The Week in Pictures -- Peak Trump Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Liberal Lawyer Who Clerked for Scalia Sings His Praise

From PJ Media via H/T at Instapundit:

A liberal lawyer who clerked for Scalia sings his praises.

Read the Whole Article.

In one essay she debunks everything the Left has told us about Scalia.

If that doesn't prove the caricature of Scalia is false, then it truly proves what fools most liberals are.

Scalia restored right to bear arms

From USA Today:

Having shaped the theory itself, Scalia then employed it in one of the most important cases of our lifetime: the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which restored a previously lost clause of the Constitution: the Second Amendment. Since the 1960s, gun control advocates — who were rarely originalists themselves — had been contending that the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment solely protected what they called a “collective right” of states to have a militia. And most lower federal courts of appeals then adopted this view when considering newly-enacted gun control measures. Then, starting in the 1980s, originalist scholars began pushing back with evidence that, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the amendment protected the fundamental right of individuals to own, possess, carry and use firearms, subject to the reasonable regulation thereof.

When the District of Columbia’s ban on the private possession of handguns was declared unconstitutional by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — one of the few circuits that had not adopted the collective rights reading of the Amendment in the 60s and 70s — the issue of the Second Amendment’s meaning came squarely before the Supreme Court.
.....................

In a sweeping and masterful opinion, Scalia systematically presented and analyzed the evidence that established — to my mind conclusively — that the “right to keep and bear arms” was an individual right that merited the same protection as the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press and assembly. It was not enough that the District of Columbia claimed its complete ban on handguns was “reasonable.” As with other fundamental constitutional rights, he concluded, that claim must be judicially scrutinized. And the district handgun ban failed that scrutiny.

Yep, Scalia re-enforced the idea of the individual right to bear arms.

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

From The Federalist:

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.

Boom!

Six thoughts on Navarette v. California

From Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit

Jonathan suggests that the line-up in the case is interesting. Notably, though, it’s the same line-up we saw recently in another Fourth Amendment case, Maryland v. King. As I noted last year, no one should be surprised when Justice Breyer votes for the government and Justice Scalia votes for the defense in Fourth Amendment cases.

Breyer = Big Lib = Big Government. Scalia = conservative = suspicious of government.