proponents is one of their primary objectives.
Liberty movement activists will gnash their teeth and scream at the top of their lungs that Trump is “not acting like a conservative,” so how can conservative thinking be blamed by extension? But these people just don’t grasp the thought processes of the human mind. No matter how much we try to separate ourselves from the Trump-train if (or when) he goes full-bore globalist, our efforts will be futile. The mainstream media has spent considerable time and effort making sure that all of us are lumped in with the so-called “alt-right.” Remember, I tried to warn the movement about this long before Trump won the election.
Currently, a naval task force is en route to North Korea and its ultimate purpose is not yet clear. Could this be more posturing or a precursor to a strike scenario? I am reminded of the U.S.S. Maddox which was sent to patrol the waters off of Vietnam, the same battleship that reported an attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats which was used as justification for the initiation of the Vietnam War. As it turned out, no such attack actually occurred.
The presence of a U.S. fleet off North Korea can only be intended to instigate further aggression, not defuse the situation.
So, if war with North Korea is inevitable given the circumstances, what would such a war look like? Here are some elements I think are most important; elements that make the war unwinnable, if winning is even the purpose…
North Korean air defense
The North Koreans spent the better part of the last war with the U.S. being heavily battered by air bombardments. They have had plenty of time since then to consider this problem and prepare. Even the most gung-ho American military minds are forced to admit that using only air based attacks in North Korea is not practical. And where we have been spoiled by steady video streams of laser guided hell dropped on Iraqi and Afghani targets in the past, don’t expect things to go so easily in North Korea.
While North Korea is still rife with economic problems (like every other communist and socialist nation), they still have an industrial base and produce many of their own arms. This includes and extensive missile net backed by a maze of radar systems. Their air force is by all accounts obsolete, but as I have mentioned in the past, advanced missile defense is the wave of the future. It’s cheaper and can render expensive enemy air force and naval units impotent.
North Korea uses an indigenous built surface-to-air missile (SAM) system called the KN-06 which is as capable as some Russian SAM systems. They also field huge numbers of MANPAD (man-portable air defense) units against planes and helicopters attempting to dodge radar defenses at low altitudes. This is layered on top of a vast array of anti-aircraft artillery. And, most of this anti-air apparatus is either mobile or based underground.
What this means is, a ground invasion is the only way to attack North Korea effectively and make room for air units to strike interior targets.
Underground facilities
The Pentagon estimates at least 6,000 to 8,000 underground military facilities in North Korea. New bases are being discovered all the time. While “bunker buster” bombs can possibly damage these facilities, it is unlikely that they would be completely destroyed or rendered ineffective. There is also an estimated 84 large tunnels through mountains on the southern border which would allow an immediate invasion by North Korean ground forces into South Korea. Only four of these tunnels exits have been found and blocked by South Korea.
It is important to remember that underground infrastructure has always been the bane of the modern western military. These facilities will not be taken by air. They will have to be taken the hard way — with ground troops.
North Korean infantry
In 2013 the Department of Defense reported North Korean ground forces at around 950,000. This, of course, does not count their nearly 8 million infantry reserves. They also boast over 200,000 highly trained paramilitary soldiers. North Korea has no means whatsoever to project these forces overseas against the U.S. or anyone else other than South Korea. The only way they can do damage to U.S. forces is if we show up on their doorstep.
Since a ground invasion is the only way to proceed with what will obviously be “regime change” in North Korea, U.S. forces will be facing an endless mire of mountain warfare worse than Afghanistan with limited air support options. If it comes down to a war of attrition rather than superior technology, victory will be impossible in North Korea.
The nuclear option
The consensus view among military analysts is that North Korea will never attempt to use nukes offensively because the resulting retaliation by the U.S. would be devastating. However, I think this mindset is a bit simplistic.
I agree that though the mainstream media is bombarding us constantly with images of a psychotic dictatorship, North Korea is not insane enough to use nukes against the U.S. or its allies outright. If such an event did occur, I would immediately suspect the possibility of a false flag because there would be zero gain for North Korea. That said, in the event of a ground invasion into North Korea, the use of nuclear weapons becomes highly advantageous for Pyongyang.
Consider this, with vast numbers of U.S. ground forces operating in the region, nuclear retaliation by the U.S. is simply not going to happen. A pullout of most troops would have to take place. North Korea needs only one nuke strike to destroy a U.S. fleet or hit a large civilian target in South Korea killing potential millions or hit a U.S. troop base in South Korea killing tens of thousands of American soldiers.
Once we commit ground troops into the region, we make a nuclear attack useful to North Korea, when it never would have been useful before. This is why the preemptive strike rhetoric based on a rational of stopping a “more nuclear capable” North Korea is either pure stupidity or an engineered crisis in the making.
The Chinese question
Is China’s strange shift in support of tougher actions against North Korea after Trump’s refusal to label them currency manipulators legitimate? Well, if it is, then I think this would support my longtime assertion that China is not anti-globalist at all, but just another branch of the globalist cabal. This is a discussion for another time, though.
China’s sudden softening of stance against U.S. pressures on North Korea seem to me to be the most blatant signal that an actual war is coming. If China refuses to present military or economic repercussions to act as a deterrent to invasion, then an invasion is likely to happen. This does not mean, though, that a future crisis between the U.S. and China will not be engineered.
In fact, an invasion by America into North Korea opens numerous doors to all kinds of crisis events the establishment can exploit. For example, how many people are naive enough to expect that U.S. air maneuvers will respect Chinese air space restrictions? I hope not many. Having American military units in a war stance so close to the Chinese border is a recipe for disaster, and I am not necessarily referring to military disaster.
War, contrary to popular belief, is not good for the economy. In fact, war is the perfect poison for economic trade and production. The U.S. in particular is utterly dependent on the international use of the dollar as the world reserve currency. Without this status, the American economy is dead in the water. China is a central pillar in global trade and could, with the help of a few other nations, kill the dollars reserve status very quickly.
If you are curious as to why international financiers would be interested in undermining the U.S. economy in such a way, I suggest you read my article The Economic End Game Explained. The greater point is this — a war with North Korea would have nothing to do with North Korea. It would only be a means to a greater end. At bottom, there is little or nothing to be gained by Americans in this kind of conflagration. So we should be asking ourselves who actually would gain from it?
— Brandon Smith
ACLU & a Disqualified Judge Wage War on America's Toughest Sheriff
by: Ken Klukowski
Deep-state prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seek to throw 85-year-old Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio behind bars in a federal prosecution plagued by egregious violations of due process and federal law unless the new leadership at DOJ reconsiders the matter.
In 2007, the ACLU and the DOJ Civil Rights Division brought a racial profiling lawsuit against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Arizona county where Phoenix is located. It continued all the way through the Obama presidency, under Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
Snow held a civil contempt trial which some claim was timed to impose maximum political damage upon Arpaio. It is undisputed that the trial was entirely unnecessary because Arpaio had agreed to stipulate to the contempt charges to avoid the politically damaging trial, but Snow demanded a public proceeding. After the trial, Snow held Arpaio in civil contempt, then referred Arpaio to the DOJ for prosecution for criminal contempt.
Arpaio’s supporters cry foul that DOJ likewise timed its actions to harm Arpaio politically, announcing on the eve of Election Day 2016 that it would prosecute Arpaio for criminal contempt. Moreover, the DOJ is now insisting on jail time for Arpaio despite his very advanced age, threatening to take the 85-year-old sheriff away from his wife, who is battling cancer.
In 2007, the ACLU and the DOJ Civil Rights Division brought a racial profiling lawsuit against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Arizona county where Phoenix is located. It continued all the way through the Obama presidency, under Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
Snow held a civil contempt trial which some claim was timed to impose maximum political damage upon Arpaio. It is undisputed that the trial was entirely unnecessary because Arpaio had agreed to stipulate to the contempt charges to avoid the politically damaging trial, but Snow demanded a public proceeding. After the trial, Snow held Arpaio in civil contempt, then referred Arpaio to the DOJ for prosecution for criminal contempt.
Arpaio’s supporters cry foul that DOJ likewise timed its actions to harm Arpaio politically, announcing on the eve of Election Day 2016 that it would prosecute Arpaio for criminal contempt. Moreover, the DOJ is now insisting on jail time for Arpaio despite his very advanced age, threatening to take the 85-year-old sheriff away from his wife, who is battling cancer.
Trump Signs Bill Overturning Obama Admin Rule Banning States From Defunding Planned Parenthood
By Heather Clark
WASHINGTON — President Trump has signed into law a bill that overturns a rule issued by the Obama administration that bans states from defunding the abortion and contraception giant Planned Parenthood.
“On Thursday, April 13, 2017, the president signed into law H.J. Res. 43, which nullifies the Department of Health and Human Services rule prohibiting recipients of Title X grants for the provision of family planning services from excluding a subgrantee from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services,” the White House simply write in a brief press release on Thursday.
As previously reported, the resolution passed the Senate on March 30 after Vice President Mike Pence was called in to cast the deciding vote in the midst of a 50-50 tie. It cleared the House on Feb. 16 230-188, mostly along party lines.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with Title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients (81 Fed. Reg. 91852; December 19, 2016), and such rule shall have no force or effect,” H.J. Res. 43 simply reads.
Title X was enacted in 1970 under the Public Health Service Act and authorizes the Office of Population Affairs to oversee the disbursement of federal funds for the purpose of assisting organizations that offer “family planning” services. States distribute the capital to reproductive and women’s health organizations as they see fit.
In recent years, a number of states have sought to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood after granting the organization funds for years, remarking that they do not wish to assist groups that provide abortion services, even if the funds will not be directly used for abortion.
But the Obama administration contended last year that stripping abortion facilities of funding results in undesired births. It also asserted that such locations are important because they provide contraceptives.
“Reducing access to Title X services has many adverse effects. Title X services have a dramatic effect on the number of unintended pregnancies and births in the United States,” HHS said in September. “For example, services provided by Title X-funded sites helped prevent an estimated 1 million unintended pregnancies in 2010 which would have resulted in an estimated 501,000 unplanned births.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) consequently drafted a rule—which it finalized in December—that amends the Code of Federal Regulations to read, “No recipient making subawards for the provision of services as part of its Title X project may prohibit an entity from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively.”
But some lawmakers sought to overturn the rule, which they opined was crafted with bias and incorrect information.
“This edict was replete with statements that the Administration cannot back up,” sponsor Sen. Diane Black, R-Tenn., said. “For example, the rule stated that health care providers with a focus on reproductive health—for example Planned Parenthood—can ‘accomplish Title X programmatic objectives more effectively.’ This is demonstrably false.”
“According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive services dropped by 18% over the last year,” she noted. “And their total number of services provided dropped by 11% even as their taxpayer funding increased by millions and their abortions continued at over 320,000 a year.”
As previously reported, according to the organization’s annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year. The figure accounts for at least one-third of all abortions nationwide, when compared to statistics released in November by the Centers for Disease Control.
As it has been in previous years, Planned Parenthood’s largest focus in 2014-2015 was sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), as it tested and/or treated over four million people for sexual ailments, with over 3.5 million tests and 32 thousand men and women being treated for ailments contracted through sexual activity.
Over 2.9 million people were provided with contraceptives or other forms of birth control in 2014—from temporary to permanent, including over 900 thousand emergency contraception kits. The figure is down from 3.5 million the year before, and 3.7 million in 2012.
Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms as it is not licensed to operate mammogram machines, and its annual report outlined that fewer than 700,000 women received services surrounding cervical cancer screenings (pap smears for women who have been sexually active), equating to just seven percent of its services, while STD testing and contraceptives accounted for 76 percent of its services, as opposed to women’s health.
Following word that Trump had signed the resolution nullifying the Obama administration’s order, Planned Parenthood blasted the move, asserting that the government was inflicting injury on women by allowing states to reallocate funds to community health centers instead.
“People are sick and tired of politicians making it even harder for them to access health care, and this bill is just the latest example,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Too many women still face barriers to health care, especially young women, women of color, those who live in rural areas, and women with low incomes.”
But Seema Verma, director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters following the signing that “President Trump is delivering on his promise to give states the flexibility that they need to make healthcare decisions that best meet their citizens’ unique needs.”
Is this what leftists and progressives mean by ‘equality’?
Michael Brown, OneNewsNow.com
Andraya Yearwood
I did not intend to write about this story, but when I saw a picture of the teenager in question, I had to. He is 15 years old, clearly a biological male. Look at his picture for yourself, mustache and all. As Joy Pullman notes on The Federalist, he has “not taken drugs nor undergone surgery to mimic femininity.” Yet he was allowed to compete against other girls in a recent sporting event, and to no one’s surprise, he won – quite handily, at that. Is this what is meant by “equality”?
In recent weeks, we’ve read about a female high-school wrestler who identifies as male and who has been taking testosterone to prepare to “transition” to male. Unsurprisingly, she defeated the other girls, all of whom are not taking testosterone.
We also read about a male weightlifter who now identifies as female. Unsurprisingly, he defeated the women he competed against, setting a new record along the way.
Other examples could be supplied as well, since this is becoming more and more common.
How is this fair? How can progressives and liberals and leftists and LGBT activists and their allies think this is right? And do the feminists of the world really want to engage in head-to-head athletic competition with their male peers?
If this was done in the world of professional sports, there would not be a single woman winning, let alone playing at the elite, highest levels.
Not one female basketball player would earn a berth in the NBA. Not one female athlete would make it to the Olympics – in swimming or rowing or weightlifting or skiing or running or jumping or hurdling or boxing. Not one.
Men would dominate in every event, and women would be relegated to cheerleading.
That’s why we have men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s world records and women’s world records. And that why we celebrate the accomplishments of female athletes as females rather than comparing them to males.
There is nothing sexist about this. There is nothing hateful about this. There is nothing condescending about this. This is a matter of fairness, equality, and common sense.
At least it should be. Today, common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.
The 15-year-old in question goes by the name of Andraya Yearwood, and as the Hartford Courant reported, Andraya’s first event with female peers was a cause for celebration: “With family, friends and teammates cheering her on at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4×100-meter relay team take second place.”
What did this look like in person? One picture says it all (above), as Andraya leaves the other girls behind, girls who trained so hard for these events, only to be beaten by a boy. And I mean beaten decisively.
But Andraya’s mother had a response to anyone would protest the event: “I know they’ll say it is unfair and not right, but my counter to that is: Why not? She is competing and practicing and giving her all and performing and excelling based on her skills. Let that be enough. Let her do that, and be proud of that.”
What kind of logic is that? Because this 15-year-old biological male is competing and practicing and giving his all, that makes it fair and right for him to compete with his female peers? No matter what these other girls do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much they push themselves, they will not be able to keep up with an equally devoted male peer. How is this fair and right to them?
Andraya’s father is also supportive, saying that his son is competing just where he should be competing, also explaining that you are born into a particular body but you grow into being a particular person.
But athletic events are conducted in the body, regardless of how the person inside that body identifies. Yet when people ask Mr. Yearwood, “Why is your daughter running with the girls?”, his response is, “Because she’s my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with girls.”
With all respect to the Yearwood family, and with understanding that for them, this was a matter of life and death for their child, what Mr. Yearwood is saying is patently false. His child is not running with the other girls the same way the other daughters are running, just like his child does not have to deal with monthly periods or female hormonal changes, since Andraya is not like the other girls.
“But,” you ask, “what about Andraya? What if Andraya has gender dysphoria? What if identifying as female will save her life?”
That is between Andraya and his family and the Lord. But Andraya’s personal struggles cannot be imposed on everyone else, meaning, as a biological male, he has no business competing with other girls, or, for that matter, sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls. That is not the meaning of equality.
Even according to activist ideology, gender is a social construct but sex is biological. And when it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.
In the end, this is just one more example of why I believe LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself.
You cannot wage a winning war against gender distinctions any more than you can redefine marriage while preserving its integrity. As expressed by Joy Pullmann, “It’s a pretty sure bet Americans did not expect tolerance for two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors to become a spearhead for forcing naked boys to shower next to naked girls and make girls second-class players on their own fields.”
Exactly.
And so, I appeal to progressivists, leftists, feminists, and LGBT allies and their allies, along with all those who cherish fairness, equality, and justice. Look carefully at the trajectory of your activism, and ask yourself: Is this really the kind of world that you want?
Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus, is a biblical scholar, apologist, worldwide speaker, and activist. He is the host of the nationally syndicated, talk radio program “Line of Fire,” and he serves as president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, NC, as well as adjunct professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books, most recently “Breaking the Stronghold of Food.”
Gorsuch’s First Question as Supreme Court Justice: “Wouldn’t It Be Easier if We Followed the Law?”
CORTNEY O'BRIEN
New Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch waited only 15 minutes before asking his first questions in a case dealing with employment discrimination Monday.
Not only did he ask questions, but he was confident enough in his constitutional prowess to challenge the lawyers in the room.
The case before the justices involved a technical issue about the process for a federal worker to appeal his discrimination claim. Gorsuch asked the worker’s lawyer Christopher Landau four questions in a row about the wording of a statute, saying he was “sorry for taking up so much time.”
Gorsuch later sparred with Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher over the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act, sticking to his reputation for focusing on the text of the law.
“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute,” Gorsuch asked.
Reuters reporters noted Gorsuch’s “composure” and “confidence” throughout his first day on the bench. The New York Times had a similarly positive review.+
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.
If Justice Gorsuch experienced first-day jitters, he did not betray them. He was an exceptionally active questioner, displaying an easy familiarity with the issues in the minor and technical cases before the court. He asked crisp and colloquial questions, and he kept asking them if he did not find the lawyers’ answers satisfactory.
Perhaps the most anticipated case Gorsuch will hear this week is Trinity Lutheran v. Comer on Wednesday, which will consider whether a religious preschool in Missouri should have access to a taxpayer funded state program that helps improve playgrounds. Religious freedom advocates will be watching that one closely.
G’ day…Ciao…….
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/04/httpift_19.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment