Mar 22, 2017 by Bill O’Reilly
Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because they feared that a Democrat winning the White House would appoint yet another liberal judge to the Supreme Court.
In recent times, the court has often ruled on politics — not the law.
Many Americans fear that, including this one.
Mr. Trump nominated 49-year-old Neil Gorsuch from Colorado, who has a very solid judicial record. He serves on the 10th Circuit U.S Court of Appeals in Denver.
This week there have been hearings in the Senate because that body must approve Judge Gorsuch to the nation’s highest court.
Predictably, some liberal politicians do not like the judge simply because he is not a liberal.
So even though his record is stellar and his philosophy independent, some Democratic senators will not vote for him. Here’s what California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein said:
“Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling … I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”
Senator Feinstein should know better.
If judges are free to rule on judicial evolution, that means they become politicians.
All judges in America should have just one rule: what was the intent of the original Constitution?
If they reject that, and make their decisions based upon their own political beliefs, what do we have? Another extension of Congress, not a Supreme Court.
Here’s the best example: There’s no question the Constitution gives the president the power to stop some foreign nationals from coming to the USA. There’s no question about it.
But activist judges have blocked President Trump’s travel order saying, in essence, it is anti-Muslim.
If that were the case, Muslims from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries would be included in the president’s order. But they’re not.
So everybody knows politics, not the law, is involved here.
And eventually, the president will win in federal court. Take it to the bank.
But the activist judges don’t care. They have temporarily blocked the order and are liberal heroes.
As for Judge Gorsuch, it looks like he’s a traditional man who believes the intent of the Constitution should reign.
Again, that seems to be unacceptable to Senator Feinstein and others because they want a judge to be political. They want a liberal judge.
Finally, the best example of constitutional debate is the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
It is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to have the ability to protect themselves.
Back then, militias were the mechanism — private citizens with guns organizing against threats.
Today, the threats are more personal — terrorists and criminals, not frontier marauders.
Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves against those who would harm them.
That’s why firearms cannot be banned.
But they can be limited. You can’t have a bazooka or a hand grenade.
That’s reasonable. Public safety is involved and individual states have the right to mandate gun laws based upon the wishes of their people.
But the left rejects that and in some cases wants to ban guns outright.
At this point that is unconstitutional. But that could change if the Supreme Court becomes solely a political body dominated by the left.
Summing up, intent, not evolution, should be the litmus test of constitutional law.
And that’s why a traditional judge like Neil Gorsuch is a vital situation.
He will likely sit for decades, presiding over a country in the middle of a social civil war.
Adapted from Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” on March 21.
LIVE STREAM: Judge Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing For Supreme Court Justice Nominee 3/22/17 LIVE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM WAS UNDER SURVEILLANCE
Nunes claims surveillance was “legal” and “incidental,” unrelated to Russia inquiry
Mar 22, 2017
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Wednesday that members of the Trump transition team were under surveillance in the final months of the Obama administration.
Information gathered during the surveillance, which Nunes said appeared to be legal and “incidental collection,” was unrelated to allegations of Russian collusion, but nonetheless “widely disseminated” within the government.
“I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition,” Nunes said.
“Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.”
Nunes said the information was “legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it” and that he could not confirm if Trump himself was under surveillance. The Republican lawmaker also could not confirm whether the information collected had any connection to Trump Tower.
Nunes also said the White House was unaware of the specific surveillance allegations, but that he had already met with the heads of the CIA and NSA.
Given that Nunes described the surveillance as unrelated to the Russia inquiry and incidental, the allegations may stir debate on the vast amounts of data captured by mass surveillance program.
As revealed by Infowars earlier this week, Trump and members of his business and family had their information collected between 2004 and 2010 under an NSA metadata program. The data, shared widely throughout the government, was provided to Infowars by law enforcement sources with access to the database.
Chairman Nunes: Intel. Community Collected ‘A Lot of Information’ on Trump, Transition Team, and ‘What They Were Doing’
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee.
(CNSNews.com) – Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced on Wednesday that from November through January, the U.S. intelligence community “incidentally collected” what was “essentially a lot of information on the President-elect, on his transition team, and what they were doing.”
“I recently confirmed,” Nunes said, “that on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
Nunes added that the information was “widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting” and that “names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.”
The congressman clarified that “none of this surveillance” detailed in the “dozens” of reports that he read was related to Russia or Russian activities.
President Donald Trump. (AP)
While Nunes believes that all intelligence was legally obtained, he is “alarmed by it” and pledged that the House Intelligence Committee will “thoroughly investigate” the surveillance and its “subsequent dissemination.”
It must be determined, he added, “who was aware of it, why it was not disclosed to Congress, who requested and authorized the additional unmasking, whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates,” and “whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated.”
President Trump, in response to a question during a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, said he feels “somewhat vindicated” by the findings, adding, “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.”
Related previous posts on this blog