With yet another round of caucuses and primaries completed and with Super Tuesday coming up this week, the race to the nominations for the Democrats and Republicans will either be nearing its logical conclusion or about to take additional twists.  Either way, Americans enthralled with "Reality Television" will be elated as the "war of words" between GOP candidates will undoubtedly escalate.  
          Who was once thought to be nothing more than a reality television icon, Donald Trump, the carnival barker himself, has extended his lead over what most Republicans view as their standard bearers - Marco Rubio and/or John Kasich, (Ted Cruz is still considered an "outsider" and Bush, Fiornia, Christie, Huckabee, Santorum, have all been forced to drop out).  Why then the sudden surprise from the GOP Establishment?  Right-Wing Media has been scaring the hell out of their loyal audiences claiming among other things, that Obama was to blame for everything from Ebola to taking guns away from lawful citizens while Hillary Clinton personally murdered four Americans in Benghazi.  The very same Media that magnifies crime in America as if it is just one bullet away from your front door and promotes the only way to have peace is for every American to openly carry weapons.  Who then is really surprised when Americans react positively to Trump's call to make other countries obey the United States...or else!?  As the GOP Establishment attempts to push Rubio to the forefront, they just can't seem to help themselves.  From the polls and actual voting results, most Republicans that have followed the vitriolic lead of its supporting Media is willing to cast aside the GOP Establishment in favor of firebrands like Cruz - and their new leader (by default), Donald Trump.  But why all the handwringing?  Because the GOP knows they can never win the White House with Cruz or Trump as their nominee!  The solution? Is there one?  Whatever solutions they may have, they begin to fade as more primaries are won by Trump and the actual reality that the Party may suffer irrevocable damage to their "brand."  And tis damage may affect the Party's efforts to maintain control of the United States Senate!  (See:  http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/24/republicans-rocked-polls-show-4-senators-lose-seats-obstructing-obama.html). 
          As you may know, there are many GOP Senators up for re-election from States that went to Obama in 2012. States that have populations that are paying attention to the current efforts by the GOP-led Senate to obstruct rather than lead (as promised).  You see, the death of Justice Scalia has already had a tremendous impact on this year's presidential race.  The issue of filling a vacancy on the High Court is rapidly becoming what is known as a "Wedge Issue" - one where voters may come out to vote just to voice their collective opinions on who should be nominating future vacancies on the Court.  As a "Wedge Issue", the political base of both parties may result in one of the highest voter turnouts in a long time.  Up to Scalia's death, the Republicans had been enjoying higher than originally predicted turnout at the caucuses and primaries while the Democrats have been seeing only moderate numbers of voters participating.  But now that the future of the Supreme Court is an issue, you can expect both parties to use this issue to energize its base come this Fall.  Sound about right?  Sure, except the Republicans should be wary because the Court issue will also bring out Independents as well - and many of those have traditionally voted for the Democrats when it comes to social issues (See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/24/scalias-supreme-court-vacancy-draws-much-public-interest-unlike-past-open-seats/).  So buckle in folks, it's going to be a fun ride.  We will have a better understanding of the Fall campaign once Super Tuesday is completed this week. Clinton should have a clearer path to the nomination while the Republicans hold their breath.  If polling is accurate, "The Donald" may just begin to pull away from the remaining GOP field.  And that may create a scenario better found in a "Reality" show's script.  
          As President George H.W. Bush once wrote; "I think the 24-hour news cycle has helped exaggerate the differences between the parties. You can always find someone on TV somewhere carping about something. That didn't happen 20 years ago."  When is reality not really reality?  I guess we shall find out soon enough. Have a great week!

         Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina...finally, all are (almost) in the rear view mirror when it comes to their caucuses and primaries.  The results?  It seems to be open to interpretation.  Why?   Because many fail to understand how modern elections actually work.  How can I say this?  Easy.  Take a look at all of the folks upset with how Clinton is securing Democratic Super Delegates and how Trump is seemingly "pulling away" from the GOP field (as itself begins to narrow).  But what about the "Will of the People?"  What "Will?"  Primaries and Caucuses are NOT public elections.  They are NOT reflective of the "People."  Why?  Here's why.
         Access to election ballots are determined by each individual State.  How each State determines their own election processes and procedures is based upon the dominant parties in their legislatures.  Take a wild guess which political parties actively control legislatures?  You guessed it, Republicans and Democrats.  So how difficult is it to imagine why it is so hard for third party or "others" to gain access to ballots?  More importantly, primaries and caucuses are mechanisms political parties use to determine their own nominees for President.  They are not public elections!  But how can I say this?  Easy!  Primaries and Caucuses are political party functions only.  To think otherwise is to ignore the number of States that have Closed Primaries - wherein only members of each specific Party may vote, while others (Independents like me) are not allowed to vote.  Why?  Once again, Primaries are Party affairs, not the "Peoples" affairs.
        Whenever I hear Bernie Sanders supporters complaining about Super Delegates endorsing Clinton I shake my head.  Sanders has never before been a Democrat.  He chose to run as a Democrat because he knew he would never have a chance (or be able to afford) to run as an independent.  Clinton on the other hand, has been a Democrat for over 40 years.  Of course the Democratic Party's establishment would prefer her.  Does it defy the "Will of the People?" Not unless those people are card carrying activists within the Democratic Party.  Once again,  primaries and caucuses are Party affairs, they are not Public ones.   So to those new to the process, learn about the process before threatening to boycott any Party for not "hearing you."  You have little voice when it comes to actual intra-party policies and mechanisms.  
        Now with Trump leading the GOP field, the Republican "Establishment" faces another huge task.  How to cope with the momentum Trump has over actual "Establishment" candidates?   Bush has left the field.  Carson will follow soon.  Kasich may hang around until the Ohio primaries, but Rubio is neck and neck with Cruz - another outlier from the GOP.  Obviously, the GOP would prefer to have Rubio as their nominee at this point, but the "People" are beginning to speak for Trump.  What to do?  Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have a real dilemma on their hands.  Sanders will begin to fade and Clinton will move towards the moderate middle.  Trump may now begin to "pull away" from the Republican field, but Cruz and Rubio will have to attack each other in order to close the gap with Trump.  But to many Republicans, Cruz is unacceptable (and many will admit that they would prefer to vote for Trump over Cruz).  Now that Bush is out, can we expect Trump to re-tool his campaign rhetoric so he can begin to focus on Cruz and Rubio?  You can bet Trump is already onto that strategy. The more the GOP Establishment complains about Trump they run a palpable risk if they seriously attempt to push Trump aside at a "brokered Convention" - one where the Establishment prevails over their own voters.      
     Knowing Sanders alone could not sustain a third party run for the White House, Sanders supporters may insist Clinton cling to some of his campaign promises in the General Election.   And some of his supporters may just ignore Clinton in the Fall and simply not vote at all.  But Republicans?  If they "broker" Trump out of contention and he has an overwhelming lead over Rubio (their latest and greatest "favorite son"), what may happen is quite different.  Trump will have the ability to bolt the party and effectively run as a third party candidate.  Remember, Trump pledged not to "bolt" the GOP unless he felt the Establishment "disrespected him."  If he has a wide majority of Republican support for the nomination and it is denied him by the Party's elite, what would stop him from running outside the GOP?  An independent Trump run could diminish the GOP's chances enough to hand the Democrats a presidential victory (See election of 1912).  So buckle in folks, it's about to become a fun ride to the Fall Campaigns!
        As an aside, yesterday I was asked a few questions about Trump and Cruz.  When I answered them, someone commented "But what about your side?"  My reply?  "What side are you referring to?"  "You know, your side!?"  Which now seems to be more prevalent than ever.  Anyone who comments about politics is automatically assumed to be from "one side or the other."  Why?  Because our politicians and their supporting Media have made all politics a personal, hyper-partisan issue.  As I have been writing for years...can we get away from "we" and move instead to "us?" Case in point.  Charles Krauthamer recently penned a piece entitled "We Can Win It For Nino" claiming "we" need the Senate to block any Obama Supreme Court appointee because otherwise "we" did not win anything when "we" won the Senate in 2014.  He goes on throughout his piece about how "we" need to win.  But who is the "we" he consistently refers to?  The "we" is certainly not "US."  Which makes my point.              Political Parties have been portrayed by their supporting Media as reflective of the "Will of the People" yet they never have and never will.  They simply use the people to claim their policies and related rhetoric is the only true American vision and their opponents are simply "misguided" or "dangerous for America."  But what about "US?"  Don't we deserve what is best for our Nation first, and then worry about Political Parties later...much later?  
        Ironically, Krauthammer quoted Scalia in his piece allegedly saying "I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years."  Gee, what a wonderful sentiment.  But another Supreme Court Justice said virtually the same thing when asked about his potential replacement.  I doubt Krauthammer felt one ounce of concern when Clarence Thomas replaced an icon of the High Court - Justice Thurgood Marshall!   So let's begin to stop claiming political parties reflect the "Will of the People" and start recognizing the inherent hypocrisy the purveyors of these beliefs assert.
        As President George Washington once warned us, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."  Isn't it past time "we" take revenge on the political parties that have hijacked the real interests of "We the People."   Have a great week!

         I was prepared to write a blog on why the political parties are not required to follow the will of the people, but with Justice Antonin Scalia passing away suddenly yesterday many folks immediate concerns, including mine have changed. Admittedly, on Saturdays I do not "plug" into media and typically take the day "off" from social media and television.  I did not learn of Justice Scalia's death until early evening and immediately said to my wife, "Now we will see the true political colors of both parties."  Her response?  "What do you mean?"  Allow me to explain.
         My first thoughts were that a Judicial heavyweight and icon has passed.  My next thoughts were that during a typical election year, candidates and their respective political parties avoid any conversation as it relates to making appointments to the Supreme Court.  Why?  I suppose because interjecting this fact would "complicate" the nomination process.  How?  By requiring candidates to focus on their views as it relates to the Constitution and the role of the High Court - which is certainly not something easily compartmentalized as "The Government is coming to take your guns away" which is a lot easier to sell to voters than actually explaining the basis for their individual opinions on how the ideological orientation of the Court hangs in the balance.  Are you nodding off yet? How we view the Supreme Court's Constitutional role IS in fact a very important issue - and thus far - candidates rarely excel in explaining their views when it comes to the Supreme Court.  So let's get at it.
         Under Article II of the Constitution, the President has the sole authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.  Also under the Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to confirm presidential nominees to the Supreme Court (Advise and Consent authority).  Throughout our history, no president has been denied his Constitutional right to appoint justices upon an opening on the Court.  Throughout our history, the Senate has fulfilled its Constitutional role to confirm or reject said appointees.  What is different about this new opening on the Court?  The efforts by the Senate to stop any appointment by the president.  Why such an effort? As Mitch McConnell said yesterday, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”   Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right of the people to have such a voice.  Nowhere.  So what gives?
          What gives is the typical distortion of law by political parties constantly attempting to manipulate the public with their own ideological beliefs.   Why allow a president to appoint when we can delay it until we have "our guy" in the White House?  But, what if "your guy" doesn't win the next presidential election?  Delay some more? Obstruct until you get an appointee that conforms to your political views?  Ironically, many candidates for the GOP nomination mentioned last night in their most recent debate that "elections have consequences" and we should wait for the next election!  But Obama WAS elected in 2012 as president.  He is currently president.  His term does not end for a little over 11 months from now.  Do they actually mean that only presidents within the first two years of their terms have a right to nominate to the High Court?  For a bunch of politicians constantly complaining Obama has acted "outside the Constitution" they sure seem anxious to thwart him when he does have the Constitutional authority to act.  Can we name one president that nominated a Supreme Court Justice while in his last year in office?  Sure we can!  It was Ronald Reagan who appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy in his last year of office.  So what gives?  Pure politics as usual - with a healthy dose of irony and hypocrisy.
          So many are not aware that the Framers worried political factions could interfere with the role of the Court.  That is why the Framers ensured the Institution of the High Court under Article III would remain independent of both the legislative and executive branches.  How do we know this today?  By reading the words of those very Framers.  For example, Alexander Hamilton famously wrote in Federalist #78 the following;
         On lifetime tenure - "And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws."   
         On independence from the Legislature - "This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community."  
          Knowing the Framers wished to ensure the judiciary be protected from encroachments by "...the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures..." makes it plain that justices are not to reflect political ideologies of politicians (including the voters), but only their expanded expertise in reviewing laws based upon stare decisis and the Constitution.  To claim otherwise is exactly what the Framers feared from the Senate or the President.  This is precisely why President Roosevelt was completely wrong in his attempts to "Pack the Court" with justices "favorable" to his views.  The very same criticism can be leveled at those attempting to delay the confirmation until after the inauguration of a new president, virtually one year from today.  
         By demanding there be a delay, the politicians fail to inform the public that the High Court may be completely idled until another justice is confirmed.  How?  Because any decisions that are split by a 4-4 decision renders the lower court's decision as law.  In other words, in the event of an even split, the Supreme Court would be unable to perform as designed by the Framers under Article III.  Could there be a reasonable delay if a an opening occurred within weeks of an inauguration of a new president?  Perhaps, but a delay of almost a year and while the current Court is IN SESSION?  Such a delay could render all pending decisions before the Court moot.  So how does this serve America or the Constitution?
         Now don't get me wrong.  Democrats  in a similar situation would try to block any appointee by a Republican president.  And they too would be wrong.  But timing is everything and Scalia's passing has triggered the ability of our current president to exercise his Constitutional right to appoint a replacement.  We should demand the Senate do the same.
         As FDR once famously said; "To reach port, we must sail - sail, not tie at anchor - sail, not drift."   In an effort to move our great nation forward, let's demand our Senate forget about "setting anchor" when it comes to the Supreme Court, otherwise we all risk being set adrift! Have a great week!

 
            Geesh, another week and another debate or two and one caucus down with more to come.  Are you ready to strap in for the race to the White House?  Not really? Me neither.  Why?  Because too much is going on in Congress and in State Legislatures that have gone over the line of sensibilities and the Media chooses to focus on the "horse race" elections instead.  How much is the public aware that politicians and state courts (which are political) have begin using the cover of the election cycle in the Media to begin legislating in ways heretofore unimaginable.
         Take for example a case out of Idaho wherein the Idaho Supreme Court decided to flex its muscles by including language in an opinion that severely limits the ability of the United States Supreme Court from dictating law to states.  One slight problem though.  SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against the Idaho Supreme Court reminding them only the highest court in the land may interpret the U.S. Constitution and under Article VI of that very same document, states must abide by its rulings snd the laws of the Federal government.  Does anyone really think the highest court was confused when reaching a unanimous decision on this issue?  But why are states trying to override the highest court?  Because some in the Media ("flame throwers all") try to manipulate the public into thinking the states and its citizens control the nation instead of the other way around.  Think I am making this up?  "As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state courts were permitted to disregard this Court’s rulings on federal law, “the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 348 (1816). The Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, is bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal law." (See: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-493_5h26.pdf).  
          But it does not end there.  The Florida legislature recently began entertaining a Bill designed to allow citizens to invoke "religious freedom" as a mechanism to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, despite the ruling making Same Sex Marriage an Equal Protection Right applicable to all states under the 14th Amendment (See: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Religious-Freedom-Florida-336897331.html).  Why would any state legislature seriously consider such a measure knowing it already has been ruled against in Supreme Court rulings?  Because folks seem to believe that states have supremacy over the Federal government and SCOTUS. But it does not, and never has since the end of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  But why let the actual Constitution stop legislators from pandering to a narrow constituency that believes (with Social Media's assistance) that our country's Constitution is controlled by G-d and not by laws. Whose religious beliefs should prevail when it comes to "interpreting" the Constitution?  I think the Framers addressed this concern in the First Amendment.  No one religious view shall prevail over any other.
          And it does not stop here.  Florida is again attempting to expand its "Stand Your Ground Law" by forcing prosecutors to accept any self-defense claim as a bar to actual prosecution.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Anyone who uses a gun to kill another may claim "self-defense" and if there is no witnesses available to contradict that self-defense, the prosecutor must not bring charges against the shooter.  In the event someone outright murders another, as long as there are no witnesses, the shooter must remain free of all charges if he claims self-defense. On top of that, Florida is considering placing a $200,000 penalty on any prosecutor that brings charges against that shooter if they cannot prove the triggerman shot with malice aforethought (See - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-stand-your-ground-gun-bills-move-in-senate-20151020-post.html).  Isn't it bad enough the Legislature is pushing a Bill to allow weapons on college campuses?  I sure wouldn't want to be at a Frat Party gone bad! (See: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-concealed-carry-expansion-20151108-story.html).  I couldn't make this stuff up.  
        Yet Florida is not done doing the incredible.  Just recently, the Legislature advanced a Bill that would "prevent any state finding from going to organizations that provides medical services to women."  Huh?  In an effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood in Florida (even though the State's investigation revealed the group adhered to all laws in their policies and procedures), the legislature is expanding de-funding measures to include all organizations that provide women's health care (See - http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-polk/lakeland/planned-parenthood-protesting-fl-bills-that-could-strip-away-funding-access-to-care).   Do they think by including all women's health care organizations they could avoid being tagged as discriminatory?  Who continues to push this agenda?  Pro-life folks, and they are willing for women across the state to suffer and/or die to prove their beliefs.  And who says there is no war on women going on in this country?  The very same folks that sternly claim there is a "War on Christians" instead. I can't even begin to make this stuff up!
         And what is happening in Washington then?  This past week Senate Republicans tried to strip the President's authority under the Antiquities Act by claiming "modern presidents have been overly aggressive in giving protection to large areas of federal land in the West.  This Amendment would give Congress and state governments power to roll back presidential designations under the act." (See Thomas Voting Reports).  Did you read this correctly?  At a time when heavily armed rogue ranchers openly seize federal installations in the West demanding the land be turned over to them for their exclusive use, the Senate GOP attempted to accommodate these nut jobs with a Bill authorizing the neutering of Presidential authority for protecting these very same lands.  Theodore Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave.  How low can our politicians pander to the extremes on either side of the political aisle?  Apparently, pretty low.
        Now that we know the Inspector General has discovered evidence that classified emails were also stored on Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice's personal servers, where shall the current"criminal" investigations of Hillary Clinton go?  Many demand she be jailed - even without an indictment or a conviction.  Gosh, does it not amaze you that those than cling to the Constitution have very little understanding of its meaning?  No Ex Post Facto Laws.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Both seem to be lost on Media and their following.  And if you decide to take matters into your own hands, just make sure in Florida no one witnesses your actions, then you are "free" to use the Second Amendment again and again!
        As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote; "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."  Let's just pray our Media and Politicians start to shoot straight!  Have a great weekend!