SCOTUS Rejects Request to hear Environmental challenge to President Trump’s Border Wall Construction

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WINNING …

President Donald Trump won a major victory in the building of the border wall between the United States and Mexico when on Monday U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from a trio of conservation and environmental groups seeking to block construction.  The justices declined to consider the groups’ appeal of a lower court ruling that paved the way for the federal government to begin replacing border fencing in two locations and building wall prototypes.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from a trio of conservation and environmental groups seeking to block construction of President Trump’s wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The justices declined to consider the groups’ appeal of a lower court ruling that paved the way for the federal government to begin replacing border fencing in two locations and building wall prototypes.

The judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, rejected the groups’ challenge to a 1996 federal law that gives the government the power to waive environmental laws to more quickly begin work on a wall. The Department of Homeland Security sought to sidestep the laws as it pursued the projects related to construction of the border wall.

The conservation groups said the 1996 law violated the Constitution because of the power it granted the federal government.

Curiel, however, said the Trump administration did not exceed its authority when it waived environmental laws as part of its efforts to build the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Trump administration asked the justices not to hear the case.

Hillary Clinton Says Sex Claims Against Husband Bill Clinton are NOT like the Kavanaugh Confirmation Ones (VIDEO)

ACTUALLY HILLARY IS CORRECT, BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BILL CLINTON WERE TRUE …

SERIOUSLY HILLARY? Even Democrats wish she would just go away. Once again Hillary Clinton, the thing that just won’t go away, stated that she rejected the idea that accusations against her husband, former President Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton, were like anything compared to the sexual misconduct allegations against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or President Donald Trump. Believe it or not Hillary might have a point. The accusations are different, former Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, he also did have sex with that intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones for $850,000. And let us not forget how Hillary Clinton enabled her husband and how Hillary treated Bill Clinton’s female accusers, the so-called bimbo eruption. Bill Clinton had a pattern of inappropriate behavior with women forever. From his days in Arkansas to the Oval Office, and oh yeah college too?  But I thought we were supposed to always believe the women? Then there is one huge difference Hillary … the cigar. Only your husband used a cigar on a 20 year old intern as a sex object. (Mic drop!)

Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, following revelations of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. However, he was not convicted by the Senate and removed.  He gave a deposition as president in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. One would think that Democrats would learn from this as back then, Republicans overplayed their hand and Clinton was reelected.

Hillary Clinton is firmly rejecting the idea that accusations against her husband are anything like the sexual misconduct allegations against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or President Donald Trump.

The former secretary of state, who is joining with her husband for a joint speaking tour where tickets are going for up to $700 each, referenced independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation during the 1990s that led to impeachment.

She called it an ‘intense’ and ‘partisan probe’ that distinguished it from allegations against Trump and Kavanaugh, who sat as the newest Supreme Court justice Tuesday after weathering sexual assault allegations from high school and college.

Watch the reaction on Bill Clinton’s face when asked about the cigar.

Independents Disapprove of Democrats’ Handling of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination by a 28 Point Margin

INDEPENDENTS DISAPPROVE OF HOW DEMOCRATS HANDLED KAVANAUGH NOMINATION … HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS?

As reported at the Washington Examiner, an overwhelming majority of independents disapprove with the Democrats handling of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination process. By a 28 point margin, independents disapprove of how Democrats Democrats handled the Supreme Court nomination of judge Kavanaugh. This cannot bode well for Democrats in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections. The Kavanaugh vote has energized both bases; however, the energy from the right is trending upwards ans appears to be in line with independents.

The insanity from the LEFT is over the top as protesters, many paid, have taken this too far and jumped the shark. The more foolishness, disrespect and craziness, the more moderates and middle of the road folks think that we can never give these people power.

This is what insanity and mob rule looks like … How do you think this plays with indies and middle America?

After a blistering confirmation battle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat for oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court with a skeptical public, a majority of which opposed his nomination. However, Democrats may not be able to exploit this fact in the upcoming elections as much as they hope, because the independent voters overwhelmingly disapprove of their own handling of the nomination by a 28-point margin, a new CNN/SSRS poll finds.

What’s interesting, however, is even though Democrats on the surface would seem to have public opinion on their side, just 36 percent approved of how they handled the nomination, compared to 56 percent who disapproved. (Republicans were at 55 percent disapproval and 35 percent approval). A further breakdown finds that 58 percent of independents disapproved of the way the Democrats handled the nomination — compared to 30 percent who approved. (Independents also disapproved of Republicans handling of the matter, but by a narrower 53 percent to 32 percent margin).

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Will Vote Yes for Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination with an Amazing Speech(VIDEO)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS DELIVERED ONE OF THE BEST SPEECHES A U.S. SENATOR HAS EVER MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR … SEN. COLLINS BRINGS MATURITY BACK TO THE SENATE … THANK YOU!

This afternoon Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) delivered one a the greatest speeches ever given from the U.S Senate floor. Sen. Collins announced her decision to vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so she provided an incredible review of judge Kavanaugh’s judicial past as well as the sexual misconduct allegations. In the end Collins stated,  The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

Americans have to remember, this tremendous speech supporting judge Kavanaugh and the rule of law did not come from an old, white, Conservative man. It came from a moderate Republican from Maine, who many deem a RINO. And still the left comes out with their knives and are rabid.  They LEFT, who have become insane, and out of touch with America, have turned on what they had considered one of their own. Let this be a lesson to Sen. Collins. The left only likes you when you agree with them in lockstep, if you do one thing that is adult and for the good of the country they go after you.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter-charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter  fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.

The full text from Sen. Susan Collins:

Mr. President, the five previous times that I’ve come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion. The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the judge’s name on its prewritten press release. They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump’s nomination of “XX” to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known. [...]

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. [...]

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. [...]

Despite all this, Kavanaugh’s record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll: Kavanaugh Confirmation Battle Has Caused Democratic Enthusiasm Edge to Evaporate

DON’T LOOK NOW BUT DEMOCRATS HAVE AWOKE A SLEEPING REPUBLICAN GIANT AND THEY ARE PEEVED …

With just about a month before the 2018 midterm elections, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that the once overwhelming lead in enthusiasm by Democrats has all but evaporated. The 10 point gap in July is only a 2 point one as Republicans have narrowed the gap. What is different? The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation of course. Republicans are irate over how Democrats have handled this process and the treatment of Kavanaugh. The result is that the Kavanaugh appointment to the SCOTUS is now a campaign issue and Democrat senators in red states won by President Donald Trump in 2016 are how in big trouble.

Just over a month away from critical elections across the country, the wide Democratic enthusiasm advantage that has defined the 2018 campaign up to this point has disappeared, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

In July, there was a 10-point gap between the number of Democrats and Republicans saying the November elections were “very important.” Now, that is down to 2 points, a statistical tie.

Democrats’ advantage on which party’s candidate they are more likely to support has also been cut in half since last month. Democrats still retain a 6-point edge on that question, but it was 12 points after a Marist poll conducted in mid-September.