The Trump resistance: 1,100+ law school professors nationwide oppose Sessions as AG

The resistance to Trump is emerging and growing. There are already calls for civil disobedience and protest.

It is now uncertain whether the public will stand for the implementation of Trump's published policies.

It is evident that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is one of the deplorables Hillary denounced. The public and prominent legal scholars don't want Sessions in a position of power.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.10838b482731

 

Too bad none of them are president or senators. They lost, get over it.

 

Q: What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start!

 

So a bunch of teddy bear hugging, hot cocoa sharing, pansy-fied professors who offer safe spaces don't like the results of elections or the president's appointment choices. And why is this news?

 

The neoMarxist are growing more desperate by the day. They feel their power slipping away and know they will never see another chance like they had under President Obama. If these extremists begin to protest and burn, the country will see who they really are and their popularity will slip even lower.

 

That probably cost her the election. Sessions will be AG, thanks to Harry Reid, Randy Barnett will likely be named to The Supreme Court.
~
When the Federalist Society opens its three-day National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, the official topic of conversation will be “the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Scalia.”

Scalia insisted that judges seek the public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted.

Trump is echoing Scalia. Last week Mr. Trump’s transition team affirmed that he will nominate judges “who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.” During the campaign Mr. Trump released a list of 21 potential candidates for Scalia’s seat. Those on the list with whom I am familiar would be sympathetic to originalism.

The bigger unknown is where they stand on stare decisis—Latin for “let it stand.” This is the idea that precedents of previous Supreme Courts should be followed, even when they conflict with the original text of the Constitution, like Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas has been more willing to reject stare decisis and reverse precedents. Consider the New Deal-era case Wickard v. Filburn. In 1942 the Supreme Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. Sixty-three years later, that expansive reading of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause continues to hold.

Take the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, in which I represented Angel Raich. A 6-3 majority of the court relied on Wickard to rule that Congress could stop Ms. Raich from possessing homegrown marijuana for medical use, as authorized by the law of her state. Justice Thomas dissented and would have reconsidered Wickard.

Stare decisis has the unfortunate effect of grandfathering in hundreds of judicial decisions, like Wickard, that have interpreted federal powers well beyond what can be supported by the Constitution’s original meaning.

With Washington’s power now extended over Americans’ everyday lives—rather than allowing for 50 state solutions to economic and social problems—every divisive issue is elevated to the national government. This has resulted in a Hobbesian political war to control the levers of federal power, with each side trying to avoid living under policies with which it fundamentally disagrees. As a result, every presidential campaign is now “the most important election of our lives.”

Post-New Deal courts authorized Congress to delegate its lawmaking powers to the administrative state. Today, most federal “law” is made, interpreted and enforced by faceless, unaccountable executive-branch bureaucrats. This is what has allowed Washington to regulate nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives. The 535 members of Congress simply wouldn’t have the time to do it on their own.

Rejecting dubious precedents does not necessarily require overturning specific government programs that were previously upheld or entitlements on which citizens have come to rely. But it does mean declining to use these past decisions to justify new unconstitutional exercises of power. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, upheld in Wickard, might continue to operate. But future congressional schemes to regulate wholly intrastate activity could be struck down. Such an approach would gradually return the U.S. to a federal government of limited, enumerated and separated powers.

Which leads to the two questions that the Trump administration should be asking of potential judicial nominees.

First: Will they elevate precedent over the original meaning of the Constitution, thereby locking in a highly distorted reading of federal power? Or will they insist on interpreting America’s founding document and its amendments as they were written?

Second: Do they, like Justice Scalia, have the courage of their convictions—the intestinal fortitude to stand against the public’s demand for this or that outcome, and to do what they believe to be right? Or will they bend with the political wind to protect the “legitimacy” of the court?

This isn’t a matter of seeking judges who will reach conservative results versus liberal ones. It’s about adhering to the text of the Constitution, while letting the political chips fall where they may.

Thanks to the results of the election—including Republicans’ retaining control of the Senate—there has never been a better opportunity in my lifetime to restore what Donald Trump, in the final presidential debate, quite eloquently referred to as “the Constitution as it was meant to be.”
~
Sessions will make the AG's office great again!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-questions-for-donald-trumps-supreme-court-nominees-1479342425

 

Do you realize how insane that post is? My bet is you don't OR...Maybe you DO and you're just trolling. Either way, I think we should FIRE those so-called 'professors' right now. They're not professors, they are political operatives. Screw them, there are plenty of GOOD professors that don't include political demagoguery in their lessons. In fact, I would immediately FIRE any 'professor' bringing politics to the class room (other than an actual unbiased political science class).

 

So?...

 

What a waste of time. The people who respect legal scholars already oppose Sessions....so who are they trying to reach?

 

If we think about it, isn't opposition from college law professors something that should be considered an endorsement?

 

They don't get a vote in the Senate and I'm betting that none of them voted for Trump so Trump will probably ignore them and so with the republicans in the Senate.

 

Anna, you're back!

 

I never actually left. My account took on a mind of someone else. It's back under my control now.

Edit to add. I still can't upload an avatar or picture. Boooo. That's not me dancing there in that pic.

 

Owell, you gotta do what ya gotta do! Best of luck to you and yours!

 

If enough people protest trump and his people maybe trump will have a mental breakdown and disappear never to be seen again because honestly his name won't be worth mud once all is said and done.

 

Will negroes and women go back to being 1/3 of a person, or just 1/4?

 

I think the trouble with sessions is that he will enforce the laws, not ignore them for ideological reasons and agenda. For instance, immigration laws are not being enforced except as lip service. When is the last time you heard of a raid on factories that have mostly an illegal alien workforce? We had one here in my state under Bush, and so they prosecuted one business, as they ignored scores of others. Lip service, and the owner of this processing plant was probably a big democrat.

So, are they afraid sessions will only enforce the laws if democrats are the law breakers? LOL

I bet these law profs loved Holder, whose ties with wall street banksters allowed not a single one to be sent to jail for the law breaking involved in the crash of 08. We used to send them to jail, but Holder said in regards to one case that involved bankster laundering billions in drug cartel money, that if he prosecuted them it might hurt the financial system, and therefore the economy of here and Europe. So, too big to jail. Did these profs raise hell about Holder?

Trump unlike Obama is not a lawyer, which is great. I agree with Shakespeare when it comes to most lawyers.

 

Unfortunately for those people, they're the ones that have already had at least one mental breakdown.

 

Here's more:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/n...fice-demanding-withdrawal-from-ag-nomination/

NAACP Occupies Sessions Office Demanding Withdrawal From AG Nomination

Photo of Kerry Picket
KERRY PICKET
Reporter
3:23 PM 01/03/2017
19085 19085 Share
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arrives in the lobby of Republican president-elect Donald Trump Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arrives in the lobby of Republican president-elect Donald Trump's Trump Tower in New York, New York, U.S. November 14, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
The NAACP’s Alabama chapter stormed the Mobile office of Republican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions Tuesday demanding he withdraw as President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee.


NAACP President Cornell Brooks stated the organization has no plans to leave the senator’s office until Sessions “withdraws as AG nominee or we’re arrested.”

Brooks released a statement following the tweet of their sit-in protest at Sessions’ office saying in part: “Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions is among the worst people who could serve as our nation’s Attorney General.”

“His records on voting rights, criminal justice reform, and the civil rights we’ve fought for over the last century are unreliable at best,” he said. “He is actively hostile to protecting our voting rights, and has a record of racially offensive remarks so bad that he was denied a federal judgeship because of them.”

According to Brooks, the NAACP organized other demonstrations against Sessions in Birmingham, Montgomery, Dothan, and Huntsville to “protest his nomination and demand he withdraw from the confirmation process.”

Brooks went on to say:

“The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. That means they have the last word on police brutality and voter suppression — two issues Senator Sessions has refused to admit exist. Our lives truly hang in the balance.”

Sessions spokesperson Sarah Flores responded to the NAACP’s charges stating last week, “Jeff Sessions has dedicated his career to upholding the rule of law, ensuring public safety and prosecuting government corruption. Many African-American leaders who’ve known him for decades attest to this and have welcomed his nomination to be the next Attorney General.”

Donald Watkins, an African-American civil rights attorney in Alabama and Sessions’ classmate at University of Alabama Law School, has defending the senator’s character. Watkins told The Washington Times in November, “Jeff was a conservative then, as he is now, but he was NOT a racist. … At the end of our conversation, I told Jeff that I had failed him and myself. I should have volunteered to stand by his side and tell the story of his true character at his confirmation hearing.”

Watkins added, “The fact that I did not rise on my own to defend Jeff’s good name and character haunted me for years. I promised Jeff that I would never stand idly by and allow another good and decent person endure a similar character assassination if it was within my power to stop it.”

Follow Kerry on Twitter

Tags: Attorney General nomination, Cornell Brooks, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, NAACP


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/n...-withdrawal-from-ag-nomination/#ixzz4Ukajs9NI

 

....not to mention he will never win the presidency....

 

Tough life in the US where everyone except the entirely peaceful, benign, honest alt righties are leftist, hate-filled, racist, fake news touting anti-Americans hell-bent on war and destruction.

 

Who cares what 1100 Libs say or want? LOL 2 words---nuclear option

 

If you're trying to upload an image off the net, I've found that you need to untick the box titled "Retrieve remote file and reference locally". Default is box ticked for some obscure reason

I've had similar problems with uploading anything else

 

A busy night in hell?

 

Liberals act like Trump is going to kill the gays, make slavery legal again, and take away women's rights.

Like he's Muslim or something.

@_BrendanMahoney