Media Lunges at the Chance to Brand Justice Gorsuch a Killer

Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 20, 2017, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

 

It was such a giftwrapped piece of serendipity for the press that you knew they would be unable to contain themselves. The timing was almost too convenient. A despised President had a reviled court appointee facing his first case, and it was landmark decision.

The state of Arkansas was fast-tracking a number of criminal executions, appeals for which were climbing through the appellate courts. As fate would have it they arrived to the Supreme Court to become the first case presided over by the newly appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch.

The rookie Justice performed as expected, and the media performed in the manner they frequently accuse of Republicans — they “pounced”, as they resorted to “overreach”.

The votes against extending the stay of executions was a five-to-four decision, hewing to expected lines as the five conservative justices prevailed over the four liberal dissenters. Gorsuch was consistently positioned by the media as the “deciding vote”, and thus were eager to cast him (employing evident satisfaction) with bloodlust.

Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cast his first consequential vote Thursday night, siding with the court’s other four conservatives in denying a stay request from Arkansas death-row inmates facing execution. Hours later, the state executed one of the men, the first lethal injection carried out there since 2005.”

The Huffington Post was just as eager to point out the crimson-colored palms of the new Judge. “Gorsuch’s vote on one of several 11th-hour petitions, in effect, allowed the state of Arkansas to carry out its first execution in nearly 12 years.”

The barely-contained excitement at the chance to demonize the man who is regarded as an improper appointment, placed through a controversial process, is blatant. That zeal however overlooks a detail that never surfaced in any of the lengthy analysis the outlets were providing, while giving extensive background on the court cases of the condemned.

What they all failed to surmise was had Gorsuch not been present the eight-person court would have resulted in a four-to-four split decision. This would have then meant the cases would be sent back to the state where the previous decision would stand. So these executions would have taken place without Gorsuch on the bench.

Lending even further condemnation was the New York Times editorial board, in an editorial gently titled “Neil Gorsuch and the State’s Power to Kill”. The Times served up the subtle pronouncement, “In short, the first significant decision by Justice Gorsuch, who was sworn in to office less than two weeks ago, was the most consequential any justice can make — to approve a man’s killing by the state.”

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer stated he was bothered by the suddenness of of the scheduling of men on death row for years. Arkansas was stepping up the schedule due to the impending expiration of the drugs used for their lethal injection. He asked, “Why these eight? Why now?” However he cites no precedent case law to support his decision. He merely did not like it.

And this is was truly rankles the NY Times.

The three more liberal justices agreed that the stay should have been granted, as they regularly do in such cases, just as the conservative justices regularly vote the other way.That 4-to-4 split effectively gave the deciding vote over Mr. Lee’s life to Justice Gorsuch, sitting in a seat that by all rights should be occupied not by him but by President Barack Obama’s doomed nominee, Merrick Garland.

And there it is. The editors could not resist invoking the name of a justice so many on the left declare was ordained to be the next SCOTUS judge, merely because President Obama nominated him, yet had his seat “stolen” by the GOP. This ignores that tactics like a filibuster were not used, but a GOP majority in the Senate had the power to not bring Garland up for a confirmation vote. Also ignored: The SCOTUS has not always had a nine justice bench. It is not a Constitutional mandate, and that ninth seat was a creation of Congress. They have the power to eliminate it as well and it could have remained vacant.

The NY Times becomes as outraged as the petulant protesters we have seen since the Trump election. “Neil Gorsuch held the power of life and death in his hands Thursday night. His choice led to Ledell Lee’s execution, and gave the nation an early, and troubling, look into the mind-set of the high court’s newest member.”

What Neil Gorsuch did was voting to sustain the laws in Arkansas. He determined there was nothing unconstitutional to justify overriding the Arkansas statutes. Look at how the press reacts to a man voting with the laws, and the Constitution, in mind. Rather revealing they are losing their own minds as a result.

The post Media Lunges at the Chance to Brand Justice Gorsuch a Killer appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Donald Trump Can’t Complain About the 100 Day Standard Because He Set It

Saturday, April 29th will mark the 100th day of the Donald Trump presidency. I will be blunt and say that outside of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch; it’s been pretty much a disaster. Signing a slew of executive orders is meaningless. Executive orders are only good until a President of the opposing party takes office and reverses them. Trump’s promise to repeal and replace Obamacare failed miserably, thanks in large part to Trump’s short-sighted promise that coverage extends to “everybody” in his replacement and it didn’t happen. Remember the border wall and how Mexico was going to pay? Trump recently threatened a government shutdown if Democrats didn’t acquiesce to his demands for funding – i.e., taxpayer dollars.

Trump recently pooh-poohed the 100-day standard as did some in the media. Usually, I would agree, but in this case, it was Donald Trump who set lofty goals for his presidency and what he promised to do in the first 100 days of his administration.

Trump’s ‘Contract With The American People’ lists a slew of policy proposals and ideas he promises to “fight” for in the first 100 days of his administration. He’s kept some of the promises. Others went the way of the do-do bird because of the realities of the office.

People will point to the recent poll showing Trump retains much of his base support (96%) and that is not surprising. Nobody will disavow their vote 100 days into a new presidency. The question is whether or not he can keep that support over the next 18 months. His base of support is strong, but he does not impress the rest of the country, hence the abysmal job approval numbers. It’s too soon to tell what will happen with congressional races but Trump’s performance thus far does not reflect well on the GOP as a whole.

He is the leader of the party whether people like it or not and as it stands, the GOP’s standing among the general public is low. The only solace they can take is a bunch of buffoons run the Democratic Party, and they’re making it more difficult for themselves to regain control of Congress in 2018.

That said, Trump has no room to complain about the criticisms of his first 100 days. He made the promises and people will measure him by that.

 

The post Donald Trump Can’t Complain About the 100 Day Standard Because He Set It appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


OOPS: State Dept Removes Blog Touting Mar-a-Lago From Website

Yesterday I told you about the State Department website, Share America, and how they seemed to be advertising President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

Apparently, there was enough of a stink raised that the post – which had been up since April 4 – was deleted from the site.

The blog, initially posted on Share America, a State Department platform used for sharing what it describes as “compelling stories” detailed the history of Trump’s “Winter White House.”

It immediately led to concerns that the U.S. government was promoting Trump’s private resort.

“The intention of the article was to inform the public about where the President has been hosting world leaders,” the web page now reads. “We regret any misperception and have removed the post.”

You would think that some things would just jump out at them as obvious.

I’m even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in regards to the background and history of the estate being interesting enough to bring up, in some context, but given that it is a for-profit business for the president, caution should have prevailed in this matter. He’s already being closely scrutinized for any hint of using his office as president to enrich himself.

CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out to the troubling optics yesterday.

“Well, they’re just shamelessly promoting his products on U.S. government, taxpayer-financed websites. And we know that Mar-a-Lago has benefited from President Trump being elected president,” he said on CNN’s “The Lead” on Monday.

The facts are, Trump doubled the membership fee to Mar-a-Lago after winning the presidency, so he’s definitely cashing in on his new position.

Trump can’t afford to make these kinds of ethical miscalculations, and neither can members of his administration.

Moving forward, let’s hope this was just an error in judgment that doesn’t happen again.

The post OOPS: State Dept Removes Blog Touting Mar-a-Lago From Website appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State