Obama vs. The Courts 

After yesterday's ruling by a federal appeals court striking a blow against President Obama's immigration amnesty plans, the Washington Post noticed that much of Obama's agenda is being challenged in the courts. Citing Obamacare, climate change and other issues, the Post writes that "Obama's legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy."

But betting on the courts is risky for conservatives. After six and a half years of Obama packing the courts with left-wing appointees, the judicial branch has become more radical than it's ever been.

In some cases, Obama has managed to fundamentally transform the ideological balance of key appellate courts. Last week, for example, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a rehearing to Catholic organizations challenging Obamacare's contraception mandate.

Issues that divide the circuit courts, often end up before the Supreme Court. That court is also divided with four center-right justices, four liberals and Justice Anthony Kennedy frequently casting the deciding vote. As a result, conservatives win some decisions 5-to-4 and lose others 5-to-4. 

Now consider this: Four justices of the Supreme Court are 76 years-old or older. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 79.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 78.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 76. 

The odds are overwhelming that the next president will fundamentally change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. 

Obama's "Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis" 

President Obama's recent interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg made a little news, but it didn't get the attention it deserved. Unbelievably, Barack Obama actually suggested that anti-Semitism was just a peripheral issue in Iran and that the ayatollah can be reasoned with and induced to act logically. 

In Obama's mind, the regime's anti-Israel rhetoric is just that -- words designed to stir the base but no real indication of policy or national ambitions.

As I explained last week, the Iranian regime is led by Shiite Muslims with a radical vision. They believe they can cause an Islamic messiah to come to Earth by bringing about the apocalypse. 

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal demolished Obama's wishful thinking. Here are some excerpts: 
 

"So let's recall some basic facts. Iran has no border, and no territorial dispute, with Israel. The two countries have a common enemy in Islamic State and other radical Sunni groups. . . . 

"So on the basis of what self-interest does Iran arm and subsidize Hamas, probably devoting more than $1 billion of (scarce) dollars to the effort? What's the economic rationale for hosting conferences of Holocaust deniers in Tehran. . . ? What was the political logic to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls to wipe Israel off the map. . .? How does the regime shore up its domestic legitimacy by preaching a state ideology that makes the country a global pariah? 

"Maybe all this behavior serves Tehran's instrumental purposes by putting the regime at the vanguard of a united Shiite-Sunni 'resistance' to Western imperialism and Zionism. . . . The likelier explanation is that the regime believes what it says, practices what it preaches, and is willing to pay a steep price for doing so. . . . 

"Does it occur to Mr. Obama that Mr. Khamenei might operate according to a different set of principles than political or economic self-interest? What if Mr. Khamenei believes that some things in life are, in fact, worth fighting for, the elimination of Zionism above all?"

You can read the full column here. 

Texas Floods 

Carol and I have been heartbroken by the images coming out of Texas. The state has endured incredible drought in recent years. Now torrential rains have brought widespread flooding, tragically affecting many families and businesses. More than a dozen people are dead and more are still missing. 

We have many great friends and supporters in the Lone Star State. Please join us in praying for those affected by these storms.