And it's likewise reflected in last night's CNN townhall where such forums allow Cruz to genuinely connect with citizens (h/t: TheRightScoop):
This is a really great answer that Ted Cruz gives to the question about bringing women into the Republican party.
That is a pretty awesome story about his mom, and a nearly perfect answer to the question, especially when his opponent’s campaign manager is going around hurting women at rallies.
Ted Cruz gave a very moving answer to a father who had also lost his son Jason, a former Marine, to the over prescription of medication in the VA in 2014.
America, it's time to get this right and #ChooseCruz!
TRS: Scott Walker appears in a new TV ad for Ted Cruz telling voters to join him at the polls next Tuesday to vote for Ted Cruz, as he’s the one who can beat Hillary and win in November.
Walker has an 80% approval rating among Republicans in the state, so this endorsement ad may just make a difference in helping Cruz win most of the delegates in the winner-take-most state.
An Easter message from the virtuous candidate this election cycle...
TedCruz: Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz today released the following statement on Good Friday and in advance of Easter Sunday.
“This weekend, Christians of every denomination remember the most transformative event in history – Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – the ultimate sacrifice that redeemed the whole world.
“The light of Christ brings hope to every corner of the world. This year Heidi and I pray that in the wake of the Brussels attack, as we mourn for the victims who lost their lives in the subway tunnels and airport corridors at the hands of baseless terrorists, we will remember that the light of truth is stronger than the darkness of terror.
“I am reminded of Saint John Paul II’s first return to Poland as Pope. In 1979, upon his arrival, he kissed the tarmac. And the dust that had all but covered the churches ruptured as the bells rang out – one after another. Soon millions of people lined the streets. And when Saint John Paul II addressed the crowds before the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, he spoke these immortal words: ‘On how many battlefields has that solider given witness to the rights of man, indelibly inscribed in the inviolable rights of the people, by falling for ‘our freedom and yours’!’
“And he asked for the Lord’s blessing upon the land:
‘Let your Spirit descend.
And renew the face of the earth,
the face of this land.’
“That is the redemption message. By His sacrifice we are made new. And as we remember the gift of salvation on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, let us be so bold to ask the same. We face a different enemy than in 1979 – but one with the same goal – to snuff out the light of freedom. But we also know that just like Communism in 1980 it can be defeated because good overcomes evil, truth illuminates the world, and freedom breaks the bondage of tyranny.”
BRAVO! Further evidence that there is hope for our future. Thanks also for the perfect example of respect and civility, devoid of any Twitter tantrums or associated ailments. Keep up the inspiringly positive activism, ma'am.
On Wednesday’s Mark Levin show, our heritage is the American Revolution which promoted liberty and unalienable rights. There is a new American Revolution underway by constitutional conservatives to restore the Republic’s liberty and the principles upon which our nation was founded. Currently, this election is shaping up to be a lost opportunity. It has been hijacked by people who are projecting their own personal motives and ideas on what they think America should be. Substituting one autocracy for another is not going to bring our country back. America needs a leader who can stand for and articulate conservative principles.
Mark reminded listeners to his program that Patrick Henry articulated his "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech 241 years ago today. As such, and as our current medium permits countless examples through the ages of this magnificent speech that changed the course of our history, I've selected a couple of the more powerful presentations below. LISTEN! For our modern cry draws nigh as Henry's message becomes more relevant day by day in America...
Patrick Henry's historic speech dramatized during the Golden Age of Hollywood. "Give me liberty or give me death..." rang out on March 23, 1775. Cherish those words and the tremendous courage of the man who in speaking them knew his life could be forfeit as a result. Taken from the 22 minute short film from 1936 "Give Me Liberty" which starred John Litel as Patrick Henry
On March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, Patrick Henry delivered his Liberty or Death speech at the 2nd Virginia Convention. Among the 120 delegates in attendance were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Robert Carter Nicholas and more.
In this special edition of PODIUM's "Historic Speeches, Contemporary Voices" series, acclaimed actor Norman Reedus reads Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. PODOIM shares the story behind Patrick Henry's 1775 "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Speech. Award-winning author and Patrick Henry biographer Harlow Giles Unger discusses the power and impact of Henry's famous "Liberty or Death" speech, delivered to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. Unger has written nineteen books, including seven biographies of America's founding fathers.
So Barry goes down to Cuba to pander to his communist buddy, Raul Castro, virtually glossing over the Brussels terror attacks as to not interrupt his Marxist love-fest (also glossing over the Cuban dissidence and Castro oppression, shhh). Then when an American statesman suggests perhaps we should simply surveil -- not raiding, not spying, but community policing -- areas where this radicalism is likely to spring up throughout our own nation, well, then the outraged hypocrite wants to weigh in on terror concerns...using the totalitarian nature of Cuban communism to bash Ted Cruz no less...
Obama called Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's proposal to patrol U.S. Muslim neighborhoods as a part of a counter-terrorism strategy as "un-American" and "counterproductive."
Obama just spent his political capital to give Commie Cuba a big hug, but now when he wants to slap a Republican, they’re the worst country ever? This is simply absurd. Obama did absolutely nothing to actually help those dissidents in Cuba with his visit and diminishing of sanctions, but here he is using Cuba’s oppressive policies against the one guy who’s arguing against that Cuban oppression!! And of course, the media won’t call him out on it. Unbelievable. ~ soopermexican
As if that wasn't enough, then our schmoe of a president had the audacity to proclaim that ISIS (or ISIL as he'd rather refer to them just to make certain Israel is encompassed in their terror) is not an existential threat!
TRS: On the day after ISIS blew up an airport and metro station in Brussels, killing over 30 and injuring over 200, Obama declares that ISIS is not an existential threat:
The only thing missing from his speech is him saying ‘believe me’, the way Trump was doing on Monday at AIPAC.
But that wouldn’t help. Obama has done very little to fight ISIS and for him to say something like this after so many attacks perpetrated by ISIS, from Paris to Brussls, well it’s just insulting our intelligence.
ISIS is not an existential threat? Oh really...
AP: Security officials have told The Associated Press that the Islamic State group has trained at least 400 attackers and sent them into Europe for terror attacks.
The network of interlocking, agile and semiautonomous cells shows the reach of the extremist group in Europe even as it loses ground in Syria. The officials, including European and Iraqi intelligence officials and a French lawmaker who follows the jihadi networks, describe camps designed specifically to train for attacks against the West.
The officials say the fighters have been given orders to find the right time, place and method to carry out their mission.
Sounds threatening to me, but don’t worry 'cause Obama says ISIS schmisis, so nothing to worry about. #PlausibleDeniability
Ted Cruz has come under withering assault for wanting law enforcement to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. This is not the tyrannical despotism that Pres. Obama claims Cruz’s father fled from, but community policing. Police need every tool available to prevent terrorists from harming us and need to be able to police their communities in a way that effectively fights Islamic terrorism.
If folks would cut the hysteria for a moment and see this as the simplicity it is (i.e., community policing on par with what's already done in rough neighborhoods, gang violence and the like)...ehh, that would be rational thinking, and it's an election year, so that's out the window!
DailyWire: Speaking to an audience of Argentinian youth at a town hall in Buenos Aires on Wednesday, President Obama presented his view on capitalism versus socialism and communism. Telling the young audience that they shouldn't get so hung up on the terms, but just "choose from what works," the president suggested a little of both approaches is necessary to balance "equality and inclusion" with economic viability.
Dismissing debates about the differences between capitalism, communism and socialism as merely "interesting intellectual arguments," the president told town hall participants not to "worry" about all that, but to just do whatever is "practical."
"So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate," Obama said. "Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical, and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works."
His delusions continued as he went on to once again praise the notoriously repressive and economically crushing communist regime in Cuba for its "great progress" in education and healthcare.
That a current American president believes this is practical thinking disgraces every president before him and is so destructive and harmful to our near 240 years of existence as a republic, not to mention the utter ignorance on his part.
Who is Obama to tell us what works and what doesn’t when it comes to capitalism? Free market capitalism is what created the vast middle class in this country, not socialism nor tariffs. What Obama is promoting is the opposite of capitalism and wealth creation. ~ Mark Levin, 3/24/16
So much in the arena of what is and what isn't presidential can be gleamed from both the current POTUS and the hopefuls over these past few days. There's no need to go over the continuation of Obama 2.0 with Clinton (or Sanders) at this moment. I think we all understand that (or I'd like to think so, but...). Where I'd like to compare/contrast, is where the current race resides in what may or may not be the Republican Party after these primaries conclude. So let's dive right into it...
ON CUBA:
Rather than expounding on what a joke Obama has made of us down in Cuba (amongst elsewhere in the world), what Levin said last night sets the situation in clear perspective...
President Obama wants to have a frank conversation with the dictators who created the situation in Cuba. However, he should really be talking to the Cuban people who are continually oppressed and live in the iron-fisted police state. In the end, it is the people of Cuba who will continue to suffer under the Castro regime. What Cuba needs is a free market system without the tyrannical Castro brothers in charge. ~ ML, 3/21/16
But in a time of presidential campaigning, what is amazing is to watch the stark difference between Cruz and Trump on Obama's visit to Cuba:
TRS: Very solid comments by Cruz on how Obama is basically spitting in the face of the Cuban dissidents by going to drink mojitos with the dictators that are oppressing them.
[vs]
Trump’s only criticism is that Raul Castro didn’t meet Obama on the tarmac? Trump literally said THAT is the reason why Obama should have turned the plane around. Not because he wasn’t allowed to meet the Cuban dissidents. Not because Castro is a brutal dictator oppressing his own people. No, because Castro wouldn’t show up to meet Obama when he arrived.
Here's yet another stark difference between Trump and Cruz when it comes to Israel (we know how Obama feels). While Trump says, "Pay us back!" without any consideration of Israel's geo-politically sensitive station...
TRS: Trump was asked about his criticism of countries who we send foreign aid to that can defend themselves, like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, suggesting they should pay us back for our help. He was then asked if that same standard applies to Israel and he said yes, they should pay us back as well:
Trump just broke with decades of bipartisan support for aid to Israel by suggesting Israel should pay its own way.
Then in Brussels this morning, we received word of another ISIS atrocity...
TRS: The death toll and number of injured continue to climb after explosions rocked a Brussels airport and metro station this morning. The current number of dead are 34 and those injured from the blasts number close to 200 already:
FoxNews: As many as 31 people were killed and more than 180 injured as coordinated terrorist bombings rocked the Brussels airport and subway system during rush hour Tuesday morning in the Belgian capital.
Two bombings at Zaventem Airport, where 11 people were reportedly killed, and another at the metro station in the Maelbeek section near the European Union headquarters, where the mayor's office said 20 were killed, were almost immediately confirmed as terrorism. The attack at the airport was reportedly accompanied by shouts in Arabic and gunfire, and an unexploded suicide belt was reportedly found in the aftermath. ...
DEVELOPING: ISIS has claimed credit for Tuesday morning’s rush-hour attacks in Brussels, which left at least 31 dead and more than 180 injured.
Well, Obama doesn’t let these horrifying TERROR ATTACKS get in the way of jockeying for an alliance with his commie Cuban comrades...
TRS: Probably the only thing more disgusting than the terror attack in Belgium this morning was this damn degenerate-in-chief who made sure not to let the horrifying attack disrupt his jokey speech to Cuban commies in Havana.
The President spoke for 50 seconds on the Brussels attacks - six sentences - at the top of his Cuba speech https://t.co/kBqNuxuhwb
More details are pouring out of Belgium from the terror attacks on the West from the religion of peace, but Obama can’t be bothered – he’s enjoying a baseball game with his favorite commie dictator boyfriend.
These two should be behind more than netting!
Meanwhile, the first person the media sticks a microphone and camera in front of this morning is none other than Donald J. Trump...
Politico: Shortly after news broke of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Donald Trump was on television. He didn’t wait to consult with the foreign-policy advisors he announced a day earlier; instead he quickly condemned the attacks and argued that they serve as further rationale for some of his most controversial ideas...
ValueWalk: ‘Well I think I’ve said it. I would close up our borders until we figure out what is going on,’ said Trump.
‘Look at Brussels, look at Paris, look at so many cities that were great cities. Paris is almost as bad. Paris is no longer the City of Lights, Paris has a lot of problems. All you have to do is speak to the people who live there where the same thing has happened and they are in fear. The city is in fear. And we have to be smart in the United States,” he continued.
Trump returned to his familiar discourse on immigrants ... He went to lampoon the Belgian capital and used it as an example of how not to run a country.
“We have to be very vigilant and careful who we let into our country. I know Brussels well and Brussels is a total mess, and I’m not talking about the attack today,” said Trump. “I’m talking about, generally speaking, it is a city that used to be one of the finest, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and now its a catastrophic and very dangerous city where the police have very little control.”
He was later pressed to provide more concrete details about what he would do as president.
“I would be very tough on borders and I would be not allowing certain people to come into this country without absolute perfect documentation.”
Then we FINALLY received a presidentialaddress from Cruz...
“Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of coordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport. For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy.
“For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.
“We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here. We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.
“We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake.”
...who also held a presser this morning regarding the Brussels terror attacks...
These are the remarks of an adult who knows the gravity of the situation, and the source of the problem.
RedState: “In the wake of Brussels, we don’t need another lecture on Islamaphobia from President Obama.” There is nothing truer than that.
He is also right about our woefully inadequate vetting process. It is not something liberals or the media really care about. They don’t care if it’s effective. They just want to feel good about themselves.
“When you don’t define the enemy, then you don’t have screening programs designed to keep them out,” says Cruz. This is entirely logical. So much so you have to be willfully ignorant in order to disagree. You cannot screen what you will not identify. Utterly irrefutable.
Answering a reporter’s question about Trump, Cruz highlighted the difference between his and Donald’s policies. A stark difference. On the one hand experience and knowledge, on the other a blowhard with neither.
“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Putin a major victory and while he’s at it hand ISIS a major victory.”
Again, for the haters, that was in response to a direct question, not some volunteered political spin.
There’s a lot more in the ten minute clip. I suggest watching the entire thing. And then compare to Trump who discussed his own poll numbers. There’s at least one serious person left in this primary election.
And there's the crux of it, particularly when it comes to pressing matters on foreign affairs and their probable domestic effects. We desperately need a presidential leader, not showmen. There's one left in this primary cycle.
Here comes another Tuesday, and Cruz is soaring ahead in Utah!
TheHill: A new poll shows Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with a steep lead in the Utah GOP presidential caucuses that could award him all of the state's delegates if it holds.
A Y2 Analytics survey released Saturday puts Cruz with 53 percent of the vote, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. He is followed by Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 29 percent and Donald Trump at 11 percent.
Utah has 40 delegates, and a candidate will take all of them if he receives a majority vote. Candidates have to reach 15 percent of the vote to win delegates.
Cruz has the endorsement of Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R), who has been on the campaign trail with him there. Utah, along with Arizona and American Samoa, votes on Tuesday.
Cruz's large lead could have received a boost from the suspension of Marco Rubio's campaign. The most recent poll, taken in mid-February, had Cruz and the Florida senator neck-and-neck, with 18 and 17 percent.
Utah Governor Gary Herbert is not only endorsing Cruz by telling voters that he’ll be voting for Ted Cruz in tomorrow night's caucus, but also reminds them of the plus-50% threshold for Cruz to win all the delegates!
I am announcing today that I will join Mitt Romney in casting my ballot tomorrow night for Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
Tomorrow night, Utah will award 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. If one of the Republican candidates can receive more than 50 percent of the vote, that candidate will receive all of Utah’s 40 delegates.
Ted Cruz is a consistent conservative who understands the importance of federalism. I’m confident he will work to limit the federal government when it comes to education, public lands and other issues where states can do better than the federal government.
Utah is no longer considered a flyover state. For the first time in recent memory, Utah voters will play a critical role in the presidential nominating contest. With one vacancy and possibly more on the U.S. Supreme Court, it is essential we have a president who will nominate a strong conservative to the court who will use the Constitution as his or her guide.
I greatly appreciate that all three major candidates have visited Utah this past weekend. I think it is helpful for the candidates to see firsthand what’s going on in the home of the nation’s number one performing economy. Too often campaigns are all flash and no substance. Utahns deserve well thought out policy and plans.
At tomorrow’s caucus meeting, I hope Utahns will join me in supporting Senator Ted Cruz.
Be sure to attend your neighborhood caucus tomorrow night.
Go to caucus.utah.gov to find your caucus location. #utpol
Keep it up, Utah! #DumpTrump #NotKasich #ChooseCRUZ!
I'd continue to encourage the same direction for Arizona, which is posing tougher stakes...
TheHill: Donald Trump faces a major test Tuesday in Arizona’s presidential primary, the largest winner-take-all contest left in the Republican race.
If Trump can beat back a challenge from Ted Cruz, he will win all of the state’s 58 delegates and move closer to securing the nomination outright before the GOP convention in Cleveland in July.
But if he falls short, it could increase the likelihood of a contested convention.
Polls show Trump will enter Election Day as the favorite. But Republicans on the ground in the state say the contest could be decided by a razor-thin margin, and that Cruz is just as likely to finish on top.
“I think Cruz will pull the upset,” said Kurt Davis, a neutral GOP operative in the state and close confidante of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “He’s the only candidate with any kind of organization out here and they have him positioned to spring the upset. They just have to deliver.”
Instead of just copying and pasting this entire piece, I'd direct you to read Mike Bayham's piece, Ted Cruz’ Last, Best Hope. Here's the crux of it: Kasich is a spoiler and Cruz needs a partner to break through...
The good news for Cruz is that one of his primary vote siphons has ended his candidacy; the bad news is that another perceived anti-Trump candidate is still actively running for president: Ohio governor John Kasich. ...
Kasich is up to one of two things: splitting the anti-Trump vote to facilitate pluralities for the billionaire or hoping that a deadlocked convention will somehow propel to the nomination a man who racked up 4% or less in seven states.
Neither intended action is commendable.
With Kasich collaborating with Trump to end the debates and draining away Cruz’s margin of victory in states where Trump cannot win a majority vote, Cruz needs to bring a partner to further marginalize Kasich out of even relative significance and to steal some of the thunder from the reigning King of Free Media.
TheResurgent: Here we go. To be sure, Rubio has not yet fully endorsed, but this is a good starting point.
He didn’t endorse either Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the two other remaining candidates. But Rubio praised Cruz as “the only conservative left in the race.”
Rubio said his positive campaign message didn’t match the national mood, and said media coverage helped snowball Super Tuesday losses into the end of his campaign.
“This election was entirely driven by national media coverage, in many ways,” Rubio said, in audio of the conference call obtained by the Pioneer Press. “When the media narrative goes negative on you, and all the news is bad, it kind of knocks us off.”
We need to get Rubio and Cruz on the campaign trail together ASAP to shift the dynamics in the race and show the party what it would look like if everyone #NeverTrump unites.
UPDATE I: That is, if the Florida Senator (for now) can find it in himself...
TheBlaze: Days after dropping out the 2016 presidential race, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) announced that he does not plan to seek reelection in the U.S. Senate. He also asserted he will not be “anybody’s vice president.”
“I’m not interested in being vice president,” Rubio told reporters on Thursday. “I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way. I’m not gonna be vice president. I’m not running for Governor of Florida. I’m going to finish out my term in the Senate and over the next ten months we are going to work really hard here — we have some things we want to achieve — and then I’ll be a private citizen in January.”
To make it perfectly clear, Rubio clarified, “No, I’m not running for reelection to the Senate.”
Craptastic.
UPDATE II: Though it may not be a presidential pairing, we received at least some better news last night that Rubio may be nearing a Cruz endorsement!
Politico: Marco Rubio is close to endorsing Ted Cruz, but the two proud Senators — and recent fierce rivals — have some details to work out first. Cruz has to ask for the Rubio’s endorsement, and both sides need to decide that it will make a difference, according to sources familiar with the thinking of both senators.
Rubio and Cruz, who are more friendly with each other in the Senate than they are with longer-serving colleagues, occasionally chatted and patched up their sometime-rocky relationship on the campaign trail heading into Florida’s primary Tuesday, when Rubio was blown out by Donald Trump and subsequently quit the presidential race. The buzz about a Rubio endorsement of Cruz intensified after the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Thursday reported that the Florida senator called his Texas colleague “the only conservative left in the race.” Rubio, who returned to work Thursday in the Capitol, told reporters “I don’t have any announcement on that today” when asked about a Cruz endorsement. Rubio indicated, though, that he might have something to say soon. “There’s time to prevent a Trump nomination, which I think would fracture the party and be damaging to the conservative movement,” Rubio said.
Guys, the time is NOW to UNITE and do what’s right for this country, the Constitution, and conservatism!
President Obama wants a third Justice on the Supreme Court to advance his agenda. However, there is no right that Obama has to have his nominee heard in the Senate in the teeth of an election. Nothing in the Constitution obligates the Senate to hold a hearing on any Supreme Court nominee. It’s ironic that Democrats want Republicans to hear Obama’s nominee when their own party members, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and John Kerry opposed President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court picks. The Republicans need to stand firm on this issue instead of breaking away. ~ ML, 3/16/16
Who's Merrick Garland? Obama's supposed moderate choice for Scalia's replacement...
NYT: President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington.
Mr. Obama introduced Judge Garland to an audience of his family members, activists, and White House staff in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning, describing him as exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.
Just wiki the guy and you'll get a glimpse of what we're looking at:
Garland is considered a judicial moderate and a centrist. Garland has been described by Nina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson of NPR as "a moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases." The New York Times said he "is often described as brilliant" and wrote that "If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years." According to a measure of judicial ideology developed by four political scientists and considered a "reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court," Garland is close to Justice Elena Kagan.
Garland has "tended to take a broader view" of First Amendment rights. In a number of split decisions on environmental law in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has "favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups." In cases involving the Freedom of Information Act and similar provisions related to government transparency, "Judge Garland's rulings reflect a preference for open government."
In Senate confirmation hearings held in December 1995 to consider Garland's nomination to the D.C. Circuit, Garland that his most-admired Supreme Court justices were Justice Brennan, for whom he clerked, and Chief Justice John Marshall, who reinforced the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Garland also expressed admiration for the writing style of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
He became Chief Judge on February 12, 2013.
A guy that wants to impose more EPA regs on industry, bad on labor, oh, and anti-Second Amendment. What a moderate! And a guy who current sitting Republican Senators have already voted both for and against:
7 current GOP Senators voted to put Merrick Garland on DC Circuit back in 1997 pic.twitter.com/z4Ov0WSR0y
So who knows how they'll land (probably as unpredictable as his rulings!).
But it's probably important at this junction to remind certain senators of the '92 Biden rule, the '05 Reid standard and the '07 Schmuck obstruction...
But who knows...when Hillary defeats Trump, if that's the direction the Republican electorate continues to unwisely push us towards...who knows, indeed.
Obama is a lame duck who has already done lasting damage to the separation of powers that undergirds our constitutional system. He has already put his stamp on the federal judiciary: Besides two Supreme Court justices, he will have placed well over 300 like-minded, life-tenured appointees on the bench by the time he leaves office. He should not be permitted to further shape the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, especially with several cases on the horizon that challenge Obama policies implemented by unilateral, legally dubious executive action.
UPDATE I: In perhaps the wisest move of their careers, McConnell and Ryan thus far remain adamant that this process be held over for the next president, citing the Biden rule...
TheHill: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday shot down the idea of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland getting a hearing.
McConnell insisted in a floor speech that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction," he said.
"The Senate will continue to observe the 'Biden Rule' so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy."
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) stood by McConnell's decision.
“This has never been about who the nominee is. It is about a basic principle. Under our Constitution, the president has every right to make this nomination, and the Senate has every right not to confirm a nominee.
"I fully support Leader McConnell and Chairman [Chuck] Grassley's [R-Iowa] decision not to move forward with the confirmation process. We should let the American people decide the direction of the court."
Then will come the real test of will-power: Whichever way the election goes, particularly if it goes awry, and another lib is nominated, will they continue to vote one after another down and demand an adequate conservative replacement for Scalia's seat?
Their ranks already appear wavering, and the division among Senate Republicans over Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee may have already begun...
TheHill: A small group of Senate Republicans are breaking with their party’s Supreme Court strategy, saying they’re willing to meet with President Obama’s pick to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia.
Seven Republicans, so far, have said they are open to considering or meeting with Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia who was nominated earlier Wednesday by President Obama.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she agreed to meet with Garland after the White House reached out, but that it will take place after the Senate returns from its two-week recess in April.
“I’ve never refused an offer to meet with a nominee to the Supreme Court, that has always been my standard practice,” she told reporters.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also told reporters that he would meet with Garland, saying “I meet with people, that’s what I do.”
Whether or not to meet with Garland is also splitting blue-state Republicans, who are at the center of the battle for control of the Senate.
Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) each said Wednesday they were open to meeting with Garland.
According to Talking Points Memo, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said while he would meet with Garland, he still believes the seat should remain empty.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, echoed his comments. While he told reporters he was open to considering the nominee, he added in a statement that Scalia’s seat should remain vacant until next year.
As theRightScoop points out, 'While this may not amount to anything, the GOP doesn’t have a good track record of standing up to Obama. So this is likely the beginning of the Senate folding into a vote on Obama’s nominee.' ...particularly when it comes to the most vulnerable in their desperation to hold on to power in an election year.
AP: Sen. Mark Kirk became the first Republican senator to break with party leaders and call for a vote on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court selection, saying Friday, “It’s just man up and cast a vote.”
The statement by Kirk, who faces a difficult re-election battle this fall in Democratic-leaning Illinois, came two days after Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, a Chicago native, is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kirk’s stance directly contradicts the path charted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that most GOP senators have followed. McConnell has said for weeks that there will be no Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for any Obama nominee for the vacancy and no confirmation vote by the Senate.
“Right, it’s just man up and vote,” Kirk said on the “‘Big’ John Howell” show on Chicago radio station WLS. “The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get yes or no votes. Your whole job is to either say yes or no and explain why.”
Don't think I could have responded any better than TheRightScoop:
“Just man up” and cave to Obama. Hey Mark, why don’t you MAN UP and protect the Constitution like you PLEDGED to when you took the damn office?!?!?
I understand that we all expect politicians to always act like selfish self-interested spineless cowards, but in this case, it really is placing the nation at peril. If we lose just one seat in the Supreme Court, then it’s absolutely game over for the Constitution, and for this country. Already the Democrats are able to push about half of their left-wing agenda through the courts, and with one less seat on our side, they’ll be able to push everything else.
I know these idiots are only looking at the next election, but perhaps they should set their sights on what their legacy will be into perpetuity. Is one more damn turn in the office worth denigrating and destroying the Constitution?
I guess for Mark Kirk it is.
UPDATE III: On Sunday, Mitch McConnell FINALLY appears to be taking a hard line on something for once!
Mitch McConnell says the Senate will not confirm Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland even if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.
