The high cost of “cheap” labor
Not many Arizonans are aware there is a dire emergency due to a dearth of judges in the state’s federal courts. Fortunately for us, the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking steps to rectify the problem by approving six candidates nominated by Barack Obama to fill judicial vacancies at the U.S. District Court for Arizona.
These lifetime appointments* are intensely political and usually accompanied by partisan wrangling at the highest levels.
But according to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), typical spirited partisan debate took a backseat thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake.
“I expect that this diverse group of judicial nominees will be confirmed now that they have been reported out of Committee and have the support of their home state Senators,” Democrat Leahy complimented. ”The progress we made today in the committee to move these nominations forward would not have occurred without the support of Senator McCain and Senator Flake. I thank them for their support today and I hope the Senate quickly confirms these nominees who are urgently needed in the state of Arizona.”
Such actions are nothing new for McCain and his junior senator. Previously, McCain and then-Sen. Jon Kyl endorsed and voted for a rash of extreme liberals to the courts as well as to other key posts.
The six latest candidates on the Democrat-heavy list nominated Feb. 27, for the U.S. District Court for Arizona are Steven Paul Logan, John Joseph Tuchi, Diane J. Humetewa, Rosemary Marquez, Douglas L. Rayes and James Alan Soto. (Notice can be read here.)
The nominees will require confirmation by the full senate.
*Once a judge meets age and service requirements he or she may retire and will then earn his or her final salary for the remainder of his or her life, plus cost of living increases
Liberal Jonathan Turley accuses Congress of inert passivity in face of Obama overreaches
Professor Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach. Turley stated America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.
“My view [is] that the president has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor, President Bush, as well — but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”
“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert, in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added. Liberal Turley acknowledged he agrees with many of the president’s policies and positions — just not the way the White House has gone about implementing them.
“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing — in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”
Turley stressed that Congress must take action if it wants to hold onto its power as the “thumping heart of our system.”
“We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority,” he said.
“No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ — not Congress, not the courts, and not the president. We are stuck with each other in a system of shared powers — for better or worse. We may deadlock or even despise each other. The framers clearly foresaw such periods. They lived in such a period. Whatever problems we are facing today in politics, they are problems of our own making. They should not be used to take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for over 250 years,” Turley warned.
H/T Washington Free Beacon
The Army Times reports Pfc. Tariqka Sheffey, a soldier who hid in her car to avoid saluting the flag — and then flaunted her unpatriotic defiance on Instagram — is the latest service member to be accused of dishonoring her military service. Sheffey, currently a member of the 59th Quartermaster Company, 43rd Sustainment Brigade, at Fort Carson, Colorado, should be a former member, with a dishonorable discharge to accompany her dismissal.
The vulgar Sheffey, whose Instagram handle is “sheffeynation,” posted a selfie with a caption that reads:
“This is me laying back in my car hiding so I don’t have to salute the 1700 flag, KEEP ALL YOUR ‘THATS SO DISRESPECTFUL/HOWRUDE/ETC.’ COMMENTS TO YOURSELF cuz, right now, IDGAFFFF.” (Care to decipher? Click here.)
Caving to pressure exerted by loud special interest groups and mass demonstrations, Gov. Jan Brewer has exhibited her cowardly leadership skills by vetoing SB 1062, the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Brewer’s letter to Senate President Andy Biggs justifying her veto can be read here.
Though nearly a dozen prominent law professors from prestigious schools across the United States have urged Brewer to take a deeper look at a bill that has been “egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics,” she has bowed to threats from a more vocal minority — homosexual activists and the leftwing media who have relentlessly pressed for a veto.
Read the letter signed by eleven legal scholars — Democrats and Republicans — here.
“As these legal scholars rightly point out, the misrepresentations about the bill have been egregious,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Douglas Napier. (Listen to his sound bite.) “It has nothing to do with refusing someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe place for people to freely live out their faith. The falsehoods need to be exposed for what they are.”
Given the raucous demonstrations accompanied by cries of discrimination surrounding the issue of religious liberty SB 1062 has engendered here in Arizona, it’s worth asking the question, “Just where does all the money advancing the ‘gay’ agenda come from?” Michael Voris, who produces ChurchMilitant.TV, provides the answer.
Voris’ own religious perspective is Catholic, but his words hold truth regardless of one’s faith.
We urge you to watch the enlightening “Pink Money.”
There is no discriminatory language pertaining to “gays’ or anyone else contained in SB 1062. That fact has not kept it from becoming a rallying cry for those relentlessly pushing the homosexual agenda.
The Arizona Republic, leading the charge against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, “came out” long ago, as we previously pointed out in the post In their very gay element at the daily.
These past few days we in Arizona have been hearing a lot about discrimination — from a single perspective. Just as SB 1070 spitefully transmogrified into the “show me your papers” law, SB 1062 is now gaining traction among liberals as the “OK-to-discriminate” bill. The fact that neither designation is factual means little to those spewing the falsehoods.
The issue to ponder as this bill has taken on a life of its own — fed by a frenzied media and fervent homosexual rights proponents — is who is actually oppressed? There is no question religion in under attack in America.
It’s important to understand that SB 1062 simply strengthens protections in Arizona law to defend against religious discrimination toward people of faith. Our country was founded upon the First Amendment and our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Free Exercise clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion. The significance of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause is its affirmation of the value of religion in American culture.
Organized pressure is mounting against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is now on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk. Clamoring demonstrators, armed with signs and loud voices, have parked themselves at the state capitol, playing for the willing media, while conservative supporters of the bill are at work.
Absurdities rule the day. Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake have, of course, weighed in, imploring a veto. Bowing to pressure, state legislators who voted for the bill are peeling away and opportunistic gubernatorial candidates are preening to the cameras. Threats of relocating the 2015 Super Bowl are stirred into the bawdy brew by a previously unheard of Democrat governor from Delaware. The Drudge Report headlines with a photo of Arizona Gov. Brewer topping SHOWDOWN IN AZ.
Read The Christian Post’s in-depth analysis of the issue. Then sit back and wait for Brewer’s veto pen to scratch across SB 1062 — exactly as she’s been advised to do by her left-leaning McAdvisors.