Watch: Obama Just Got Caught Making ‘Joke’ About Scalia’s Death – People Are LIVID

Many were angry at President Obama for choosing not to attend the funeral of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. With the funeral essentially only hours behind him, Obama added insult to injury Monday when he made a joke about Scalia’s death.

Obama made his crack during his National Governors Association speech at the White House on Monday, February 22, one day after Justice Scalia’s funeral. Obama addressed the audience, noting the various jobs each had to do in the coming year and, to the delight of several members of the audience, slipped in a crack about how he now has a judge to appoint

“Some of you may be in the final year of your term, working as hard as you can to get as much done as possible for the folks you represent, fixing roads, educating our children, helping people retrain, appointing judges, the usual stuff,” Obama joked with a sly grin.

MadWorldNews called Obama’s comment a “disgrace” and insisted “Obama’s disrespect knows no bounds.”

This was not the first time that President Obama seemed to disrespect Scalia as millions of Americans mourned the judge’s passing.

President Obama raised eyebrows by skipping the Justice’s funeral. Beyond the politics of the matter, Neil Mattera, president of the New York-based Italian-American Columbus Alliance, said Obama’s “absence at Justice Scalia’s funeral is a slight to the Italian-American community.”

“Historic firsts are important,” Italian-American Chazz Palminteri added. “Justice Scalia was the first Italian-American on the Supreme Court. It would have been nice if the President of the United States would have recognized its importance to the community.”

To make matters worse, instead of attending the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, Obama outraged many by going golfing.

But Mother Nature intervened to cut Obama’s leisure plans short, according to CBS reporter Mark Knoller.

The President was on the receiving end of much criticism for skipping the conservative jurist’s final memorial. Fox News hosts Judge Jeanine Pirro and Andrea Tantaros slammed Obama for his actions.

Additionally, Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer called all the reasons offered by the White House for skipping the funeral “obvious nonsense.”

At one point during the weekend, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump even joked that maybe Obama would have attended the funeral it if were “held in a mosque.”

In the end, President Obama became the first sitting president in U.S. history to refuse to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

Watch: Obama May Not Be Able To Replace Scalia After This Rare Footage Was Just Discovered

Video which recently surfaced of top Democrats talking about the Senate’s role in judicial appointments appears to hand Republicans game, set and match the debate whether Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced this year.

C-Span tweeted video from 1992 on Monday of then Senator Joe Biden admonishing the Senate not to move forward on any potential nominees to the Supreme Court because it was a presidential election year.

“It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” Biden said in June of 1992. “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” the senator stated. 

The vice president was singing a different tune last week. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday, he acknowledged that “the Senate gets to have a say,” but adding, “I think we need somebody there now to do the job,” she said, “and let’s get on with it.”

In 1992, Sen. Biden argued that not only should the Senate not vote on a nominee, it probably should not even go forward with a hearing in committee. “It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over,” he said. 

Current minority leader Sen. Harry Reid, argued in May 2005, that it is fully within the Senate’s prerogative not schedule a vote on presidential nominees. “The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say, the Senate has the duty to give a presidential nominee a vote,” he contended from the Senate floor. 

“It say appointments shall be made with the ‘Advice and Consent’ of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote,” said Reid. 

As reported by Western Journalism, then Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Chuck Schumer voted to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2005. Further, Schumer called on the Senate not to approve any of President George W. Bush’s potential nominees to the high court during his last 18 months in office, except under “extraordinary circumstances.”

h/t: Daily Caller 

Conservatives Just Got Fed Up And Made A Big Move To Stop Obama’s S.C. Nominee

As the fight to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heats up, the conservative grassroots are holding potentially waffling Republican senators’ feet to the fire.

Radio talk show host and former Reagan administration appointee Hugh Hewitt began the hashtag #NoHearingNoVotes on Friday as a way to rally Republicans in Washington, D.C. to stand firm in Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell’s pledge not to move forward on an Obama nominee during a presidential election year.

The Daily Signal reports that Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina are Republicans worth closely watching to see what they may do if the president puts forward a nominee, as he has promised to do. 

Fourteen Republicans would have to join with the 46 Democrats in the Senate in order to approve an Obama nominee to the court. So far, 31 of the GOP senators have ruled out voting for a replacement for Scalia this year, leaving 23 who have not ruled out casting the vote, the New York Times reported.

Murkowski, who is the most liberal Republican seeking re-election in 2016, initially told reporters in Alaska that “I do believe that the nominee should get a hearing,” adding, “That doesn’t necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not this individual, based on their record … should be named to the highest court in the land.”

After receiving negative blowback from Hewitt and others, the senator appeared to walk back her statement the next day, posting on Facebook: “While the President has the Constitutional prerogative to send a nominee to the Senate for consent, it is left to the Senate to determine how to proceed after that. Given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of our Presidential election, the American people will clearly be weighing in on the direction of the Supreme Court.”

She went on to urge President Barack Obama to follow precedent and allow his successor to appoint a replacement for Justice Scalia, and acknowledged the Senate does have the right to deny the nominee an up or down vote.

Hewitt accused Murkowski of waffling, implying she may not be a reliable supporter to block an Obama nominee.

The talk show host also targeted Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., for his initial comments about replacing Scalia this year. The senator called for a wait-and-see approach, saying maybe the president would nominate a Nevadan. 

His spokesman later made clear that the senator believes the president should not nominate a replacement.

Sen. Kirk stated on Monday that it his his “duty” to give an Obama nominee an up or down vote. The Hill reported that Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not ruled out the possibility of a hearing if the president nominates someone, though he wrote an op-ed with Sen. McConnell arguing Obama should not.

As reported by Western Journalism, Democrats including President Obama and Sen. Chuck Schumer are seemingly engaging in the heights of hypocrisy in calling on Republicans to fulfill their constitutional duty and move quickly to approve a nominee to the court.

Both voted to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination, and Schumer called on the Senate not to approve any of President George W. Bush’s possible nominees to the high court during his last 18 months in office, except under “extraordinary circumstances.”

The Daily Signal noted that when the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1992, they purposely delayed Pres. George H.W. Bush’s judicial appointments at all levels in order to leave at least 50 vacancies for a possible Democrat successor, who turned out to be Bill Clinton.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Senate Democrats engaged in similar delaying tactics, once again, in the early 2000s after George W. Bush became president, and they controlled the Senate. By the end of his first two years in office, the number of openings in the federal courts had increased from 67 to 77, indicating Senate approvals were not even keeping up with retirements from the bench.

Among the more high profile instances was when the Democrats first blocked Miguel Estrada’s appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, and then filibustered the nominee after the Republicans took over the Senate in 2002. Estrada had the support of the majority of senators needed for approval, but Republicans could not break the filibuster, so the nominee withdrew his name from consideration.

Image Credit: Heritage Foundation

Image Credit: Heritage Foundation

While conservatives urge Senate Republicans to stand firm, it would appear many Senate Democrats have no legs on which to stand when urging quick election-year action to replace Scalia.

Revealed: Here’s What Obama Is REALLY Doing Instead Of Attending Justice Scalia’s Funeral

President Obama will spend Saturday focused on his opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court instead of attending the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama will spend his weekend looking at the records and job histories of potential candidates.

Vice President Joe Biden telegraphed some characteristics of those Obama is likely to consider when he said that judges who have already been confirmed into existing posts with support from Republicans have a better chance of making it through the process.

“We have to pick somebody, as the President will, who is intellectually competent, is a person of high moral character, is a person who is demonstrated to have an open mind, and is a person who doesn’t come with a specific agenda,” he said Thursday, later describing the ideal nominee as a “consensus candidate.”

Whatever the long-term results of Obama’s efforts might be, his absence from Scalia’s funeral has antagonized many. No direct reason was given for the decision. Earnest implied Friday that the “security footprint” required to protect Obama might have been disruptive at the funeral.

“This is possibly the most ideological presidency we have ever seen and working with the opposition is something that doesn’t even exist in Obama’s thought process,” wrote Andrew Mark Miller on Young Conservatives, adding that Obama’s absence is “an unprecedented move that proves beyond any doubt that President Obama only cares about politics.”

Miller, writing Friday, noted “Obama managed to show up to pay respects to Justice Scalia’s casket today for a whopping two minutes. Another tragic example of the president refusing to be the leader of the entire country.”

h/t: CNN

Exposed: The Clear And Present Danger Posed To America In The Aftermath Of Scalia’s Death

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” ― Albert Einstein

Last week, America lost Judge Antonin Scalia from our highest court, and people are afraid of who might take his place. Americans should be afraid if they are going to continuously roll over and play dead to judicial tyranny the way they have over the last 100 years.

Some are saying: “The next appointee to the Supreme Court justice may vote liberal.”

America, there is no liberal side of the law! There is mercy to the repentant (Isaiah 66:2). Outside of that, the Law merely condemns crime; it is not turned to justify crime. Furthermore, we only have one Constitution!

Some are saying: “This is the death of conservatives!”

Not if the people are willing to fight!

Remember, Thomas Edison said:

“The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it.”

People are also worried that the next SCOTUS vote on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the Second Amendment, may be infringed (violated).

The Supreme Court is not above the law. The only way their lawlessness abounds is if the people allow it. They do not have any authority whatsoever to act outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, period.

They swore before God and man, with their hands upon the Bible, to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies both foreign and domestic,” not to tear it down.

Judges are not above the Laws of our Constitutional Republic (Article 4 Section 4 of The United States Constitution). They cannot decide against written Constitutional Law. If they are allowed to get away with such things, it shows you who is corrupt (Romans 7:12), and that their rulings are not law (Deuteronomy 5:1-22).

The answer to America’s judicial tyranny is to deal with the judges! Judges are appointed to serve during good behavior (it is not good behavior to transgress moral law), and need to be removed for bad behavior (Article 3, Section 1; Article 1, Section 3; Article 2 Section 4 of The United States Constitution; Psalm 2).  

Judges are appointed to discover and apply the Law, not to re-write or to re-interpret what is easily understood by every American adult and child.  

Yet, this is what the American people have been conditioned to accept (Hosea 4:6). Somehow, people in this country have been led to believe the courts are the law (demi-god), and that whatever they say goes. False!

The Court assails the Church (the giver of the Law, Exodus 18:21) and upright and righteous Laws through oligarchy after oligarchy (few rule over many), advocating that which God condemns. The list goes on and on and on and on. Which, of course, turns the lawful into the enemies of the state. This is exactly what they are attempting to do.

In other words, they create un-laws (Psalm 94:20) that attempt to justify the wicked and condemn the righteous (Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:20).

“If the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter (to decide differences) of what the constitution say’s, then (the American people) we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” –President Andrew Jackson

Again, those who represent the people are there to uphold the law, not to tear it down and recreate it in their own ungodly image.

Speaking of the ungodly and un-American Injustices, look what these individuals have been allowed to do with this country. Look at their records (Matthew 7:16).

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Steven Breyer
  • Elena Kagan
  • Sandra Day O’Connor
  • John Roberts
  • Sonia Sotomayor

These are not judges. These are activists legislating away, and gutting the pith and marrow out of America’s God-given RIGHTS.

They have sanctioned the murder of the innocent to the tune of 57 million since 1973 (Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17)!

They have sanctioned sodomites to “marry” one another while shutting down the American people that they work for (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24).

They have assailed free speech, the right to bear arms, etc.

“A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” –Benjamin Franklin

Why is it, knowing the law, that 318 million people are afraid of what effeminate Barack Hussein Obama will do next to further transgress the Constitution by attempting to appoint another corrupt judge to the bench?

America, it is time for you to now send this message: “Don’t tread on me!”