We discuss politics, sports and a few extras!

Archive for February 21st, 2016

Cuba, Brazil, Pope in Mexico plus other Latin America stories of the week 

leave a comment »

Guest: Fausta Rodriguez-Wertz, the editor of Fausta’s Blog……we will discuss the opening of a tractor plant in Cuba and US embargo…..Venezuela situation is absolutely out of control…..Brazil and the upcoming Olympics in the context of the zika virus…..Pope visits various cities in Mexico, including a mass in Ciudad Juarez on the US-Mexico border……..Carrier Corp moving its Indiana plant to Mexico…….Uruguay and the legalization of marijuana…… other stories of the week……..Click to listen: 

Source: Cuba, Brazil, Pope in Mexico plus other Latin America stories of the week 02/18 by Silvio Canto Jr | Politics Podcasts

Written by scantojr

February 21, 2016 at 10:00 pm

Turnout was another big story on Saturday

leave a comment »


Written by scantojr

February 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

1972: Nixon to China

leave a comment »


Written by scantojr

February 21, 2016 at 10:30 am

Posted in US politics

Tagged with

The week in review with Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda

leave a comment »

Guest: Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda, joins me for a look at South Carolina….who exceed expectations? who didn’t? what about the Democrats in Nevada? Clinton 2016 is looking less certain than it did weeks ago…..what about President Clinton? Is he hurting more than he’s helping Mrs Clinton? now it’s off to Super Tuesday for the GOP but the Democrats will be here in South Carolina next week………the foreign policy area is continuing to deteriorate with Russians in Syria plus Iran intervening as well……plus a few more stories……………Click to listen:

Source: The week in review with Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda 02/21 by Silvio Canto Jr | Politics Podcasts

Written by scantojr

February 21, 2016 at 10:00 am

Here’s why it’s so hard to replace SCOTUS justices

leave a comment »

(My new American Thinker post)

In a perfect world, the search to replace Justice Scalia would not be controversial at all.  We’d go out and find some respected judge with good temperament and character, and that is it.  It was that way for a long time.

The Founding Fathers understood that the country needed a branch to settle constitutional issues.  It’s clear from their writings that they did not want unelected justices with lifetime jobs legislating from the bench.  

Unfortunately, the Justices in the Supreme Court are doing too much legislating, from abortion to figuring the meaning of rules written by bureaucrats to rewriting Obamacare to same-sex marriage.  And this is why replacing justices is so controversial, and why some members of the Court hold on forever, waiting for a different president to nominate their replacement.   

I agree with Phillip Klein:

In modern Washington, appointed bureaucrats can issue sweeping regulations imposing billions of dollars in costs on industry, small businesses, and consumers; they can determine what type of health coverage every citizen must buy; and can make individuals pay more for electricity.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Originally, the federal government was to be one of limited powers. Whatever power wasn’t explicitly granted to Washington, or ruled out, was to reside with the states and their people. When that’s the case, it allows citizens to debate divisive issues amongst themselves, giving them a voice in the process, and allowing for regional differences to exist on particularly contentious issues.

As for the judiciary, it was conceived as the “weakest” branch of government, as described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. Hamilton explained that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…”

Over the decades, liberals have sought to control more and more aspects of people’s lives from Washington. When they’ve been stymied at the legislative level, they’ve try to implement changes through executive fiat or by appointing judges they’re confident will impose their ideological agenda by inserting new meaning into the Constitution.

Wonder what Hamilton would say of a Supreme Court that invented rights to an abortion or same-sex marriage!  Or an agency like the EPA acting by going around Congress!

As I told a liberal friend, my opposition to the Roe and marriage decisions is not rooted on my personal opinions.  Yes, I think that abortion is the taking of a life and that marriage is between a man and a woman.  My opposition comes from an understanding of our constitution and the role of the people and the states.  In other words, I would reluctantly accept legal abortion and same-sex marriage if the voters of Texas made it happen or it resulted from amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  

Yes, President Obama is right that these nominations have gotten worse over the years.  Yes, they have, and participating in Sam Alito’s filibuster didn’t help.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.


Written by scantojr

February 21, 2016 at 6:39 am