Obama’s Ahistorical Scolding About the Supreme Court The Founders deliberately gave the Senate control over judicial nominees. Read the debate from 1787. By Betsy McCaughey and Michael B. Mukasey

President Obama is hitting the road and the airwaves trying to convince the nation that the Senate has a constitutional duty to consider his nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court. On Thursday the president said at the University of Chicago that Republicans’ refusal to consider Mr. Garland threatens a “dangerous” politicization of the courts “that erodes the institutional integrity of the judicial branch.”

Not so fast. History and the wording of the Constitution teach otherwise. The framers expected that judicial nominations would be political matters—and even that the Senate sometimes might deliberately ignore a president’s nominee.

That is exactly what the upper chamber did after Associate Justice John McKinley’s death in July 1852. The political climate then was intensely partisan, as it is today, and a presidential election loomed that November. In August, President Millard Fillmore, a Whig, nominated Edward A. Bradford, a highly regarded Louisiana lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School, to fill the vacancy.

But the opposition Democrats controlled the Senate and expected to win the presidency in a few months. The New York Daily Tribune acknowledged that Bradford was “deserving and qualified” but predicted that the nomination would fail. The Senate refused even to consider Bradford despite his outstanding qualifications. As expected, Democrat Franklin Pierce won the presidency and made his own nomination the following spring.

That wasn’t the only time lawmakers snubbed a Supreme Court nominee for political reasons. In the 1840s, President John Tyler also faced a hostile Senate. Four of Tyler’s five Supreme Court nominees were blocked, including one—Reuben Walworth—whose nomination the Senate completely ignored. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat, couldn’t get the Republican-dominated Senate to consider his nominee, Henry Stanbery.

That is how the framers planned it. The wording of the Constitution and the decisions they made in the summer of 1787 show they wanted the Senate to control the confirmation process, free to consider or ignore a nomination. The Constitution directs that the president “shall nominate,” but he may appoint only with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no direction that the Senate “shall” provide its advice and consent, no corresponding obligation on legislators to act. CONTINUE AT SITE

The ‘Corrosive Culture’ at Veterans Affairs Congress stepped in two years ago, but signs of progress are hard to find. By Kyndra Miller Rotunda

When Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 in the wake of revelations about bureaucratic dysfunction at the Veterans Affairs Department, the plan was to reduce wait times at VA hospitals, give veterans access to outside health care and allow the VA to quickly terminate problem employees.

How is the VA doing? For starters, government statistics show that hospital wait times are 50% longer than two years ago.

Trying to increase access to outside care also isn’t working. That’s no surprise. The law allows veterans to see outside doctors, but only for 60 days. Then it’s back to the VA queue. Congress is considering a bill that would undo time limits on outside care.

What about the law’s third aim, to address the VA’s chronic lack of accountability in the past? The law allows the firing of top-level VA officials with less notice and fewer appellate rights than government employees enjoy. The fired VA worker must appeal within seven days of the discipline; administrative judges must hear and decide the case within 21 days, or the department’s discipline stands; judges cannot mitigate penalties; and decisions are final. But that plan, too, has backfired. Judges instead appear to be more inclined to side with misbehaving VA officials.

Over the past month alone, judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears appeals by federal employees, sided with three VA officials who challenged their disciplining. The MSPB reinstated all three. In each case the misconduct was severe.

One case involved the VA’s termination of a senior employee, Linda Weiss, for ignoring numerous complaints about an abusive nurse assistant. The judge agreed that the nurse assistant was abusive and the supervisor’s disregard was serious. But the judge ordered the supervisor’s reinstatement; he would have opted for mitigation, the judge said, but that’s not allowed under the 2014 law. CONTINUE AT SITE

Alex, Sascha and the Toll of Islamist Terror Our son-in-law and his sister were among the dead in Brussels. Will the West take the fight to ISIS and will the U.S. lead the way? By James P. Cain

Mr. Cain, a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark, is the principal of Cain Global Partners

Two Saturdays ago, just outside Maastricht, the Netherlands, I visited the 65-acre American Cemetery in Margraten. A sea of marble white crosses and Stars of David is arrayed in a gentle arc marking the final resting place of 8,301 American soldiers who fell nearby while ensuring the liberty and security of a Europe brutalized by World War II.

My wife, Helen, our daughters Cameron and Laura, and a few friends and I were there to view the magnificent array of flowers brought to the cemetery the day before. The flowers came from the funerals of Alexander and Sascha Pinczowski, Dutch siblings who lived in New York and were murdered on March 22 in the Brussels airport by Islamist terrorists Ibrahim el-Bakraoui and Najim Laachraoui.

Alex was married to our daughter Cameron.

He was an exceptionally clever student of international relations, and possessed a keen curiosity about the world. Alex and I talked about the deliverance of Europe from the evils of Nazism, including his family’s hometown of Maastricht. We didn’t always see eye to eye on politics, but Alex and I agreed that the Allies’ success in 1944 had some essential requisites. Those included: the ability to coordinate an effort against a poisonous ideology; the willpower of free people from noncaptive nations to commit to fighting a common enemy; and the presence of resolute leadership—which could only come, at that point, from America.

As I stood before the dozens of bouquets at the cemetery, I pondered whether, with an enemy of a type different in this century, America today was still willing to fulfill the leadership role that once brought peace and freedom to the world. And are the countries affected by this modern war, which includes many of the same nations ravaged by World War II, willing to take this fight seriously?

Our own experience in Brussels, while frantically searching for Alex and Sascha, gives reason for doubt. CONTINUE AT SITE

MY SAY: IN PRAISE OF CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN ( 1917 – 2008)

“Anti-Semitism is a light sleeper” from The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism (1986)

O’Brien, known as “the Cruiser” was an Irish politician, diplomat, journalist and author. In 1982, as editor of “The Observer”, responding to the avalanche of anti Israel sentiment, he published a series of columns defending Israel and justifying the Lebanon War. In his columns he argued that the Israelis should never return the “Occupied Territories” to the Arabs because it would lead to Israel’s strategic demise, and he declared that many of Israel’s detractors were anti-Semites. He then decided to write a short book on the history of Israel, to give “‘a somewhat better idea of how Israel came to be what and where it is, and why it cannot be other than what it is’. The “short”book grew and became a 789 page history of Zionism, Jewish destiny, the Palestine Mandate, British betrayals, and a state in permanent siege.

The greatest praise I can give this excellent book is that “The London Review of Books” trashed it. They prefer the ahistorical libels of Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris.

“Freedom is Precious and Fragile”: a review of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War” by Dr. Sebastian Gorka By Jerry Gordon

Why is it in the 15 years since 9/11, after the loss of 7,000 American lives and $2 trillion plus in treasure, we have failed to win the war against Global Jihad? That is the question answered in a new book, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a recognized authority on counterterrorism and Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. He is a much sought after guest on Fox News, BBC, CNN, Sky News and The Lisa Benson Radio Show. Listen to this podcast of a January 9, 2016 broadcast with Dr. Gorka and former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Co. Richard E. Kemp (ret.) CBE.

It is not lost on many Americans that within months following 9/11, we failed to capture Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri in Tora Bora despite a US Special Ops team on horseback supported by C-130 Spectre gunships and an Afghan warlord’s fighters had vanquished the Taliban. See: Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan.

Dr. Gorka suggests that mired in political correctness we failed to identify the threat as the fanatical hybrid Islamic equivalent of the atheist tyranny of Soviet Communism. He argues that the next US President should revisit the case study of the 40 year containment policies that brought down the “evil empire.” The next President and his national security team need to revisit the seminal “long telegram” by American diplomat in Moscow George Kennan which led to President Truman’s 1947 declaration of war against Soviet Communism’s threat to “bury us.” The details of that plan are contained in Paul Nitze’s 1950 NSC-68 document roadmap. Both documents are included in an appendix to Gorka’s book.

Soviet tyranny is rivetingly depicted in Gorka’s prologue about his Hungarian refugee parents who escaped to freedom during the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. He discusses his father’s betrayal by the famed Soviet mole in MI-6, Kim Philby, which led to his imprisonment and torture under Hungarian Communists. Gorka learned from his parents, Paul and Susan, that “Freedom is as precious as it is fragile. If you are complacent, there will always eventually come a group that will try to take your freedom away from you by violence and through the subversion of your values.”

Gorka contends “the current threat is hybrid totalitarianism that goes beyond man-made justifications for perfecting society along politically defined lines and instead uses the religion of Islam and Allah as justification.”

He defines that threat as a “global jihadist movement […] There is no middle ground. […]The infidel must submit or be killed.”

Gorka lays out the underlying Islamic doctrine in a masterfully succinct depiction of the various dimensions of historic Jihad doctrinal development. Accordingly, Gorka says that we lost our way following 9/11 in the brilliant opening stages of the misnamed GWOT (global war on terrorism) in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We forgot we came to both theaters of operation to quickly crush and destroy the Jihadis who attacked us and became mired in mission creep endeavoring to remake both countries as functioning democracies against the historic realities of both tribal and religious sectarian divisions. The worst example of that was in Iraq. After crushing Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime and defeating its military, President Bush allowed his personal emissary, State Department official Paul Bremer, to become the “viceroy” of Baghdad. That left a 300,000 man unpaid and well-armed Army to revolt against the American occupation and its leaders. This facilitated an alliance with the al Qaeda in Iraq that morphed into ISIS and the self-declared Caliphate of the Islamic State.

Gorka contends that misuse of military, especially special operator assets, in counter insurgency programs to remake both Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush was a folly. President Obama’s election as Commander in Chief worsened the problem by portraying the Iraq war as “bad” versus the Afghan one as “good” because the latter represented the epicenter of al Qaeda.

This gave rise to Obama relying on the “kinetic” tactic of killing Jihadi leaders of al Qaeda and its affiliates in what amounted to a “whack a mole” strategy that failed to win the war. That was compounded by Obama’s doctrine that denied any mention of Islam and Jihad. Islam was depicted as a “religion of peace” in Presidential speeches in Ankara and Cairo. The strategy of temporary surges of combat troops was only a hiatus separating sectarian Shia / Sunni internal conflicts in Iraq or suppressing Taliban re-emergence in Afghanistan, now ironically supplanted by ISIS.

Gorka provides background to the emergence of Global Jihadism by following the evolution in post Qur’anic Islamic Doctrine. He dismisses the Jihad as “inner struggle” argument, instead concentrating on “jihad of the sword” which went through several stages of evolution over the 1,400 years since Mohammed. He cites the seven “swords” of imperialist Jihad:

• The suppression of apostate subjects, or “false Muslims”;
• Revolution against “false” Muslim leaders;
• The anti-colonial struggle and the “purification” of the
religion;
• Countering Western influence and jahiliyyah, or pagan
ignorance of Allah;
• Guerrilla warfare against infidel invaders; and,
• The direct targeting of civilians in terrorist attacks

Turkish Justice: ISIS Walks Free; Peace Activists Jailed by Uzay Bulut

Belonging to ISIS or trafficking in slavery evidently do not constitute serious crimes in Turkey. But signing petitions calling for peace and non-violence, or requesting political equality for Kurds, are unspeakable offenses.

“We are not shocked that the defendants have been acquitted. This lawsuit has become one of the hundreds of other lawsuits in our country in which the criminals have been protected even though the evidence against them is obvious.” — Association of Progressive Women, on the acquittal of six people charged with having ties with ISIS and trading in Yazidi sex slaves.

“Requesting peace has become a crime in this country. The state of Turkey has committed the gravest rights violations against those who struggle for human rights, against the Kurds and against free thought.” — Sebnem Korur Fincanci, President of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey.

Turkish politics has therefore not been able to go beyond a clash between assorted Islamists whose worldviews are foreign to democratic values, and non-Islamist but still extremely oppressive political parties that operate under the shadow of a tyrannical military, whose worldview is also foreign to democratic values.

Turkey’s “fight” against the Islamic State (ISIS) continues. On March 24, Turkey released seven suspects who had been arrested in a case involving the Turkish branch of ISIS.

Halis Bayancuk, alleged to be the “Emir,” or commander-in-chief, of ISIS, is among the suspects. This was the fourth hearing of the trial known as the “Istanbul ISIS trial.” A total of 96 suspects are on trial. Only seven had been jailed; the others had not. Although those seven were released on March 24 at the end of the hearing, their trial is still ongoing; the final verdict has not been given. All of them are now outside jail, free, and living their lives as they wish.

BILL CLINTON BACKTRACKS AFTER STANDING UP TO RACIST BULLIES

The Big Dog Backs Down

Steve wrote here and Paul here about Bill Clinton’s standing up to Black Lives Matters bullies who tried to disrupt his speech yesterday. It was classic Big Dog: Clinton effectively put the unschooled demonstrators in their place, and taught them a history lesson. Why were strict criminal penalties, e.g. for crack cocaine, enacted during his administration? Because drugs and crime were ravaging the black community, and African-American leaders properly demanded a crackdown.

Black Lives Matter is an unpopular movement, supported by only a small minority of Americans. It is repellent to far more, especially because of its refusal to admit that all lives matter. Beyond that, disruptive protesters in general are held in ill repute by a large majority of Americans. So Bill Clinton’s putting the protesters in their place was approved of by most.

But not, apparently, by those who counted. Left-wing web sites like Jezebel and Salon criticized him, as did some black leaders. That was all it took. No matter that history and logic are on his side, even the Big Dog can’t get in the way of the Democratic Party’s need to kowtow to one of its key constituents.

So today, Bill more or less apologized. The New York Times reports:

Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that he regretted drowning out the chants of black protesters at a rally in Philadelphia the day before, when he issued an aggressive defense of his administration’s impact on black families. …

“I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television,” Mr. Clinton said Friday of the Black Lives Matter protesters who had accused him and Hillary Clinton of supporting policies that devastated black communities. “But that doesn’t mean that I was most effective in answering it.”

Actually, he was very effective in answering the ill-informed demonstrators’ criticisms of his administration, but perhaps not so effective in bowing to the irresistible political winds of the day. By today, he was standing on a narrow ledge, almost apologizing–but not quite:

By Friday, Mr. Clinton said, “I almost want to apologize.”

Whatever you want to say against Ted Cruz, the excellence of his campaign operation is unarguable.

The Cruz team has stood head and shoulders above any other national campaign in either party and the Texas senator just might be rewarded with the nomination because of it.

The Cruz delegate wrangling operation literally ran rings around the Trump team in Colorado this weekend, giving the candidate 21 more delegates and a chance for more. This comes after another stellar performance by the Cruz team in North Dakota last weekend.

ABC News:

Slates loyal to Cruz won every assembly in Colorado’s seven congressional districts, which began April 2 and culminated Friday with 12 delegates selected. The Texas senator is well-positioned to pad his total Saturday, when 13 more delegates will be chosen at Colorado Republicans’ state convention.

Of Cruz’s delegates, only 17 were formally pledged to him, and in theory the other four could change their vote in Cleveland. But they were all included on the senator’s slates and are largely state party officials who said they were barred from signing a formal pledge for Cruz but have promised to back him in balloting at the convention.

The result shows how Cruz’s superior organization has helped him as he tries to catch up with front-runner Donald Trump. While Cruz’s campaign spent months recruiting slates of delegates and securing pledges, Trump only this week hired a Colorado state director. Two candidates Trump’s campaign told backers to support in one district were not even on the ballot.

The Trump campaign said it wasn’t worried and had always expected to fare poorly in Colorado because its assembly process is dominated by party insiders. “If we had a primary, yes, we would have done very well here,” said Trump senior adviser Alan Cobb.

Cruz also appeals to Colorado Republican activists who dominate party functions — a deeply conservative, religious crowd with a libertarian streak.

Israel and the Occupation that Isn’t By Steve Postal

March saw a return of economic warfare against Israel, masked in discontent with Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestine.” On March 24, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted 32-0-15 to create a database of companies that have profited from Israeli settlements, which the Israeli government has called a “blacklist.” A petition by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Jewish Voice for Peace, CODEPINK, and others, which has surpassed 144,000 signatures, calls for Airbnb to “[s]top listing vacation rentals in Israeli settlements built on stolen Palestinian land and deemed illegal under international law.” On March 7, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members and all other countries to “ban products produced in or by illegal Israeli settlements from their markets.”

The “occupation” theme also made a recent appearance in the 2016 presidential race. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, in his first major policy statement on the Middle East, stated that “peace will mean an end to what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory.”

What these economic and political warriors don’t seem to realize is that Israel is not occupying anything. There was never an Arab state known as Palestine. In fact, the Arabs have rejected multiple offers to establish such a state.

Before Jewish sovereignty was reestablished with the modern state of Israel in 1948, the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire ruled the Holy Land for approximately 400 years up until 1917. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in World War I, the British and French administered it in a period of joint military administration (1917-1920). The San Remo Conference (1920) formally established the British Mandate of Palestine’s borders to encompass modern day Israel, Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and what is today often referred to as the West Bank.

Britain Created “Palestine” for the Jews…

The legal document that created the Mandate recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home” and called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People.” The document also obligated the British to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “encourage…settlement by Jews on the land…” The British, with the approval of the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations) took on the obligation to help Jewish immigration and settlement of the Mandate, which included the West Bank. Indeed, Jews lived in this area in historic (Hebron, today’s “East” Jerusalem, Nablus/Shechem) and new (Gush Etzion) communities during the Mandate period.

…And Then Gave 75% of it to the Arabs.

In 1922, Britain partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into two separate mandates, Palestine (west of the Jordan River) and the Transjordan (east of the Jordan River). Transjordan eventually became sovereign Arab territory. Despite the partition, the land that is now known as the West Bank still remained within Palestine and was still slated to be included in a new home for the Jewish people.

The Arabs Rejected the West Bank Twice.

Arab leaders did not accept any further partitions. The Arabs rejected two offers (in 1937 from Britain and in 1947 from the United Nations) that would have established Arab independence from Jewish sovereignty west of the Jordan River, including the West Bank. The Jewish community in Palestine, on the other hand, accepted both of these offers. So, before Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949), there was no Arab ownership of the West Bank, and no sovereign from which to occupy it.

Terror Cell Planned Fresh Attack in France, Say Belgian Authorities Attackers changed target to Brussels as probe closed in By Laurence Norman

BRUSSELS—Belgian authorities said Sunday they believe the terror network that killed 32 people in Brussels last month was initially planning a fresh attack in France but changed the target as investigators closed in.

“The Federal Prosecution Office can confirm that numerous elements in the investigation have shown that the terrorist group initially had the intention to strike in France again. Eventually, surprised by the speed of the progress in the ongoing investigation, they urgently took the decision to strike in Brussels,” prosecutors said in a press release.

On March 18, Belgian and French police arrested key terror suspect Salah Abdeslam in Brussels. The terror attacks at the national airport and the city’s metro station took place four days later.

Federal prosecutors also said they are now charging Mohamed Abrini with terrorist murders and participation in a terror group in the Brussels attacks. On Saturday, he was charged with the same offenses over the Paris attacks of last November.

The prosecutors said on Saturday that Mr. Abrini admitted to his involvement on the attack on Brussels’ national airport on March 22. CONTINUE AT SITE