Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

A Short History Of Democrats’ Vicious Tactics For Controlling The Judiciary


Reported by Frank Scaturro DECEMBER 4, 2020

As the courts have become hyper-politicized over the past few decades, the judicial nomination process has deteriorated. With this presidential term drawing to a close, we should note the new depths of obstruction that have become a part of the Senate Democrats’ playbook these past four years.

Origins of Obstruction

Matters were already bad when a Democratic Senate rejected Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 with such notorious vilification that “bork” was added to the dictionary as a verb denoting such unfair and harsh tactics. Four years later came personal vilification for Clarence Thomas before he squeaked by the Senate on a 52–48 vote.

Thomas nonetheless made it through a Democratic Senate that had not entirely shaken a long tradition of bipartisanship on judicial nominations. In fact, from the government’s establishment in 1789 through 2000, 97 percent of Senate-approved judges faced no recorded opposition, and 96 percent were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent as opposed to roll-call votes.

Recorded votes tended to be lopsided. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, instead of Republicans retaliating for past treatment, the nominees were confirmed respectively by margins of 96–3 and 87–9. This was despite a number of known controversial positions Ginsburg had taken during her career that Republicans chose not to highlight.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Democrats engaged in wholesale filibusters of circuit court nominees, a tactic that resulted in the defeat of several. Previously, only one judicial nomination fell apart after coming up short on a vote on cloture — the procedure by which senators, with a supermajority vote, could end debate and force a confirmation vote. That was the fate of Justice Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon B. Johnson tried to elevate to chief justice in 1968.

Whether Fortas could garner the simple majority of senators required for confirmation was unclear. His unusual case included bipartisan opposition and ethical questions — he actually resigned from the Supreme Court the following year — and did not leave even the most strident opponents of Bork and Thomas with a sense that they had the filibuster in their procedural toolbox.

In 2005, early in Bush’s second term, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to change the supermajority requirement for cloture on nominations (then at 60 votes) to a simple majority, an idea known as the “nuclear option,” which would have effectively ended judicial filibusters. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to retaliate with an unprecedented level of obstructionism that would freeze most Senate business. This scenario did not play out after a compromise, engineered by the “Gang of 14,” derailed any change to cloture.

Eight years later, however, Reid was majority leader, and with the shoe on the other foot, he orchestrated by parliamentary maneuver the very rule change that had once evoked his threats of senatorial Armageddon, essentially ending the filibuster for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court in 2013.

Unprecedented Partisanship During the Trump Era

Gorsuch Filibuster

That exception for filibusters on Supreme Court nominations was quickly put to the test after Donald Trump became president in 2017 and Democrats launched a filibuster of the new president’s first judicial nominee to reach the floor, Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to Reid’s handiwork in 2013, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell garnered support for adding Supreme Court nominations to the others that were subject to simple majorities to invoke cloture.

Abuse of Cloture Motions

Although Democrats were in the minority in the Senate throughout Trump’s term, they used the tools in their arsenal more than any Senate minority before them. While the simple majority threshold made it easier than before to invoke cloture, even when a cloture motion succeeded, a confirmation vote was not immediate but subject to a limit of 30 hours of further consideration.

That time notoriously went by with little-to-no actual debate on the nomination at issue, but of course, actual deliberation was not the goal. By forcing votes on cloture, Democrats could take up more of the Senate’s time and make it that much more difficult to process nominations, not to mention other business.

This the Democratic minority did indiscriminately. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were subjected to cloture votes. Adding Samuel Alito (a George W. Bush appointee) to those three, four of the six sitting Republican-appointed justices have faced cloture votes, in contrast to all four of the justices nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats have also regularly forced cloture votes for even noncontroversial nominees to circuit courts, district courts, and even the non-life-tenured courts of federal claims. Eight district court nominees who had previously been nominated by Obama before Trump renominated them were subjected to cloture votes despite a lack of meaningful opposition; five of them received between 95 and 100 votes for confirmation and zero against, and another was confirmed by a voice vote.

It was only after the cloture rule was broadened in 1949, during Harry Truman’s presidency, to cover any pending matter that nominations could be subject to a cloture motion. Since then, there were a total of 136 cloture votes on judicial nominees through the end of the Obama administration. Trump’s nominees have considerably more than that entire total, at 192 and counting.

The Disintegration of Bipartisanship

The bipartisanship that used to attend most judicial nominations is also falling apart. According to the Heritage Foundation, more confirmed judges received more than 30 percent opposition votes during the Trump administration than during all previous administrations combined, from George Washington to Obama. Moreover, the majority of negative votes cast against judicial nominees in American history were against Trump nominees.

The three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices were confirmed with almost total Democratic opposition. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, one to confirm Kavanaugh, and none to confirm Barrett, making her the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without any votes from a major minority party since 1869.

In Kavanaugh’s case, Democrats employed kitchen-sink tactics of obstruction that included repeated interruptions during his hearings and deluging him with more written questions for the record than the combined number of such questions to prior Supreme Court nominees in American history. All other tactics were eclipsed by the disgraceful last-minute attempt to destroy Kavanaugh, when Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, after being buried for six weeks by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was sprung on the committee after the initial hearings, a desperate tactic that flouted the process for handling sensitive matters.

Weaponization of the Blue Slip

On top of everything else, Democrats tried, in the words of long-serving Senate Judiciary Committee member (and former chairman) Orrin Hatch, to “weaponize the blue slip” tradition for circuit and district courts. That was the courtesy established in approximately 1917 in which a nominee’s home-state senators receive blue pieces of paper on which they could express their views about the nomination to the committee. It was a tradition (as opposed to a rule) intended to encourage pre-nomination consultation, but Democrats during this administration routinely withheld positive blue slips, especially for circuit nominees, as a workaround in the absence of a true filibuster.

“Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue-slip process into a de facto filibuster,” Hatch charged in 2017. “They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chaired the committee during the first two years of the Trump administration, noted that only two of 19 Judiciary Committee chairmen who served over the span of a century treated the blue slip as a strict veto that would preclude a hearing in the absence of two positive blue slips, and he was not going to allow Democratic obstructionism to prevent him from proceeding with hearings for circuit nominees. Still, the blue slip has impeded the advancement of district court nominations through committee, and many trial court judgeships in states with Democratic senators remain vacant due to the withholding of blue slips or the threat of doing so.

It is thanks to current Republican leadership in the Senate and specifically the Judiciary Committee that so many nominees have been processed and made their way to confirmation. As the repeated operation of the 30-hour rule took its toll on nominations, McConnell garnered a majority to reduce the post-cloture clock to two hours for district court nominations.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 229 Article III (life-tenured) judges nominated by Trump. That total includes 53 circuit court judges, which ranks second among all four-year presidential terms to that of Jimmy Carter, who, boosted by the creation of 35 new seats on the courts of appeals in 1978, holds the record at 56. For several months this year, there was no room for Trump to increase his appointments to the courts of appeals because every vacancy had been filled.

Historical Support for Lame-Duck Confirmations

There are now two more appellate nominees, Thomas L. Kirsch II for Barrett’s former seat on the Seventh Circuit and Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach to fill the First Circuit vacancy created by the death of Juan Torruella on Oct. 26. There is no reason they cannot be confirmed before Inauguration Day. Kirsch already had his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as have 11 pending nominees to district or federal claims courts.

While any nomination that is not processed by Jan. 3, the end of the current congressional term and beginning of the next, is automatically returned to the president, it can be resubmitted and processed without the need for a new hearing. There is ample precedent for lame-duck judicial confirmations, from John Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as chief justice after his re-election defeat, to Carter’s appointment of Breyer to the First Circuit after his loss to Ronald Reagan.

There is an unmistakable dissonance between Joe Biden’s calls for national unity and his party’s judicial obstructionism over the past four years. As a Judiciary Committee chairman, Biden helped to lay much of the groundwork for this sorry state of affairs. For his Democratic successors in the Senate, obstructionism is an ongoing project that seems to find no limit.

Consider the exception that proved the rule: When leftist interest groups criticized Feinstein after she praised Graham’s handling of Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings and gave the chairman a hug — never mind that every Democrat voted against the nominee — Feinstein’s party compelled her to step down as the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. Is there any level of malevolence toward judicial nominations that would satisfy today’s Democratic leadership?

Frank Scaturro served as counsel for the Constitution on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2005 and 2009, in which capacity he worked on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit. He is the author of, among other titles, “The Supreme Court’s Retreat from Reconstruction” (Greenwood Press, 2000). Follow him on Twitter at @FrankScaturro.

Church Leaders Who Cancel Christmas Services Are Clinging To Government Lies, Not Christ


Church Leaders Who Cancel Christmas Services Are Clinging To Government Lies, Not Christ

The Supreme Court’s ruling last Wednesday against discriminatory targeting of religious groups with COVID-19 restrictions marked a significant victory in the ongoing battle to preserve religious liberty. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, hostile stakeholders in public office have assaulted the first freedom through superciliously labeling religious services “nonessential.” Christians in much of the country now find themselves in the demeaning and intolerable position of being allowed to worship only in the manner and on terms dictated by politically motivated governors.

Respecting authorities’ claims about an unknown disease made sense early in the outbreak, but now after better scientific information shows many initial fears are false. Yet politicians refuse to come clean while ignoring their own rules forbidding us from fulfilling our Christian duties. So it is time for us once again to assert that church is the most essential activity, period. Instead of valiantly fighting in the vanguard, however, many religious leaders have quickly retreated.

It is one thing for a church leader to prayerfully consider the individual needs of his church, striving to maintain unity among members in disagreements, protecting the health of the vulnerable, and offering stability amid uncertainty. It is quite another for shepherds to forsake the assembling of their flocks and enable the propaganda that congregating freely to worship God is selfish and “could kill grandma.” This unbiblical stance also overlooks the hypocrites in public office and the media who don’t even play by their own silly rules and ignore the data, for much lesser purposes than the health of our souls.

Many such religious leaders are neglecting the soul-saving mission of the church. The notion that being a good Christian requires indefinite cessation of communal worship — and for Catholics, the suspension of the sacraments — to prevent the spread of illness is a falsehood that has confused the faithful and undermined religious freedom.

Supreme Court Upholds Religious Liberty

In the case brought by the Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, against Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the Supreme Court held that “the restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a pertinent rhetorical question: “Who knew that public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

Gorsuch held that “the only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces.” He warned that “in too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears.”

For several months now, elected officials and many church leaders around the country have flagrantly ignored religious liberty. States such as California, Oregon, and Washington have witnessed a new wave of post-election crackdowns on religious services. In San Diego County, churches are currently prohibited from holding indoor services. Meanwhile, a San Diego court just issued a temporary order exempting coronavirus restrictions from applying to a strip club, ruling that such entertainment constitutes “constitutionally protected speech.”

In Oregon, new restrictions limit faith-based gatherings to a maximum of 25 people regardless of church size but allow businesses to continue operating at a reduced percentage of their total capacity. Archbishop of Portland Alexander Sample rightly argued that allowing a measly 25 worshipers in a cathedral that can seat 1,000 isn’t data-driven and doesn’t make sense.

The Church Is Essential

expressed concern back in May about politicians labeling religious services “nonessential” and allowing the state to determine on what terms churches can hold services. At that time, Washington bishops effectively thumbed their noses at President Trump for declaring that state governments should allow houses of worship to reopen.

The bishops instead hitched their wagon to Gov. Jay Inslee’s rogue horse. Hence six months down the road, Inslee again targeted Washington churches as part of his latest round of arbitrary fiats. Church capacity is reduced to 25 percent, and congregational and choral singing is prohibited.

Meanwhile, the very authorities who tut-tut and wag fingers clearly don’t adhere to or believe in the merits of their own nonsense rules. Sanctimonious public officeholders have lectured us about keeping business closed, taking unemployment on the chin, staying home, and wearing masks while they visit salons, attend private dinners, and jet off out of state for holidays with family. The duplicity of notorious mask shamers such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo and White House correspondents Kaitlan Collins and Jonathan Karl has similarly been on display.

The hypocrisy is not limited to the secular sphere. Pope Francis condemned peaceful lockdown protests despite the World Health Organization’s warning against using lockdowns as the primary means of controlling the virus. Francis believes that closing churches, businesses, and schools, and forcing people out of work are all “necessary for people’s protection.” He has even canceled public celebration of Christmas liturgies at the Vatican.

Yet Francis didn’t appear particularly worried about Wuhan virus transmission when, free from any semblance of social distancing and masks, he enjoyed a cozy chat about poverty and social justice with a group of handsomely paid NBA players and fellow pals of the Chinese Communist Party. Evidently, on protecting the freedom to assemble, to provide for one’s family, and even to freely worship, government-imposed restrictions are non-negotiable, but when it’s about racial and economic politics, the holy grail of neo-Marxists, lockdowns are a suggestion only.

Against this backdrop, Christians should be prepared for the usual suspects in public office and the press, facilitated by an array of religious leaders, to crack down on Christmas celebrations. We will no doubt hear more of the “we do this not out of fear but out of love” mantra. Given, however, that the survival rate is 94.6 percent for those 70 years and older and between 99.5-99.997 percent for those 69 and younger, rapid breakthroughs in therapeutics have been announced, three reportedly effective vaccines are on the way, and government authorities are flouting their own restrictions, the “love thy neighbor” lecture is becoming as tedious as it is false.

Christians Need Church to Obey God’s Commands

The Gospels tell us the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind. We cannot fulfill the second greatest commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves if that love is not solidly founded in an encounter with God. This means gathering with the faithful in sung praise and thanksgiving, as we read in Psalms and was the custom from the earliest church, as well as explicitly commanded in scripture.

The Greek word for church, “ekklesia,” comes from the Old Testament and originally referred to the assembly of the people of Israel. When St. Paul first used the term, he intended it as the new community of believers in Christ. This “ekklesia” is not a human association borne of common interests and beliefs but a summoning by God himself.

For Catholics, the encounter with God is achieved even more profoundly through the sacrament of the Eucharist. Jesus is literally and wholly present — body and blood, soul and divinity — under the appearances of consecrated bread and wine. Whatever way you look at it, religious services are essential, and church leaders should say so.

Religious leaders must get their priorities straight. No doubt, pastors are genuinely concerned for the health of the most vulnerable in their communities and trying to accommodate the confusion and fears of their congregants. Some must feel their hands are tied by unsupportive leadership. Still others, I suspect, find themselves effectively cornered by congregants whose political indoctrination runs deeper than their catechesis.

Nevertheless, the role of preachers is to win souls for Christ, not to protect us or themselves from physical infirmity. St. Paul urges a return to God through Christ and cautions against domination by earthly pleasures and preoccupations. In other words, if, as St. Ambrose of Milan taught, we have a wound to heal, Christ is the doctor; if we are parched by fever, he is the spring; if we fear death, he is life; and if we are in darkness, he is light.

After a dismal year, and in sober anticipation of Joe Biden’s threatened “dark winter,” it is more important than ever for Christians to unite in praise of the Light that shines in the darkness and which the darkness has never put out. We should demand that our religious leaders mark the Nativity with fitting pomp and ceremony and refuse to support churches whose pastors spread or cower behind the lie that the celebration of Christmas is nonessential.

ABOUT TYHE AUTHOR:
Carina Benton is a native Australian living in Washington state. She is a practicing Catholic and has taught for many years in Catholic and Christian schools. She is a mother of two young children.
Photo Pikist

Alan Dershowitz: ‘I Do Think that Trump Will Win the Pennsylvania Lawsuit’ if Enough Votes at Stake


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK | 1

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/11/13/dershowitz-i-do-think-trump-win-pennsylvania-lawsuit-enough-votes-stake/

Election workers sort absentee ballot envelopes at the Lansing City Clerk’s office on November 02, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. For the first time, Michigan law is allowing clerks in Michigan cities to expedite the vote-counting process by removing secrecy envelopes from outer mailing envelopes one day ahead of the election. …John Moore/Getty Images

Dershowitz predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the Trump campaign’s lawsuit if the number of votes being challenged are enough to change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

“I do think that Trump will win the Pennsylvania lawsuit,” said Dershowitz on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Joel Pollak, “namely, the lawsuit that challenges ballots that were filed before the end of Election Day but not received until after Election Day.”

Dershowitz continued, “The [Pennsylvania] legislature had basically said no to that and the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court said yes because of the pandemic. That may have been the right decision in some theoretical sense, but the Constitution doesn’t permit anybody in the state but the legislature to make decisions about elections.”

LISTEN:

“That was decided correctly in Bush versus Gore, and I think that four-to-four vote would become a five-to-four vote if the issue came before the Supreme Court and there were not disputed ballots to make a difference in the outcome of the election. That remains to be seen.”

Dershowitz remarked, “As I understand the facts of the case — although I think what the judiciary did may have been the right thing morally: if you get your ballot in on time, you shouldn’t be denied the vote just because the post office screwed up — I don’t think you can really make that argument under Article Two. I do think that the Republican argument is the stronger one.’

“The Supreme Court will take the case only if it would make a difference, only if the plaintiffs — the Republicans — can show that the number of disputed ballots that were subject to sequestration by Justice Alito’s decision exceeds the difference between the winning margin and the losing margin.”

Dershowitz concluded, “The Pennsylvania constitutional argument is a wholesale argument that clearly belongs in federal courts..”

The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania election boards on November 6 to separate the count of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in the event that the Supreme Court revisits election lawsuits related to such votes.

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).

Partisans Cheating By Ignoring Election Law Is A Problem As Big As Vote Fraud


Reported by Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 13, 2020

Fraud represents only one aspect of concern over the results from last week’s election. Of equal import when judging the legitimacy of the next president of the United States is whether states complied with the election rules established by their legislatures. These are not questions of mere “technical errors,” but raise significant constitutional concerns.

On Wednesday, Jim Geraghty of National Review tweeted his “Morning Jolt” summary of post-election lawsuits. “The Trump campaign,” Geraghty stressed, “conceded in oral arguments they were not contending fraud or improper influence, merely technical errors,” he wrote of a recent election case. Geraghty’s article, linked in his tweet, continued: “It is one thing to fume on Twitter that there is a sinister effort to steal an election; it is another thing to assert that sweeping claim in a court of law, before a judge, under penalty of perjury and/or disbarment.”

Not to pick on Geraghty, whom I respect immensely, but he is conflating two separate issues: fraud and violations of the election code. Those are two distinct problems, yet there has been little analysis of the latter, which over the next several weeks might prove more significant.

There are multiple allegations of fraud, such as the middle-of-the-night arrival of unsecured ballots in Detroit or the dead man voting in Nevada. Then there’s the even more devastating suggestion that votes for Donald Trump were swapped to Joe Biden via vulnerable computer systems. Frankly, this idea strikes me as unbelievable, but then again, so did the idea that the FBI would obtain illegal secret court warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and we know how that turned out.

Election Code Violations Might as Well Be ‘Fraud’

Violations of the election code, however, are a different matter, and unfortunately, sometimes the public views election officials’ bending of the rules as a harmless ignoring of technicalities. As the attorney in the Montgomery County Board of Elections case noted after “conceding” he was not alleging fraud: “The election code is technical.”

That makes technical violations constitutionally significant because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to appoint the electors who choose the president: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

In Bush v. Gore, former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stressed the significance of this constitutional provision in a concurrence joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and former Justice Antonin Scalia. As Rehnquist wrote, that clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. Furthermore, “a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”

The three concurring justices in Bush v. Gore concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s order directing election officials to count improperly marked ballots was a “significant departure from the legislative scheme,” and “in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.” Accordingly, those justices would have declared the Florida recount unconstitutional under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

While the concurrence in Bush v. Gore failed to garner support by a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court’s composition has changed dramatically since then, and the reasoning of this concurrence provides a strong basis to view deviations from the technicalities of the election code as unconstitutional. As Rehnquist stressed, “[I]n a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”

So, if the legislative branch mandates voter signatures, or verification of signatures, or internal secrecy sleeves, or counting only in the presences of poll-watchers from each party, it is no answer to say it is a technicality and not fraud at issue. The state legislatures, through the election code, define the validity of votes, and allowing state officials or courts to read those provisions out of the law raises serious questions under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Ignoring the Election Code Denies Equal Protection

Allowing state officials to fudge on the mandates of the election code raises a second significant constitutional issue, this one under the Equal Protection Clause, which served as the basis for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. The majority in Bush v. Gore held that the varying standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, reasoning: “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

When state officials ignore the technicalities of the election code, however, it virtually guarantees voters will be denied equal treatment. The proof is in Pennsylvania. There, for instance, even though the election code prohibited inspecting ballots before Election Day, some county officials — those in larger counties with access to mail-sorting machines that could weigh ballots — weighed the ballots to determine if the voter failed to include the required inner secrecy sleeve.

Then those officials, again contrary to the election code, provided information to representatives of the Democratic Party so they could identify the voters whose ballots would be canceled. Voters whose election officials abided by the technicalities of the election code, however, did not receive that notice nor the opportunity to “cure” their ballot.

Now thanks to the unprecedented push toward mail-in voting over the last year, we are seeing this same pattern repeat itself throughout the country. Some election officials bent (or broke) the rules the legislative branch had set, while others followed the letter of the law. As a result, voters in different counties in the same state were treated disparately and on an arbitrary basis. Unlike the situation in Bush v. Gore, however, it is not the state courts altering the plain language of the election code, but secretaries of state or local election officials.

The majority in Bush v. Gore recognized the rightful place of election officials to interpret and apply the rules established by the legislative branch. This difference provides some leeway to states, which through interpretative guidance tweak the technicalities of the election code. But as in other areas of the law, such interpretations must be reasonable and must not violate the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.

The Supreme Court will likely decide where that line will be drawn in the coming days.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Why President Trump Has A Strong Supreme Court Case To Contest Pennsylvania


Reported by Matt Beebe By  13, 2020

As arguments about voter fraud have escalated across the country, it’s time to recognize that despite what an unmitigated disaster widespread expansion of absentee balloting has been, concerns about its abuse aren’t the most important argument in the ongoing fight over the legitimacy of this election. Sure, the media and Big Tech’s widespread white-washing and censoring of very real voter fraud concerns are damaging to the social fabric in existential ways, just as ignoring norms (and in some cases laws) requiring transparency destroys public trust and confidence in the outcome.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit isn’t yet proof that election-altering fraud occurred, although it does present compelling evidence that if proved shatters the media narrative on election security. A closer look at the allegations of direct fraud weighed against the likelihood of proving that enough occurred to alter the outcome — on a shortened timeline — reveals a daunting task for the president’s legal team.

President Trump’s lawyers, however, aren’t making the same argument as your uncle on Facebook; they’re playing for keeps. Some Republicans have been content to publicly call for the “process to play out” while privately predicting losses or maybe a few favorable rulings on some esoteric technicalities. But the president is not tired of winning yet.

Shortly after the filing, Jenna Ellis, a senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign, put it succinctly: “Pennsylvania is irredeemably compromised.”

The thrust of their legal argument doesn’t hinge on the numbers of fraudulent ballots cast, but on the inconsistent and illegal application of Pennsylvania election law, which dilutes legally cast votes — so-called disparate treatment, from which the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us.

The other key legal argument is that those changes in the election law, which were implemented by an unelected appointee of Pennsylvania’s executive branch, namely Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, were an impermissible usurpation of the legislature’s prerogative even if Pennsylvania’s judicial branch approved them.

Bush v. Gore Already Wrestled with These Concerns

Underlying the president’s legal argument is the recognition that the Pennsylvania legislature implemented an imperfect regime that rationally valued security of the election as more important than avoiding disenfranchising any voters. Even amid a pandemic, the Pennsylvania legislature understood that their expansion of ballot-by-mail increased risks to election security, and thus sought to mitigate that as best they could. It was partisan state courts that unilaterally overrode those determinations in the middle of a presidential campaign in an unconstitutional way.

The discussion about what types of fraud, and how much, is important because it goes to the very heart of election integrity, and our system cannot stand without trust in the outcome. That argument, however, won’t decide the Pennsylvania case from a legal standpoint. It will come down to whether a ministerial appointee of Pennsylvania’s executive branch can work with Pennsylvania’s judicial branch to subvert the expressed will of the legislature, and hastily put in place an election process wherein citizens who chose to vote differently had their votes disparately treated.

Recall that in 2000, the legal argument that eventually carried the day was equal-protection grounds; by implementing different methods for recounts and different scrutiny for different counties, voters were receiving unequal treatment. The Supreme Court held 7-2 that “Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.”

Twenty years is a long time as far as the public attention span goes, and most have allowed the “selected not elected” mantra to pervade our consciousness. Contra the prevailing narrative, however, Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas framed their decision as one of judicial restraint that saw a key part of the court’s role was in protecting the Florida legislature from impermissible interference by the Florida courts:

In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns. Of course, in ordinary cases, the distribution of powers among the branches of a State’s government raises no questions of federal constitutional law, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character. But there are a few exceptional cases in which the Constitution imposes a duty or confers a power on a particular branch of a State’s government. This is one of them. … Thus, the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance.

A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.

If we are to respect the legislature’s Article II powers, therefore, we must ensure that postelection state-court actions do not frustrate the legislative desire to attain the ‘safe harbor’ provided by §5. (Rehnquist concurring, but writing separately; Citations and dicta omitted)

Admittedly, this “Article II view” was a more expansive view on why the ongoing Florida recount was suspect than the Supreme Court ultimately held, but clearly, at least three justices believed that the courts — even state courts, which usually receive great deference to interpreting state law — don’t have a right to tweak the express will of the state legislature about presidential electors.

To be sure, the equal-protection claims also present differently, so they aren’t a slam-dunk here, and the Rehnquist concurrence isn’t controlling precedent (two of the three justices who signed on to the opinion are no longer on the court), so it might not carry the day.

Three of the young lawyers on the Bush team advocating this view of the law in 2000 have received pretty notable promotions since that time, however, and three other guys likely to have a say have signaled their belief in exactly this interpretation, stating recently, “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

It’s anyone’s guess how the Supreme Court would rule if it gets to that point, but when three current justices (Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch) have signaled they’re sympathetic to the basic legal argument, and three other justices (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) were part of the team that advanced very similar legal arguments in Bush v. Gore, the president and his team must like their chances.

The Changes Disproportionately Helped Biden

Pundits and some Trump supporters have engaged in navel-gazing and resigned themselves to the line of reasoning that “maybe Trump shouldn’t have down-talked absentee voting.” We know in addition to increased risk of fraud, however, voters who cast absentee ballots have historically had a significantly greater likelihood of being disenfranchised than in-person voters.

For Trump to push his supporters to vote in ways that were more likely to count isn’t irrational. It instead raises the question of why former Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t concerned with his voters being disenfranchised if they voted absentee, given the historical risks.

Both the potential for fraud and increased probability of disenfranchising voters sound intuitively like things we should fix, but the Pennsylvania legislature didn’t. They saw fit to keep the bar high to offset the risk of fraud and associated effects to public confidence in the election that unrestricted mail balloting would cause.

There’s a rational basis for that, and the entire saga has played out nationally. With the non-legislative changes, absentee voters were significantly less likely to be disenfranchised than before — indeed, Boockvar’s unilateral changes in Pennsylvania removed nearly every barrier the duly elected state legislature had put in place.

This created an environment where the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote was tilted significantly in the direction of a voting modality (mail balloting versus in-person balloting). Not only was this ripe for greater abuse, but that tilting of the playing field disproportionately benefited the voters of one presidential candidate. Making this even more obvious are new revelations that show how the larger Democratic strongholds were equipped to quickly pre-sort potentially invalid ballots, and Democratic operatives were gearing up to capitalize on the eventual changes to the statutory pre-canvass period before Boockvar’s office even announced them.

What if the Supreme Court Invalidates a State’s Election

For conservatives, an intellectual challenge now presents itself: If you were OK with the Supreme Court stopping the Florida recount in 2000, you need to prepare yourself to be comfortable with the same court invalidating the Pennsylvania electors. Indeed, you should want them to, whether or not there was underlying direct fraud sufficient enough to affect the outcome. Alternatively, you should start working on your tortuous rationale for why, on constitutional grounds, what was legitimate in 2000 is not legitimate in 2020.

Whether you’re persuaded by the equal protection reasoning in the Bush v. Gore holding or in the minority’s separate concurrence emphasizing the plenary powers of the Pennsylvania legislature under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, if the case makes it to the Supreme Court it won’t hinge on some threshold level of fraud that tipped the scales against Trump, nor will it be about the raw power of a conservative court to hand the election to Trump (which will certainly be the media narrative if it gets to that point). It will be, and always has been, about the rule of law.

Where the actual fraud becomes important — an actual measure of it, and whether it delivered an illegitimate win to Biden — is in how the Pennsylvania legislature, and potentially Congress, should react to the Court prohibiting the certification of the November election with respect to presidential electors. There is nothing wrong or abhorrent to our constitutional system if the elected representatives of the citizens of Pennsylvania are required to weigh in and clean this up on behalf of their voters. They need to be prepared to make their case to their voters if the predominant media narrative remains that the fraud wasn’t significant enough to affect the election outcome in Pennsylvania.

Regardless of how the Pennsylvania case gets resolved, it won’t change the overall outcome on its own. The 20 electoral votes wouldn’t be enough to swing the election to Trump if existing media projections for Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan stay in Biden’s column. If any of those changes, whether through ongoing canvassing efforts or other simultaneous legal challenges — such as the president’s filing Wednesday in Michigan making similar constitutional claims — well, Katy, bar the door.

Our way of government is strong enough to endure this. The only way through is through.

For nearly twenty years, Matt Beebe served as a countermeasures engineer in the Air Force and a contractor in the intelligence community before launching an IT and computer security firm in San Antonio, Texas. He is active in Texas politics and can be found on Twitter @theMattBeebe.

Schumer Promises That ‘Generations Yet Unborn Will Suffer’ From Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation


Reported by MARY MARGARET OLOHAN | SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER | October 26, 202010:34 PM ET

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/schumer-promises-that-generations-yet-unborn-will-suffer-from-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-2648508062.html/

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer predicted Monday night that “generations yet unborn will suffer” from confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Schumer spoke Monday night on the Senate floor where he condemned Barrett’s confirmation, saying that his colleagues “may regret this for a lot longer than they think.” 

“Here at this late hour, at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people,” Schumer said.

“Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination,” he continued, “as the globe gets warmer, as workers continue to fall behind, as unlimited dark money floods our politics, as reactionary state legislatures curtail a woman’s right to choose, gerrymandered districts and limit the rights of minorities to vote, my deepest, greatest, and most abiding sadness tonight is for the American people and what this nomination will mean for their lives, their freedoms, their fundamental rights.”

The senator concluded by predicting that this day would go down “as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.” 

His comments on the unborn come amidst Democratic anxieties that Barrett’s confirmation will result in overturning Roe v. Wade. Liberal groups, Democrats and abortion advocates also predicted that appointing Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would result in dangerous limits on abortion access and other prominent political issues.

WATCH:

 

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating


The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating. Monday is the start of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings.

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is “well qualified” for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, “The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is ‘Well Qualified’ on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.”

A portion of the letter reads, “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

“As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” the letter continues. “A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is ‘Qualified’ to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The letter concludes, “The majority rating represents the Standing Committee’s official rating.”

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association’s judicial ratings as the “gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.”

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing greeted by rival protests outside Supreme Court

They held up signs supporting the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats believe is in jeopardy if she is on the highest bench, and one protester held up a sign of a clothes hanger with the phrase “Never Again,” a nod to Roe v. Wade, the prevailing law on abortion. Democrats are fearful that Barrett, who is pro-life, could swing the court the other direction if the case comes in front of the court again.

They left the Supreme Court and began marching toward the Hart Senate Office Building when they briefly encountered a larger group of pro-life protesters who want Amy to “fill the seat.”

“No confirmation until inauguration!” the anti-Trump group chanted as they passed by the pro-life organizers. Most protesters in both groups were wearing masks, but neither was actively trying to keep six feet between themselves and others.

The group in favor of Barrett’s confirmation, which included many young adults, walked around the Hart Senate Office, and they congregated outside one of the entrances to the building. With protesters holding up Barrett versions of Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, and others waving signs reading, “I am the pro-life generation,” they chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”

Barrett’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee will go on until Thursday. The senators on the committee and Barrett herself are set to testify on Monday, while lawmakers will then question her on Tuesday and Wednesday with outside witnesses both in her favor and against her speaking on Thursday.

Senate Republican leadership plan to get Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court before Election Day.

‘In a category of excellence’: Graham praises Barrett and warns Democrats against Kavanaugh repeat

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, described Barrett as “in a category of excellence” that should make the nation proud but warned that the confirmation will take place in an election year.

“My Democratic colleagues will say, ‘This has never been done,’” he said, countering, “The Senate is doing its duty, constitutionally,” even though no justice has been confirmed so close to an election.

Graham said there have been 19 justices confirmed in an election year, 17 of them when the White House and Senate parties were aligned.

Monday’s hearing will be composed of opening statements by senators and Barrett, who is now a court of appeals judge for the 7th Circuit, having been confirmed to that bench by the Senate in 2017. Senators will question Barrett on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Graham said the hearing is not about “persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens,” but said it would give Democrats a chance to “dig deep into her philosophy” and serve the same purpose for the GOP.

“Most importantly, it gives you, the American people, the chance to find out about Judge Barrett,” Graham said. “Find out for yourself.”

Graham warned Democrats that Barrett “doesn’t deserve” the treatment of Kavanaugh, who was scrutinized in an additional hearing to air accusations by a former high school acquaintance who said he sexually assaulted her.

“Let’s remember — the world is watching,” Graham said.

Potential Swing Vote Mitt Romney Announces Support for Vote on SCOTUS Nominee


Reported By Erin Coates | Published September 22, 2020 at 9:05am

Sen. Mitt Romney announced Tuesday that he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, which might give Senate Republicans the votes they need to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the November election.

“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.

“If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Romney added that his decision was not based on a “subjective test of ‘fairness,’” but on the “immutable fairness of following the law.”

READ THE REST OF THE REPORT AT: https://www.westernjournal.com/potential-swing-vote-mitt-romney-announces-support-vote-scotus-nominee/

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Short List

There is probably a good reason Biden hasn’t made public his list of Supreme Court justice nominees this close to the election.

Biden’s SCOTUS List of NomineesPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing ‘remain in Mexico’ policy to continue


Reported By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News | March 11, 2020

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had said a week earlier that it would block the policy in Arizona and California, the two border states where its authority extends. The Trump administration then turned to the Supreme Court for relief.

“The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court’s April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari,” the Supreme Court said in an order, which noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the Trump administration’s stay application.

The high court action came a day before the lower court order was to have taken effect. Instead, the “Remain in Mexico” policy will remain in force while a lawsuit challenging it plays out in the courts.

The Justice Department responded Wednesday by saying the high court’s order restores “the government’s ability to manage the Southwest border and to work cooperatively with the Mexican government to address illegal immigration.”

“We are gratified that the Supreme Court granted a stay, which prevents a district court injunction from impairing the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system,” a DOJ spokesman said.

The policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) requires individuals seeking asylum at the southern border to stay in Mexico while the U.S. considers their cases. Several organizations sued the administration, claiming that MPP is in violation of federal law that sets standards for how asylum applicants are treated.

“The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal. The Supreme Court should as well,” said Judy Rabinovitz, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents asylum-seekers and immigrant advocacy groups in the case. “Asylum-seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.”

The administration had argued that thousands of immigrants would rush the border if the high court didn’t step in.

The Supreme Court’s order noted that the stay only applies while the administration files a petition for the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Should the court decline, the stay will be lifted and the policy will go back to being blocked. Should the court decide to hear the case, the stay will remain in effect until the court hands down a decision.

About 60,000 asylum-seekers have been returned to Mexico to wait for their cases to wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts since the policy was introduced in January 2019 in San Diego and later expanded across the border.

Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Morgan Phillips and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Abortion case before Supreme Court could deal serious blow to Roe v. Wade and give pro-lifers a huge win


The United States Supreme Court will hear a case out of Louisiana on Tuesday that could significantly increase states’ ability to enact laws restricting abortion and make it harder for doctors or clinics to challenge them in court, CBS News reported.

What’s the case?

June Medical Services v. Russo is a case that challenges a 2014 Louisiana law known as the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act. That law requires doctors and abortion clinics to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in order to operate. Pro-abortion advocates view the law as a backdoor way to severely restrict abortion access, while the stated intent of the law is to ensure the safety of patients at abortion clinics.

A federal judge struck down the law based on a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that blocked an allegedly similar law in Texas. But an appeals court reversed that decision, saying the Louisiana law was different enough from the Texas law that it could stand, with one of the reasons being that driving distances in Louisiana were not as great in Texas, so the impact of potentially fewer abortion clinics in the state was less significant.

A question at the heart of this case is whether doctors or clinics have legal standing to challenge state regulations. If it is determined that they don’t, it could become more difficult for abortion advocates to oppose pro-life laws.

What could the impact be?

Opponents of the admitting privileges law say that hospitals often only extend admitting privileges to clinics that will regularly send patients. Since abortions are generally safe, they argue, it is difficult for them to get admitting privileges. Additionally, some medical institutions in a place like Louisiana don’t want to be associated with abortion. So an admitting privileges requirement would effectively eliminate most abortion clinics in the state.

While bans on abortion procedures are often struck down due to Roe v. Wade, bans on abortion access are another way states could limit abortion. Louisiana is certainly a state that would seek to eliminate abortion to any extent possible under the law, and a win in this case would be a huge step toward that.

“If the court allows the Louisiana law to stand, we will probably look back on this case as the acceleration of the total demise of the right to abortion in this country,”said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Without overruling Roe, the court could gut what is left of the constitutional right to abortion.”

Where do the justices stand?

This case takes on additional interest due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court, including the most recent additions of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices to put the Louisiana law on hold until a full appeal, but the conservative lean of the court presents a real chance of a legal win for pro-life advocates after arguments have been heard.

Supreme Court Rules Illegal Aliens CAN Be Prosecuted For Identity Theft


Posted  |

In a 5-4 decision, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreigners who are in America illegally can be prosecuted for the crime of identity theft. While the ruling seems like a no brainer, the court was divided because the case involved the Immigration Control and Reform Act, which says any information provided on an I-9 work form can’t be used by law enforcement in any way — and that includes as evidence in a criminal case.

“The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) makes it a federal crime to lie on the I-9 work authorization form, while limiting how the false information can be used,” Fox News reported. “Federal law also says information “contained in” the I-9 cannot be used for law enforcement other than specified exceptions — but the Supreme Court ruled that if workers use the same information in tax documents, they can face charges.”

“Although IRCA expressly regulates the use of I–9’s and documents appended to that form, no provision of IRCA directly addresses the use of other documents, such as federal and state tax-withholding forms, that an employee may complete upon beginning a new job,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion. He was joined by fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

The IRCA also forbids state charges or civil cases against “those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” but Alito noted that this “makes no mention of state or local laws that impose criminal or civil sanctions on employees or applicants for employment.”

The Kansas Supreme Court had ruled in a case that charges were improper because “[t]he fact that this information was included in the W–4 and K–4 did not alter the fact that it was also part of the I–9.”

Alito said that was a incorrect ruling.

“Taken at face value, this theory would mean that no information placed on an I–9 — including an employee’s name, residence address, date of birth, telephone number, and e-mail address — could ever be used by any entity or person for any reason,” he wrote.

Here’s What The Lead Roger Stone Juror Wrote In Her Jury Questionnaire


Reported by Chuck Ross |  Investigative Reporter |

URL of the original posting site: https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/24/tomeka-hart-roger-stone-juror-questionnaire/

The lead juror at Roger Stone’s trial said in a written questionnaire for prospective jurors that she was “not sure” whether she posted online about the Russia investigation or Stone, and that she “may have shared an article” on social media on the topics, according to a portion of the document reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But Tomeka Hart’s Twitter feed shows that she indeed posted multiple times about the Russia probe and at least once about Stone, who was sentenced on Thursday to 40 months in prison in a case that stemmed from the special counsel’s investigation. Stone’s lawyers filed a motion on Feb. 14 alleging that Hart’s social media activity shows that she was biased against President Donald Trump and Stone. Trump also criticized Hart during a press conference after Stone was sentenced.

Trump called Hart an “anti-Trump activist,” and suggested that she “tainted” Stone’s jury.

Hart, who ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012, commented negatively about Trump on Twitter and circulated news stories about the Russia probe. In one Aug. 2, 2019 post, she called all of Trump’s supporters racist.

Stone, 67, has been one of Trump’s most longstanding supporters, and is sometimes credited with convincing the real estate mogul to run for president.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who presided over Stone’s case, said last Tuesday that she would decide after Stone’s sentencing whether to grant a retrial. Jackson did not comment directly on reports about Hart during Stone’s sentencing on Thursday, but did say that the jury in Stone’s case acted with “integrity.” Jackson on Sunday rejected Stone’s request, filed Friday, that she recuse herself from the retrial decision because of her praise of the jury. Stone is arguing that Hart gave misleading answers during the jury selection process. Jackson’s rulings suggest that Stone faces an uphill battle in getting a retrial granted. And judges are generally reluctant to toss out a jury’s verdict without strong evidence of jury or prosecutorial misconduct. In order for a retrial to be granted, Stone will have to convince Jackson that he has met two requirements for a retrial set by the Supreme Court, according to Leslie McAdoo Gordon, a criminal defense and security clearance attorney who practices in Washington, D.C.

“I think he could satisfy the Supreme Court’s test for requesting a new trial,” McAdoo Gordon told The DCNF.

She said that it appeared that Hart downplayed her awareness of the Russia probe in her written questionnaire. That alone would not be enough to merit a retrial, McAdoo Gordon said. But Hart’s comments about Trump supporters and her failure to disclose those views during voir dire are enough to satisfy the Supreme Court’s requirement, according to the lawyer.

“If that information had been presented to the judge that she thought all supporters of the president were racist, the judge would have excluded her,” McAdoo Gordon said.

“She minimized her answers to the voir dire and she was not honest in answering that question about whether she could be impartial.”

Hart came under scrutiny earlier this month after she revealed herself to have been the foreperson on Stone’s jury in a social media post in which she defended four prosecutors who withdrew from the case in protest over a sentencing recommendation.

Right-wing blogger Michael Cernovich tracked down some of Hart’s social media posts which showed that she was highly critical of President Trump and his supporters.

Trump weighed in on Stone’s sentence on Thursday, and said that he will decide on whether to pardon Stone after Jackson rules on whether to have another trial.

“I want the process to play out,” Trump said at a press conference in Las Vegas. “I think that’s the best thing to do, because I’d love to see Roger exonerated, and I’d love to see it happen because I personally think he was treated very unfairly.”

In one Aug. 19, 2017 post, Hart referred to Trump as the “#KlanPresident,” an apparent reference to the Ku Klux Klan.

“Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank,” she wrote on Aug. 2, 2019.

The DCNF obtained one page of Hart’s written jury questionnaire on the condition that the document not be published in full.

WATCH:

Hart’s responses on the questionnaire and during the voir dire process on Nov. 5 show that she acknowledged having Democratic leanings. But she also appears to have downplayed her awareness of developments in the Trump-Russia investigation.

During her voie dire interview, Hart said that her political views would “absolutely not” influence her opinion about Stone at trial, and that she “didn’t pay that close” attention the Russia investigation.

Hart and other prospective jurors filled out a 20-page, 56-question form in September 2019 during the jury selection process. The questionnaire asked prospective jurors about their awareness of the Stone investigation, the Russia investigation, and their opinions about various people involved in the case. The page viewed by The DCNF includes questions 21, 22, and 23 about Hart’s social media activity and awareness of news coverage about the Russia investigation.

In response to a question about whether she watches the news, Hart said “not regularly” but said that she followed CNN’s Anderson Cooper and MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes.

Hart offered a vague response regarding her awareness of the multiple investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

One question asked Hart whether she had written or posted anything regarding Stone, or the special counsel and House Intelligence Committee’s investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“I can’t remember if I did,” wrote Hart, who was identified as Juror 1261, “but I may have shared an article on Facebook.”

“Honestly not sure.”

Hart’s Twitter feed shows that she made far more than the single social media post that she indicated making in her jury questionnaire.

On Jan. 30, 2019, she retweeted a comment from CNN contributor Bakari Sellers criticizing conservatives who decried the circumstances of Stone’s arrest days earlier. Sellers admonished conservatives for complaining about Stone’s arrest by pointing to several high-profile cases of African-Americans who were killed by police.

Hart referred to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe in several posts, and appeared to support the notion that Trump associates colluded with Russia.

“Fox News keeps pushing excuses for Trump Jr.’s collusion with Russia that are just really, really bad,” reads a tweet she reposted on July 14, 2017.

In a May 29, 2019 tweet of an article at The Hill, Hart emphasized remarks that Mueller made at a press conference he held that same day.

“After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Hart quoted Mueller saying.

She also commented about the special counsel’s investigation on Facebook, though the post has now been deleted. She linked to the post in a March 24, 2019 tweet.

“Ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle, some Republicans are asserting that the Mueller investigation was a waste of time because he hasn’t found evidence of…,”the tweet begins. 

In a Feb. 28, 2019 tweet linking to a now-deleted Facebook post, Hart wrote: “In his press conference 45 said M Cohen lied a lot during his testimony, but told the truth when he said he had no knowledge/evidence that 45 colluded with Russia. Then 45 said since Cohen lied about everything…”

It is still unclear if Stone’s legal team was aware of Hart’s social media activity before selecting a jury.

Grant Smith, Stone’s lead attorney, declined to talk about the case. Stone and his lawyers remain under a gag order issued by Judge Jackson.

Hart did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Supreme Court to hear Louisiana abortion case in 2020


Written The Washington Times | Thursday, December 26, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/26/supreme-court-to-hear-louisiana-abortion-case-in-2/

In this June 17, 2019 photo, The U.S. Supreme Court is shown in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In this June 17, 2019 photo, The U.S. Supreme Court is shown in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) more >
A case testing abortion access in Louisiana will come before the Supreme Court early next year, giving President Trump’s two appointees their first chance to leave a mark on the topic.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh were not on the court in 2016 when its justices last grappled with hospital admitting privileges and requirements for medical professionals administering abortions in Texas.

This time, the pair of Trump appointees help create a conservative majority on the high court for its second go at those types of restrictions imposed by a Louisiana law.

Penny Nance, president of the pro-life Concerned Women for America, said her side welcomes the opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in again.

“It’s definitely the biggest abortion case that has been in front of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, and this will be very telling on their judicial philosophy on these kinds of cases,”Ms. Nance said.

The legal battle scheduled for oral arguments on March 4 will give the full bench a chance to take a look at a Louisiana law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital no farther than 30 miles from the women’s clinic.

The high court, in a 5-4 decision, halted the law from taking effect this year. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the four Democrat-appointed justices on the court in that case.

Abortion providers have challenged the legislation, saying it resembles a Texas law that the high court struck down in a 5-3 ruling three years ago. That time, it was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has since retired, siding with the more liberal wing. The late Justice Antonin Scalia had died, leaving an eight-member court.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said only Justice Clarence Thomas openly disagreed with Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide, in a 2016 ruling striking down the Texas requirements.

It is unknown at this point how Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will decide — noting Justice Kennedy’s fifth vote is now gone since his retirement last year, he said.

“I think there is a chance the court changes the standing doctrine, such that only pregnant women can bring suits, not abortion clinics. This shift would radically alter the way abortion cases are litigated,”Mr. Blackman said.

Ed Goldman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said that unless Chief Justice Roberts opts to uphold precedent since he was originally a vote in support of the Texas law back in 2016, the court likely will reverse course with the Louisiana requirements, potentially upholding the law.

“This would, of course, be a significant loss for abortion providers,” Mr. Goldman said. “This plus the current administration conscience law that has defunded Planned Parenthood would be a very significant blow leaving Roe as a right without a remedy. And it may be a way to overturn Roe.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also filed a brief in the case that was signed on by more than 170 lawmakers. They argued the Louisiana law runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s precedent on a pregnant person’s right to privacy.

“Such defiance undermines our nation’s confidence in the legislative process and violates the rule of law,” they said in court papers.

Butt-hurt Dems Watch Trump Get ANOTHER Big Win


Written By Kevin Jackson |

Democrats get another loss. How many is that so far? Who cares, as it’s too many to count at this point.

Democrats learn a painful lesson these days: Trump wins in the end. So whatever victories Democrats believe they have are only short-lived.

And Trump got another victory, this one related to his first campaign promise: build that wall!

As Yahoo News reported:

The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The court’s five conservative justices gave the administration the greenlight to begin work on four contracts it has awarded using Defense Department money. Funding for the projects had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit over the money proceeded. The court’s four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.

The justices’ decision to lift the freeze on the money allows President Donald Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. Trump tweeted after the announcement: “Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

I’ve written many times on the importance of a president with the courts. Trump exemplifies that more than any.

Understand that almost every Obama-era judge has ruled against President Trump. But he persists, and ultimately gets his victory. This time is no different.

The Supreme Court’s action reverses the decision of a trial court, which initially froze the funds in May, and an appeals court, which kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

Though getting what almost all politicians on both sides of the aisles have wanted for decades, Chuck Schumer and other Democrats immediately complained.

Democrats blasted the move Friday night, with Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-Calif.) calling it “a deeply regrettable and nonsensical decision.”

Schumer argued the ruling flies in the face of the will of Congress and the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our founders established in the Constitution.”

“It’s a sad day when the president is cheering a decision that may allow him to steal funds from our military to pay for an ineffective and expensive wall for which he promised Mexico would foot the bill,” Schumer added in a statement.

Yet, here is Chuck Schumer in 2008 discussing protecting the border:

Next, here are Schumer and other Democrats discussing protecting America’s border and building the wall.

Fun to watch Democrats learn lessons the hard way.

When you bet against the country, you lose every time.

After Schools, Leftists Try To Remove God, Atheism Becomes Largest Religion in US


Reported By Joe Saunders | Published April 7, 2019 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/schools-leftists-try-remove-god-atheism-becomes-largest-religion-us/

More than 50 years after the Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, the percentage of Americans who claim no religion is slightly higher than the two largest religious faiths. (Anna Nahabed / Shutterstock)

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the ACLU must be high-fiving each other.

In a development that can’t be heartening to the millions of America’s faithful, new survey data shows the percentage of Americans who profess no religious belief is actually higher those who are part of the country’s largest faith traditions. The trends might not be looking good right now, but there’s a reason to hope.

According to the General Social Survey, which has been tracking American social trends since 1972, Americans who claim no religion — or “nones” — now outnumber Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

“’Nones’ have been on the march for a long time now,” Ryan P. Burge, a professor at Eastern Illinois University, told the National Catholic Reporter.

“It’s been a constant, steady increase for 20 years now. If the trend line kept up, we knew this was going to happen.”

According to the NCR, the percentage of American “nones” is now 23.1, up from 21.6 percent in 2016. That’s only slightly ahead of Catholics, at 23 percent, and evangelicals, which were 22.5, down from 23.9 percent in 2016. The percentage is so small, considering the millions of individuals involved, it’s probably statistically insignificant. The NCR calls the results “statistically tied.”

But there’s no denying it represents a change in American life — and the kind that could have a direct result on the country’s politics.

NCR cited exit polls from the 2016 elections that white evangelicals made up 26 percent of the voters even if their share of the voting population wasn’t that large.

“Evangelicals punch way above their weight,” Burge said told NCR. “They turn out a bunch at the ballot box. That’s largely a function of the fact that they’re white and they’re old.”

That’s one way to put it. One could also look at it like they’re patriotic, committed, intelligent and aware that — as Americans — they’re part of the rich history of a nation that’s truly exceptional in world history. In other words, they’re pretty much the opposite of the millennial America that is embodied by progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democrat freshmen representatives.

So let’s just stipulate that a future where the American electorate is made up of a lot fewer people like the voters who pushed Donald Trump over the top early on Nov. 9, 2016, and a lot more fans of AOC is likely to be a trying one for the country overall. But this has been coming for a long time. The General Social Survey numbers are almost to be expected if several factors are taken into account.

First and foremost, public schools have for decades been in the hands of an education establishment and leftist teachers unions that scorn traditional morality.

Secondly, our nation is saturated with an entertainment culture that celebrates individual narcissism and immorality while mocking virtually every expression of religious belief.

Finally, America’s political culture is such that one of its two major political parties has been virtually a religion-free zone.

Combine these factors with the lawfare practiced by the likes of the ACLU and the cranky atheists of the Freedom from Religion Foundation — which target even the most innocent endearing expressions of religious faith in public life – and it’s a wonder that numbers like this didn’t show up ages ago.

And as Michael Knowles pointed out at The Daily Wire, it’s probably no coincidence that the country is experiencing a level of social ills that it hasn’t seen before.

“As religiosity has declined, social ills have abounded. Nearly one in five American adults suffers from anxiety disorders, which now constitute the most common mental illness in the country,” Knowles wrote.

“One in six Americans takes antidepressant drugs, a 65% surge over just 15 years. The problem is particularly acute among younger Americans. While depression diagnoses have increased 33% since 2013, that number is up 47% among Millennials and 63% among teenagers. Coincidentally, suicide rates among American teenagers have increased by 70% since 2006. American life expectancy declined again last year, as Americans continue to drug and kill themselves at record rates.”

Does anyone think it’s just a coincidence that that happens when religious faith is failing? (And does anyone think it’s a coincidence that all of this happening less than 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Three generations of Americans have grown up in the world that helped create.) Now, no one can believe the members of the American Civil Liberties Union wake up in the morning wondering how they can contribute to more American suicides than they did yesterday. And no one thinks the Freedom from Religion wackos in Wisconsin are consciously setting out to increase the mental and spiritual health of their fellow citizens. (Though at Christmas time, it can be hard to tell.) And one might even be able to give the benefit of the doubt to the American education establishment (though Hollywood and the teachers unions will never deserve it).

But even the most willfully obtuse, deliberately blind individual member of the cultural elite has to see the wreckage that’s being strewn across society by the large-scale abandonment of faith. And that might be a reason for hope.

The numbers might not be looking good at the moment, but it’s the job of conservatives to try to turn that trend around. The election of President Donald Trump was a start in that process — and the developments it made possible, like the gradual return of sanity to the United States court system, will help.

But this is the long fight — the longest fight there is — and conservatives have to be willing to get into it. If they are in the fight — heart and soul — a setback or two in the numbers of the faithful are largely irrelevant in the long run. Conservatives have taken on long odds before and won — the news out of the White House every day proves it. They can do it again.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Joe has been with Liftable Media since 2015.

America Needs To Hear Judge’s Words in Pro-High Capacity Magazine Decision


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published April 4, 2019 at 3:51pm

A federal district judge in California recently knocked down that state’s ban on firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition as being an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The liberal media hasn’t really said too much about the ramifications of this ruling, and for good reason, as it undermines a major argument put forward by the anti-gun crowd in support of their confiscatory gun control schemes.

NBC News reported U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban on possession of “large capacity magazines” that hold more than 10 rounds, in large part due to the commonality of such ammunition feeding devices. Benitez also slammed the lawmakers who think they know what citizens need to defend themselves and their families or protect their homes and property from common armed criminals.

The judge’s 86-page ruling began by declaring “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” and compared three stories of home invasions in which a woman used a firearm to defend against her assailants. In two of those cases, the victim ran out of ammunition prior to the end of the criminal assault against them, while in the third case, a woman dressed in only pajamas with a large capacity magazine managed to fend off three attackers because she had the extra ammunition in the large capacity magazine.

Benitez wrote that the woman “held a phone in one hand and took up her pistol in the other and began shooting. She fired numerous shots. She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911. After the shooting was over and two of the armed suspects got away and one lay dead, she did get through to the police.”

California first instituted a ban on so-called large capacity magazines in 2000 but allowed those who already possessed such magazines to keep them. However, the law was changed in 2016 to no longer grandfather those previously possessed magazines. Benitez had issued an injunction in 2017 to block the implementation of that law, which would have required all such magazines be turned in or else risk a felony charge for unlawful possession. The reasoning behind the added confiscation and penalties for possession was to reduce death counts in mass shootings. However, Benitez noted that while incredibly tragic, mass shootings were also “extremely rare,” and the law-abiding citizenry shouldn’t be infringed upon with a “solution” to a relatively small problem.

Citing the prevalence of common crimes versus mass shootings — and the fact that it wholly depends on each individual incident to know how many rounds will be needed to defend oneself — the judge decried the limit of 10 rounds to be a significant burden on the Second Amendment-protected right of all law-abiding Americans to possess “arms” necessary for self-defense. The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s monumental District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, as well as other cases similarly couched on that precedent, which guaranteed the right of Americans to possess “common” arms. Benitez ruled that standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds fell into the category of being arms in common use. He also gave a nod to the “militia” clause in the Second Amendment later in the ruling by noting that, in the unlikely but still possible event a citizen militia would need to defend the country in the future, they would likely have to do so with firearms and magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

“Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech,” Benitez wrote.

“Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law,”he added.

The judge also took on the leftist trope that firearms holding more than 10 rounds were “too lethal” for the average citizen to possess. After noting that all firearms of any capacity are “dangerous” and “lethal,” he followed the faulty logic to conclude that, if the 10-round limit were allowed to stand, it could eventually be reduced by the state to as few as one allowable round — a ridiculous notion that would completely undermine the entire premise of armed self-defense.

Judge Benitez concluded that California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds could not survive any level of legal scrutiny, nor was it historically acceptable prohibition, and thus was unconstitutional as it placed an unfair and severe burden on law-abiding citizens.

This judge is exactly right. Nobody knows how many rounds will be necessary to defend against an unknown number of assailants, and arbitrary limits imposed by the state — with criminal liability for non-compliance — only serve to burden law-abiding citizens while having no effect on criminals who are already violating existing laws.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Mike Huckabee: SCOTUS Just Made Landmark Ruling That Reins in the Power of Government


Authored By Mike Huckabee | Published February 22, 2019 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/mike-huckabee-scotus-made-landmark-ruling-reins-power-government/

Supreme Court justices

Supreme Court justices (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The particular case involved someone who was convicted for dealing drugs. Indiana authorities seized and auctioned off his Land Rover, even though it was not purchased with drug money, on grounds that he used it to commit crimes by driving it while dealing drugs (with that kind of tenuous connection, they could have seized his sneakers, too.)

He challenged the seizure, but the state Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court never explicitly said that the Eighth Amendment applies to states, too. Well, now they have. Talk about things that should have gone without saying!

Asset forfeiture laws were originally well-intentioned and meant to ensure that criminals didn’t profit from their crimes. But over the years, some places started abusing them as a method of raising revenue by seizing and auctioning private property that had little or no connection with criminal behavior, leaving citizens with scant recourse or financial resources to fight it.

As this story notes, the lack of Eighth Amendment protections on the state level also led to abuses such as heavy fines for tiny infractions, such as using the wrong house paint colors or Halloween decorations.

During oral arguments of the case, Justice Breyer got Indiana’s solicitor general to admit that the state could conceivably seize someone’s car for driving five miles over the speed limit, which sparked laughter in the court.

This is a welcome and long overdue ruling. Too many young people (some of them recently elected to Congress) have no concept of the foundational importance of property rights. They seem fine with the idea of government being able to take as much of the fruits of other people’s labors as it wants, as long as it promises to “redistribute” other people’s money in the form of free stuff.


They need to learn the wise old saying that a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Mike Huckabee is the host of “Huckabee” on TBN Sat/Sun 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, a Fox News contributor, author, former Arkansas governor, bass guitarist and grandfather to six of the cutest kids in world! He’s also a special contributor for The Western Journal.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Teacher Learns Harsh Lesson After Calling for Kavanaugh Assassination


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 9, 2018 at 6:58am

A Minnesota teacher who called for the death of Brett Kavanaugh on Twitter has been suspended with pay after the threat was reported to the FBI, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The unnamed teacher, who goes by the Twitter handle @lookitsSammm, got her fifteen minutes of viral infamy after the minatory tweet on Saturday, according to the Star Tribune.

“So whose (sic) going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” @lookitsSammm wrote.

As expressing political rage goes, this wasn’t a particularly great idea, particularly when it happened just hours after Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate:

The not-good-idea-iness factor of this whole thing was significantly heightened by the fact that the tweeter was a Rosemount, Minnesota, educator — and there are bigger issues with that than the fact a teacher doesn’t know the difference between “whose” and “who’s.”

“The teacher, listed as an instructor at the Intermediate School District 917’s Alliance Education Center, has since deleted her Twitter account but her tweet was captured and shared by scores of users who said they reported it to the FBI and U.S. Secret Service,” the Star Tribune reported.

As an aside here, I can understand deleting a tweet after it becomes clear you’ve said something cretinous (or possibly illegal). No, it’s not going to stop the whirlwind of problems you’ve invited upon yourself, but I suppose it at least shows some good sense. Deleting your account, however, just makes you look very guilty. For every soi-disant Twitter politics expert who could see themselves typing out something this addle-pated in the future, please keep this in mind when you eventually decide to say something profoundly asinine and/or felonious.

So, back to @lookitsSammm. Mark Zuzek, the superintendent of Intermediate School District 917, acknowledged they’d received a complaint regarding her social media musings and that she was “on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation,” according to a statement on the center’s website.

“Pursuant with the data practices act, we are limited to providing additional information regarding this matter,” Zuzek added in the statement.

In an ideal universe, that “investigation” would consist of this:

Superintendent Zuzek: So, uh, did you tweet this garbage?

@lookitsSammm: That depends on what the definition of “tweet” is.

Superintendent Zuzek: Is there any possible way I can verbalize an ellipsis? No?

@lookitsSammm: [heavy sigh] I have my First Amendment rights, Superintendent Zuzek. I, for one, believe all survivors, and you should, too. I was merely–

Superintendent Zuzek: Good luck with your next job.

My ideal world, alas, is one where teachers unions aren’t 100 percent insane and that clearly isn’t going to exist anytime soon. That being said, one can likely guess that once the wearisome process concludes, it’ll probably conclude with @lookitsSammm @lookingforanewjob.

Of course, our unidentified educator has a bit more to worry about than her employment status. There’s also a law enforcement investigation to consider.

“It is unclear whether the teacher will be charged with a crime or what law enforcement agency is responsible for investigating the tweet,” the Star Tribune noted.

“While Twitter users wrote that they reported the tweet to the FBI and Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for protecting the federal judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court also has a small federal police force in Washington, D.C.”

An FBI spokesman for the Minneapolis office said that the bureau was aware of the remarks, the Star Tribune reported. While this could end up resulting in absolutely nothing, I’ve found it’s generally not good to have federal authorities aware of anything you happen to be doing, particularly if it involves encouraging assassination.

Regardless, the federal attention is going to make a harsh lesson in itself. Combined with complications at work, it all just might be enough to teach this teacher something to remember.

Yes, I get that this was supposed to be a joke and that nobody is likely to be goaded into taking a shot at a Supreme Court justice in 280 characters or less, especially from a random Minnesota teacher.

With that in mind, nobody finds jokes about murdering people particularly funny. Much more importantly for @lookitsSammm, that includes both her employer and law enforcement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Parents Deploy Their Own Brand of Justice After ‘Mean Girls’ Falsely Accuse Their Son of Sexual Assault


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 7, 2018 at

11:29am

There is a reason so many American families supported Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, despite the left’s best attempts to derail it. Liberals didn’t take into account two things when they orchestrated a campaign to falsely accuse the judicial nominee of sexual assault.

The first is that there would be a majority of Americans across the country who care deeply about the justice of presumed innocence over presumed guilt; the other is that not all women who make accusations of sexual assault are telling the truth.

For those of us who are parents of daughters, our concerns are for their safety and protection, of course.

For those of us who are parents of sons, our concerns are for their safety and protection, of course.

The latter is the focus of another drama that is playing out in Zelienople, Pennsylvania, about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh. And it might also be the outcome all parents of sons feared would escalate if Democrats succeeded in undoing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

According to WPXI News in Pittsburgh, Michael J. and Alecia Flood, the parents of a high school-aged boy identified only as T.F., filed a civil lawsuit on Monday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh against the Seneca Valley School District in Butler County, District Attorney Richard Goldinger, and the parents of five teenage “mean girls” who falsely accused the boy of sexual assault.

The suit alleges “that school officials and Goldinger’s office didn’t take any action against the girls even after learning their accusations were false,” according to WPXI.

https://w3.cdn.anvato.net/player/prod/v3/anvload.html?key=eyJtIjoiYW52IiwicCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJ2IjoiNDQ5NzcxNCIsImFudmFjayI6Ijh2OUJFeW5yd3g4RUZMWXBnZk9XY0cxcUpxeVhLbFJNIiwic2hhcmVMaW5rIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3B4aS5jb20vbmV3cy90b3Atc3Rvcmllcy9wYXJlbnRzLXN1ZS1tZWFuLWdpcmxzLWZvci1jb25zcGlyYWN5LXRvLWZhbHNlbHktYWNjdXNlLXNvbi1vZi1zZXh1YWwtYXNzYXVsdC84NDYxMjk5OTMiLCJwbHVnaW5zIjp7ImNvbXNjb3JlIjp7ImNsaWVudElkIjo2MDM1OTQ0fSwiZGZwIjp7ImNsaWVudFNpZGUiOnsiYWRUYWdVcmwiOiJodHRwczovL3B1YmFkcy5nLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9nYW1wYWQvYWRzP3N6PTQwMHgzMDAmaXU9W2FkdW5pdF0mZ2RmcF9yZXE9MSZhZF9ydWxlPTEmZW52PXZwJm91dHB1dD12YXN0JmRlc2NyaXB0aW9uX3VybD1bcmVmZXJyZXJfdXJsXSZjb250ZW50X3BhZ2VfdXJsPVtyZWZlcnJlcl91cmxdJnZpZD1bdmlkXSZjbXNpZD1bY21zaWRdIiwiaGlkZU5vbkxpbmVhckFkc09uQ2xvc2UiOnRydWUsImtleVZhbHVlcyI6eyJjYXRlZ29yeSI6IixWaWRlbyxOZXdzLE5ld3NcXExvY2FsLE5ld3NcXDExIE5ld3MgTm93IiwidmlkZW8iOiI0NDk3NzE0Iiwib3duZXJfaWQiOiI5OTgxNDUiLCJrdyI6InNlbmVjYSB2YWxsZXksYnV0bGVyIGNvdW50eSxtZWFuIGdpcmxzLFRvcCBTdG9yaWVzLE5ld3MsUlNTIE5hdGlvbmFsIFNORCxCdXRsZXIgQ291bnR5LG5ld3MsdmlkZW8sd3B4aS1uZXdzIiwidG9waWNzIjoic2VuZWNhIHZhbGxleSxidXRsZXIgY291bnR5LG1lYW4gZ2lybHMsVG9wIFN0b3JpZXMsTmV3cyxSU1MgTmF0aW9uYWwgU05ELEJ1dGxlciBDb3VudHksbmV3cyx2aWRlbyx3cHhpLW5ld3MiLCJ3ZWF0aGVyIjoiIiwidGVtcF9yYW5nZSI6Ijc1IHRvIDc5Iiwic2t5IjoiQ2xlYXIiLCJvYmpfdHlwZSI6InN0b3J5Iiwib2JqX2lkIjoiODQ2MTI5OTkzIiwicGxheWVyX2lkIjoibWl4ZWRfbWVkaWFfdmlkZW9fdmlkX2lkODQ2MTg5MDkxXzE2MzEyMF9wbGF5ZXIiLCJvdmVybGF5c2l6ZSI6ImxhcmdlIn0sImxvYWRWaWRlb1RpbWVvdXQiOjEwLCJtYWNyb3MiOnsiYWR1bml0IjoiLzEyNTIzMjkzL1BpdHRzYnVyZ2hfVFYvd3B4aV93ZWJfZGVmYXVsdC9uZXdzL3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzIiwiY21zaWQiOiIxNTUzMyIsInZpZCI6IkFOVl9BTlZfNDQ5NzcxNCIsInJlZmVycmVyX3VybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LndweGkuY29tL25ld3MvdG9wLXN0b3JpZXMvcGFyZW50cy1zdWUtbWVhbi1naXJscy1mb3ItY29uc3BpcmFjeS10by1mYWxzZWx5LWFjY3VzZS1zb24tb2Ytc2V4dWFsLWFzc2F1bHQvODQ2MTI5OTkzIn0sInN0YXJ0VGltZW91dCI6MjAsInVzZVN0eWxlZE5vbkxpbmVhckFkcyI6dHJ1ZSwidmFzdExvYWRUaW1lb3V0IjoxMH19LCJtb2F0Ijp7ImNsaWVudFNpZGUiOnsicGFydG5lckNvZGUiOiJjb3htZWRpYWdyb3VwdmlkaW50MzQ4MjY2MDA1NDUyIn19LCJjbG91ZFZpZGVvQW5hbHl0aWNzIjp7InRyYWNrZXJJZCI6Ijg2OWYzZGJjIiwicGxheWVyVmVyc2lvbiI6IjMuMi43In19LCJodG1sNSI6dHJ1ZSwidG9rZW4iOiIgIn0%3D

The parents who filed the suit say the “mean girls” conspired to falsely accuse their son of sexual assault, which resulted in several unfair consequences.

The girls “conspired in person and via electronic communication devices to falsely accuse T.F. of sexual assault on two occasions,” WXPI reported.

T.F. was reportedly fired from his job at the Zelienople Community Pool where he was employed at the time of the allegations and “forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, loss of his liberty, and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false.”

“The suit also alleges that the boy was subjected to months of bullying from other kids at school,” according to Breitbart.

The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported one example of bullying listed in the suit the boy suffered: “The lawsuit said students last year placed masking tape with the word ‘PREDATOR’ written on it on his back without his knowledge during choir practice.”

In the original 27-page complaint filed against T.F., the teen girls accused him of two different instances of sexual assault — one at the Zelienople Community Pool and another at a private home.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted the Floods’ attorney Craig Fishman on Thursday as saying, “The system right now is biased against men.”

As a father of two adult daughters, according to the newspaper, Fishman said he supported the advancement of the #MeToo movement, but said in this case, things had gone too far.

“They discriminated against the boy based solely on his gender,” Fishman told the Post-Gazette.

And isn’t that what is going through the minds of many parents of boys?

If they could take down a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee with mere accusations that had no basis in physical evidence or fact, it would certainly be a cake walk to ruin lives with false accusations against boys, men across the country. What a frightening possibility.

The left went too far in believing it could rally in the court of public opinion the advancement of an agenda that collapses the constitutional principles and the presumption of innocence.

Let’s hope justice prevails in Pennsylvania.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Lindsey Graham Pulls Out Piece of Paper, Issues Incredible Challenge to Chuck Schumer


Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 7, 2018 at

7:19pm

Lindsey Graham is on a roll. For years, he was seen by many Republicans as sort of “conservative lite,” a fairly moderate politician who wasn’t particularly passionate or exciting. All that seems to have changed with the Brett Kavanaugh kerfuffle. The South Carolina senator appears to have taken a few classes in cool, and his heartfelt defense of the embattled Supreme Court nominee caught the attention of conservatives everywhere.

On Sunday, Graham kept that energy going. During an appearance on Chris Wallace’s much-watched program, the senator issued a direct challenge to his Democrat counterpart in the Senate.

As the cameras rolled, Graham held up a piece of paper that listed all of the names on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court.

“There are twenty-something people on this list,” the Republican challenged Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Name five, name three, name one that would be okay with you.”

His point was clear: The last-minute attempt to block and smear Kavanaugh had nothing to do with that nominee specifically. Instead, Democrats are intent on obstructing any of Trump’s potential nominees, all of whom are well-respected names. Kavanaugh just happened to have drawn the short straw.

The senator pushed back against liberals who are pretending that the newest Supreme Court member is some sort of far-right radical.

“Brett Kavanaugh was a mainstream judge,” Graham explained, according to The Daily Caller.

“I would’ve chosen him if I had been president, Bush supported him, everybody running for president on our side believe that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were outstanding conservative jurists,” the senator continued.

Graham was just getting warmed up. He pointed out that when Democrats held the White House, Republicans didn’t try to derail all of their Supreme Court picks … yet that is exactly what the left is doing now at every opportunity.

“So, Chuck, if you want someone new? Look at this list and see anybody you agree to, but what you want to do, Senator Schumer, is to overturn the election,” the Republican challenged.

“If you want to pick judges, then you need to win the White House. When Obama won, I voted for two judges that he picked,” Graham continued.

Those two judges, of course, were Kagan and Sotomayor, both women. A number of Republicans, including Graham, voted for them.

“So Chuck Schumer, name one person on this list you think is acceptable,” Graham challenged.

The South Carolina senator is right: Liberals want to have it both ways. They whine about civility and bipartisanship, but then act shockingly uncivil and refuse to extend olive branches at every turn.

Dragging a family man and widely-respected judge through the mud for political reasons may be a new low point in American politics. The American people are paying close attention … and like Senator Graham, they’re quickly losing patience for these antics.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Scalia’s Daughter-in-Law Goes Nuclear on Democrats over Kavanaugh


Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 6, 2018 at

7:17am

Democrats desperately hoped that their antics surrounding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh would keep him off the Supreme Court … but their actions seem to have seriously backfired. Instead of stopping the conservative judge, liberals appear to have unified the right.

Recent polls show that voters are re-energized to support Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, and a majority of citizens of all backgrounds disapprove of how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in particular, handled the unproven accusations against Kavanaugh.

Now, it looks like the left’s treatment of Kavanaugh may be repelling political moderates and independents. That’s the message of Adele Scalia, the daughter-in-law of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in early 2016.

The former justice may have been known as a conservative, but Adele Scalia is not.

“I’ve always considered myself politically moderate: I am unapologetically pro-life, but my views on affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, and gun control made me sympathize strongly with Democratic perspectives and occasionally led to arguments with my husband and father-in-law,” she wrote in an Op-Ed piece published by The Federalist.

Scalia checks many of the identity politics boxes revered by modern liberals. She’s a female, of course, and is also a “person of color” who immigrated from Trinidad and Tobago. As she pointed out herself in her article, she was never completely comfortable with the Republican party for a variety of reasons.

All that changed thanks to the appalling treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats, and their rejection of evidence or presumption of innocence in favor of a political witch hunt.

“I have become a unicorn,” Scalia wrote.

“All it took was Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh over the last few weeks to turn me into that elusive creature: a minority, immigrant woman who supports Republicans,” the former attorney and stay-at-home mother said.

Mincing no words, Scalia declared that what she saw happen over the last few weeks “convinced me that Democrats are not who they claim to be.”

“The party that established itself as a champion for the voiceless, powerless, and wrongfully accused, betrayed its values and launched a vicious attack on Kavanaugh that left him voiceless, powerless, and completely incapable of defending himself,” she wrote.

Scalia pointed out something that a few others have also noticed: Despite constantly pretending to stand for the rights of the accused when it comes to urban minorities, the left betrayed those principles when it came to a conservative white male.

“Against all logic and good faith, they released uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct to the public, counting on the backdrop of the ‘Me Too’ movement to make them that much harder to criticize or ignore. I still cannot reconcile these actions with the social and criminal justice reform platforms that Democrats campaign on,” she wrote.

Then she revealed something that should be a red alert to Democrats: For the first time since legally entering the country, Scalia feels compelled to officially become a full citizen so she can vote … for Republicans.

“These events opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party,” Scalia declared, summarizing the problem.

The left just created a new minority, female immigrant conservative voter — and there could be many more previously undecided voters who have been motivated by the kangaroo court of last two weeks.

Well done, Democrats.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Ford Ex-Boyfriend Devastates Her Testimony. Alleges Fraud, Polygraph Coaching


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 3, 2018 at

7:36am

Tables have certainly turned on the left.

If the Democrats’ strategy was to manufacture a past that comes back to haunt opponents, their game plan to derail the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should have included accusers and witnesses who had untainted histories of their own.

Unfortunately for chief accuser Christine Blasey Ford, a man from her own past has gone public to allege some major holes in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those digging deep into Kavanaugh’s personal history to unearth any kind of scandal may have just been thwarted by a page from their own playbook.

Fox News reported late Tuesday that a man has come forward to contradict many of the statements Ford made in her testimony last week.

The man, an ex-boyfriend of Ford, said she never told him of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in all of the six years that they dated.

Further, in the sworn statement, the man contradicts Ford’s testimony that she never helped anyone prepare for polygraph examinations or had a fear of flying or tight spaces and limited exits.

“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination,” Fox News reported.

“The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her ‘life-long best friend’ prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

“He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a ‘very small,’ 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.”

All of those statements contradict, or cast serious question on, Ford’s testimony to the committee deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

In particular, during her testimony, Ford was questioned about her experience with polygraphs several times by the prosecutor hired by committee Republicans. She denied ever helping anyone prepare to take a polygraph.

According to Fox, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding they release: “therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday’s dramatic Senate hearing.”

This isn’t the first time differing statements have come from friends of Ford who knew her back in the day.

On Sept. 22, as Mairead McArdle noted at National Review, longtime Ford friend Leland Ingham Keyser denied statements that she attended the party in which Ford alleges the assault by Kavanaugh took place.

Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser said in a written statement: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Perjury is a serious crime, and at this point I would wonder if Ford isn’t getting a little nervous as figures from her past emerge to shoot down her testimony and paint a picture of a very non-credible individual.

As speculation surrounds the coming conclusion of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavenaugh, I wonder if there will be any consequence toward those who came forward with such questionable accusations against the judge.

It shouldn’t be so easy to lie under oath. And the left shouldn’t assume that their obstruction tactics will go unchallenged anymore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Kavanaugh Accuser Getting Serious Cash from Allegations, Over $700k After Hearing


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 29, 2018 at

1:32pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/kavanaugh-accuser-getting-serious-cash-allegations-700k-hearing/

Christine Blasey Ford answers questions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Christine Blasey Ford answers questions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. (Melina Mara / Getty Images)

Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford has been making serious money off of crowdfunding since Thursday’s hearings, with nearly $700,000 from just two of 17 separate accounts on GoFundMe.

“During Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, under questioning about how she was paying security and legal costs, Ford said some of it could be covered by GoFundMe accounts that have been started to help her,” MarketWatch reported Thursday.

“Her mention of the crowd-funding website caused the authenticated GoFundMe webpage helping her to take off. It jumped from about $179,000 to $305,000 and counting merely 30 minutes later, according to the publicly displayed funds counter.”

That authenticated campaign has now collected over $528,000 — enough that the family is “officially turning off this campaign.”

“A statement of gratitude from the family will be forthcoming in the next 48 hours with a fuller explanation, but in the meantime, do keep your comments coming,” a statement on the page reads. “I am sharing them with her.”

On the fundraising site, the Ford family said the money was necessary to counter the “right wing smear machine” and the “serious threats” it claims is directed at her.

“This is all really expensive and she needs our help. We need to protect the voices of brave people who speak out – especially when they are part of our community,” the page reads.

“Christine is Palo Alto mom (sic), a beloved professor and mentor and friend.  This fundraiser is sponsored by her neighbors and colleagues.  She is truly grateful for your support!”

A second GoFundMe campaign, which has garnered over $200,000, was set up to “(c)over Dr. Blasey’s security costs.”

“Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (who uses ‘Dr. Blasey’ professionally) and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security,” the page, apparently created by a Georgetown professor, reads.

“Let’s create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks. If we raise more than Dr. Blasey needs, extra funds will go to women’s organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations.

“I do not know Dr. Blasey personally but will contact her via her former high school, Holton Arms, to inform her of this fundraising appeal and to make arrangements to transfer funds to Dr. Blasey.”

How the aim of this account differs from that of the official account is a mystery to me, but it’s certainly taken in a fair amount of cash. Of course, it’s not as if Ford won’t be needing money; since she came forward as the writer of the once-mysterious letter, a number of Democrat-linked heavyweights have entered her orbit. According to the Daily Wire, however, Ford doesn’t even know how to use the site.

“I’m aware that there’s been several GoFundMe sites,” she said during her testimony.

“I haven’t had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I’ve never had one.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Identity of Woman Who Screamed at Flake in Elevator Revealed, Soros Connection Uncovered


Reported By Karista Baldwin | September 29, 2018 at

3:09pm

The woman who yelled at Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona while he was in the confines of an elevator Friday has also been vocal since then, revealing her name to be Ana Maria Archila. She and another woman in the elevator, Maria Gallagher, have been dubbed “heroes” by many on the left.

But Archila is an experienced activist with ties to George Soros. She is co-executive director of the left-wing Center for Popular Democracy, a New York-based organizing group that gets much of its money from the liberal billionaire.

“George Soros is one of the largest funders to the CPD,” The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2017. “Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.”

On Friday morning, Flake made his way to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing after announcing that he intended to vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Archila and Gallagher were among the women who confronted him while blocking the door to the elevator he was on.

“This is not tolerable!” they screamed at him.

“You have children in your family. Think about them! I have two children. I cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?!” Archila shouted at Flake.

An aide asked her if she would talk to a staffer outside, to which Archila snapped, “No. I want to talk to him. Don’t talk to me.”

Gallagher said Flake’s decision had personal significance for her, telling Flake that she was sexually assaulted and nobody believed her.

“I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what you are telling all women in America, that they don’t matter,” Gallagher said in the emotional confrontation.

“Look at me when I’m talking to you,” she demanded. “You are telling me that my assault doesn’t matter, that what happened to me doesn’t, and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power. That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him. Don’t look away from me.”

Flake listened to their shouting silently, occasionally nodding in response.  When the women finished and allowed him to pass, he continued to the committee hearing.

“I wanted him to feel my rage,” Archila said in an interview Friday with The New York Times. Her opportunity to express it to him came after she had spent all week in Washington protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination.

After private meetings with Senate Democrats, Flake told the panel that he would only vote for Kavanaugh on the condition that the Senate vote be delayed and another FBI investigation be conducted.

Archila claimed responsibility for Flake’s request to delay the vote. “His reaction shows the power that we have, together, when we chose to tell our stories and stand up for our vision of an inclusive society,” she wrote in an Op-Ed for USA Today on Saturday. “When we take action, we breathe new life and possibility into our democracy.”

It seems that there was more at play for the protesters than just rallying around in support of sexual assault survivors. Archila may have been as much against Kavanaugh for his politics as for the allegations. In her USA Today commentary, she revealed her political views, writing, “Brett Kavanaugh is not fit to serve.”

“Much of his record on civil rights, worker protections, health care and reproductive justice is an abomination. So, too, is his personal history of treating women as less deserving of respect and control over our lives, as these accusations against him have shown,” Archila wrote.

It doesn’t come as much of a surprise that the activist had political motives for the confrontation, but the revelation of her ties to Soros falls in line with concerns that many Kavanaugh protesters are paid players in the political arena.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karista Baldwin has studied constitutional law, politics and criminal justice at the University of Dallas and the University of Texas at Dallas.

Ford’s Friend Who Was Allegedly at Party Issues Statement on FBI Investigation


Reported By Savannah Pointer | September 29, 2018 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fords-friend-issues-statement/

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Melina Mara / AFP / Getty Images)

Ford claimed that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to rape her at a party 36 years ago. That accusation put Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold until the FBI can further investigate her claims.

Thus far, the only evidence that Ford has brought in the case is her own testimony. All of the individuals who she claimed attended the party with her and Kavanaugh deny any knowledge of the event taking place.

One of those people is Ford’s close friend Leland Keyser. Last week, Keyser said in a statement from her attorney, on penalty of a felony, that she didn’t attend such a party and didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” attorney Howard Walsh III said.

Walsh spoke out again Saturday, saying that Keyser doesn’t have any helpful information.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said, “Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Walsh went on to stipulate that “as my client as already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser does, however, believe Ford, she said.

“Notably Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Walsh said.

Her belief in her friend didn’t keep Keyser from conveying that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

The president’s stamp of approval on the controversial supplemental investigation came with some limitations.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement.

“As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

During Thursday’s questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called out his colleagues for what he called the “charade” and for victimizing both Ford and Kavanaugh.

An earlier version of this article accidentally referred to Ms. Leland Keyser as “he” and, in one instance from her lawyer’s transcribed statement, as “Mr. Keyser.” We corrected these mistakes within a few minutes of their being pointed out by a reader, but failed to issue a correction in accordance with our own Ethics and Editorial Standards. We apologize to Ms. Keyser and our readers for these errors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Savannah Pointer is a constitutional originalist whose main goal is to keep the wool from being pulled over your eyes. She believes that the liberal agenda will always depend on Americans being uneducated and easy to manipulate. Her mission is to present the news in a straightforward yet engaging manner.

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at

5:25am

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Classmate Comes Forward, IDs Frat Brother as Guilty Party, Not Kavanaugh: Report


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at 7:52am

A New York Post writer claims that a former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s has identified a fraternity brother of his as the person who likely exposed himself to Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez during a dormitory party in the early 1980s.

Ramirez, who was Kavanaugh’s second accuser, went public in a New Yorker piece published Sept. 23.

“She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” The New Yorker reported.

“After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Ramirez was to be interviewed by the FBI as part of the bureau’s one-week re-investigation of the background of the Supreme Court nominee. However, a new wrinkle may have presented itself in the form of a report about an alleged letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Paul Sperry is best known nowadays as a writer for the New York Post, although he’s appeared in a number of different publications over the years. On Sunday afternoon, he tweeted about the existence of a letter from “(a) classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale has sent a tip into the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying a fraternity brother known for exposing himself as the likely boy who exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez.”

So, what does this mean? As for the existence of the letter, while Sperry has made it clear both on his Twitter account and his writings for the New York Post that he doesn’t believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, he’s also usually not blatantly wrong on these sorts of things. The likelihood is better than not that such a letter has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by someone.

As for the truth of the letter? Well, that’s the problem with almost every piece of testimony in the Kavanaugh case: It’s sketchy at best, usually uncorroborated and could likely be contradicted by other testimony the committee’s already received.

Take the case of Dabney Friedrich, a former girlfriend of Kavanaugh’s. In an anonymous letter to Colorado GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, a woman claimed her daughter witnessed a low-level assault against Friedrich by Kavanaugh in the late-1990s.

“Her friend was dating him, and they left the bar under the influence of alcohol. They were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually,” the letter read.

“There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.”

And that letter was almost immediately contradicted by the former girlfriend in question. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Friedrich — now a judge — said “(t)o the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive and sexual’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day. I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

And then we have a Rhode Island man who is now under investigation for making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault he initially said Kavanaugh perpetrated in the mid-1980s. He has since repudiated the story.

So, this new letter — should it exist — could be materially false. It could be the result of memories corrupted over the process of 35 years. It could be politically motivated. It could be some combination thereof; those aren’t mutually exclusive categories, after all.

But that’s the problem with the entire case against Kavanaugh: At no point have we received concrete corroboration of anything. Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember where the house was where Kavanaugh assaulted her or how she got home.

None of her witnesses can corroborate her story. The same questions linger over the Ramirez case. That makes this letter pretty much the equal of anything that’s been brought against Kavanaugh. Why should we believe one over the other?

This is the problem of throwing these unverifiable cases against a public career that has been unmarred by personal or professional misconduct. We’ve been asked to treat the former as a condition that negates the latter when it ought to be the other way around.

If these are the standards we’re holding ourselves to in 2018, God help us all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?



Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.


Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears


Reported By Joe Saunders | September 27, 2018 at

6:59am

Timing is everything.

On the eve of pivotal testimony scheduled to take place Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that could determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh rises to the high court, committee Republicans released word of a development that throws a new twist on the already tortured proceedings.

And Democrats are screaming that their own trick has been pulled against them.

According to Fox News, Judiciary Committee Republicans released a statement late Wednesday revealing that they had spoken with two men who have said it was possible that they were actually responsible for an alleged sexual assault in the early 1980s that Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford is blaming on Kavanaugh.

According to Fox, the statement revealed that the GOP had been in contact with one of the men since Monday. The Republicans, led by committee Chairman Charles Grassley, obviously opted not to share the information with Democratic colleagues.

In a statement to NBC News, an unnamed Democratic congressional aide was outraged.

“Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her,” the aide stated. “Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of Senate rules.”

Seriously? This is the same party that kept quiet about a letter received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in July but didn’t see fit to reveal its existence to the country until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended.

Sen Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, pointed out the hypocrisy in a Twitter post.

“Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces,” he wrote.

The bombshell news from Wednesday night was the latest development in a tumultuous week that started when The New Yorker published an account of a second accuser against Kavanaugh in a barely believable piece that was essentially built on a hazy memory, rumor — and Democratic probes.

Then, publicity-hungry attorney Michael Avenatti went public on Wednesday with a tale of a client with a bizarre story that Kavanaugh was part of a gang rape ring in the early 1980s (Avenatti has publicly mused about mounting a 2020 presidential campaign, so Democrat politics are clearly a factor).

Both accusations — like Ford’s — were sprung out of the blue.

Now, Judiciary Committee Republicans have officially released word that there are yet more stories out there that could put the whole thing to rest.

As the New York Post reported:

“On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing ‘a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.’

“The ‘encounter’ refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

“They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

“Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.”

No credible conservative has denied it was possible that Ford actually went through some kind of ordeal in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh himself said as much during an interview with Fox News on Monday.

“I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place,” he said, according to a transcript from USA Today. “But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life.”

Obviously, it’s too soon to tell where Wednesday’s developments will lead, but it’s possible that they could eventually show Ford’s story was correct to the extent that she actually did go through an ordeal at the hands of a male. It’s also possible they will show, even to Democrats and rabid liberals, that Kavanaugh is innocent of Ford’s accusations.

But considering how they came out, and the Democrats’ hypocritical reaction to them, they prove one thing for sure:

Timing is everything.

Army Col. Awarded $8.4 Million After Woman’s Sex Assault Allegations Blown Apart


Reported By Jack Davis | September 24, 2018 at

6:01pm

As official Washington is captivated by the drama surrounding decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a former soldier whose career was cut short by similar allegations is trying to get out a message that accusations are not the same as the truth.

Back in 2013, Wil Riggins was an Army colonel who had been nominated for general, when Susan Shannon wrote on her blog that Riggins raped her at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point back in 1986, according to the Daily Mail.

Four years later, after Riggins had been denied his promotion based on the claim, a jury heard Riggins’ suit against Shannon and awarded him $8.4 million in damages, according to The Washington Post.

With that as the background, Riggins has been using his Twitter account to remind those rushing to judgment in the Kavanaugh case that regardless of what an accuser says, the truth may be very different.

Most of his posts are retweets of others who cite his case as a cautionary tale against believing any accuser at face value.

Riggins said that even though he was exonerated, he still suffered irreparable damage from the false claim.

This journey we’ve been on the last four years,” Riggins said, “it’s been a nightmare. … The large dollar amount is meaningless. All I was looking for was the opportunity to be vindicated, to set the record straight, to take every action to get my reputation back to where it was before the 15th of July, when she published that false accusation.”

Shannon entered West Point in 1983 and resigned in 1986. She never mentioned being raped until 2013. In a blog post, she named Riggins as her rapist and said she was drunk at the time. Despite Riggins’s denials, she has maintained that she told the truth in her blog post.

“Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself,” Shannon told WJLA.

Riggins admitted he and Shannon had a sexual encounter in 1983, but had no relationship after that time. Shannon called that “a compete fabrication”  and said Riggins “smugly admitted he did indeed rape” her.

However, after the verdict she did take down the posts she made about Riggins.

Stephen Horvath, Riggins’s lawyer said Riggins was able to win because,  “Everything in that blog post was provably false and could not have happened.”

Riggins said that his effort to fight back was aimed at sending a message to those who make false accusations.

“This will discourage other false accusations but would not discourage legitimate accusations of sexual assault,” he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer. Writing as “Rusty” Davis, he is a Spur Award-nominated writer whose first two novels, “Wyoming Showdown” and “Black Wind Pass” were published by Five Star Publishing.

Huge: Letter Shows Ford Wanted To Stop Sex Crime Prosecutor from Investigating


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 25, 2018 at

6:12am

A letter from one of Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys indicates that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wanted to dissuade the Senate Judiciary Committee from using an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, according to a tweet from NBC’s Frank Thorp V.

The letter from attorney Michael Bromwich, as Thorp notes, seems to indicate Ford’s testimony at the hearing “does not appear to be a done deal.”

It addresses several issues, including the fact that Kavanaugh’s background check from the White House won’t be provided and comments made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Ford’s account was part of a “smear campaign.”

However, perhaps the most puzzling detail was the fact that Ford’s team objected to an experienced sex crimes prosecutor being brought on in the case.

“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as (Senate Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for Nominations Michael) Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” Bromwich’s letter read.

“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”

“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Bromwich said.

This is a curious development indeed. A prosecutor experienced in sex crimes would be utilized questioning not just Ford but Kavanaugh as well. Having a figure like that investigating through questioning at the scheduled hearing could be key. It would be someone who would know how to get down to the truth of the matter.

Yet, Bromwich contends that the hearing “is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Except that his client is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of a sex crime. That’s kind of a pertinent detail here.

Getting to the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations — if it can indeed be done — is vital, as it’s vital in the case of any sexual assault. The Kavanaugh case has a different dimension, however, in that it could literally decide whether or not a federal judge is morally fit to receive a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest bench.

If Brett Kavanaugh did what Ford is alleging, he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. That’s not debatable. However, she hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence or a single witness who’s able to back up her claims. That’s problematic, to say the least.

Even more problematic is the fact that Bromwich doesn’t feel that this should be treated anything like “a criminal trial” where the accused in the United States gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence. One assumes that his client shares his view on this. This means, essentially, she wants the hearing to be as uncritical as possible.

The import of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee — the mere fact that a Supreme Court nomination and the reputation of a public figure hangs in the balance — apparently doesn’t register with either Ford or her team.

If you’re alleging a brutal rape attempt involving a man who’s poised to be one of the most powerful individuals in America, why would you not want an experienced sex crimes prosecutor investigating? One can think of several reasons, none of which are particularly complimentary to Christine Blasey Ford.

There is nothing in bringing in a prosecutor that gets in the way of the “fair and credible process” Bromwich seems so concerned about in the letter. On the contrary, it’s the only way we can ensure what happens before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be either fair or credible.

The fact that the Ford team is fighting this should be seen as a highly telling move.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Reports: Kavanaugh Has Found 1982 Calendar, Detailed Entries Help Clear His Name


Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 23, 2018 at

5:26pm

The last-minute attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice has just hit a serious snag. Facing damaging but almost completely unsubstantiated claims that he acted improperly with a girl back when he was a teenager, the conservative nominee has dug into his personal archives to defend himself.

Up until now, the vague accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford had only resulted in a “he said, she said” stalemate. Liberals insisted that Blasey Ford’s story of a bad encounter at a drunken party be believed, while conservatives have pointed out that the nearly 40-year-old claim is impossible to verify.

Finally, Kavanaugh has presented tangible evidence that the accusation doesn’t hold up.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the judge has found old calendars from the period when the unproven groping allegedly took place — and they appear to support his claim that the incident didn’t happen.

“Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford,” explained The Times.

“The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents,” the newspaper continued.

“When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.”

Here is perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for Blasey Ford’s already-flimsy story: The calendar contains entries for parties, but none of the names included in those entries match the names Blasey Ford listed.

That any names were included in his calendar entries for parties shows Kavanaugh was remarkably thorough about recording his social schedule.

That fact is yet another point in favor of Kavanaugh and against his accuser. The woman behind the claim has admitted that she can recall almost nothing specific about the incident, including its location, time, or other people involved.

The few names brought up by Blasey Ford have refuted her story and indicated that they don’t remember a party with both her and Kavanaugh.

“Mr. (Mike) Judge has told the Judiciary Committee that he remembered no such incident and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in such a way,” explained The Times, referring to one alleged witness of the drunken party.

“The only other two people identified as being in the house at the time, but not the bedroom, have also said in recent days that they did not recall the incident. Patrick J. Smyth said he did not remember such a party or see any improper conduct by Judge Kavanaugh.”

“Leland Keyser, a former classmate of Dr. Blasey’s at Holton-Arms, said she did not know Judge Kavanugh or remember being at a party with him,” stated the newspaper.

Accusations of this type are of course serious, and conducting due diligence is part of the vetting process for anyone nominated for a powerful position. There comes a point, however, when weak and impossible to prove allegations need to be put to rest. Blasey Ford may genuinely believe that something like the incident she described did happen; she may be telling the truth about a teenage trauma affecting her for decades, too.

The problem is that there is zero evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh who did what she claims, and no way short of a time machine to prove her accusations.

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been a responsible and thoughtful family man and legal scholar for the entirety of his adult life — and that record needs to stand far above one person’s increasingly shaky claim.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that Judge Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar does not contain any names identified in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh. The calendar does reference Mike Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh and, according to Blasey Ford, a witness to the alleged assault. Judge’s name, however, is not mentioned in reference to any parties, while other names are — none of which have been identified by Blasey Ford. We apologize for the mistake.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

FBI Throws Cold Water on Feinstein’s Kavanaugh Scandal Claim


Reported By Randy DeSoto | September 14, 2018 at 11:16am

The FBI reportedly has no plans to investigate the possible sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stemming from his high school days in the early 1980s, which is believed to be contained in a letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein passed on to the bureau, according to The Washington Post.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further,” the California Democrat said in a statement released Thursday.

“I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she continued.

A woman first approached Democrat lawmakers in July, shortly after Kavanaugh’s nomination by President Donald Trump, reported Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer with The New Yorker.

In the letter, the woman alleged that during an encounter at a party while she and Kavanaugh were in high school, he held her down and attempted to force himself on her.

She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself,” according to The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh, 53, graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School in 1983.

The judge responded in a statement on Friday, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Kavanaugh’s classmate told The New Yorker of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.”

The woman declined to be interviewed by the paper.

Feinstein refused to share the contents of the letter — which was reportedly first given to her by Democrat Rep. Anna Eshoo of California — with fellow members of the Judiciary Committee.

“A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had ‘taken care of it,’” according to The New Yorker.

Seung Min Kim with The Washington Post reported the “FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the Kavanaugh matter; instead the bureau passed the material to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh’s background check.”

White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec called the letter a “smear” attempt, intended to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation, according to The Post.

“Throughout his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh has had 65 meetings with senators — including with Senator Feinstein — sat through over 30 hours of testimony, addressed over 2,000 questions in a public setting and additional questions in a confidential session,” Kupec said. “Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him.”

Kupec also noted that the FBI has “thoroughly and repeatedly vetted” the judge through his 25 years of public service, including 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and prior to that serving as an attorney and White House staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House.

Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn responded with apparent skepticism about Feinstein’s letter.

“Let me get this straight: this is statement about secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person. Right,” the Texas Republican tweeted Thursday.

Cornyn told CNN that the move “smacks of desperation to me.”

George Hartmann, a spokesman for Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, said the senator is aware of Feinstein’s referral.

“At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality,” Hartmann said. “There’s no plan to change the committee’s consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

A committee vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination is slated for Thursday, Sept. 20, with a full Senate vote expected by the end of the month.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Appalachian Justice: Here’s How WV Handles an Out-of-Control Supreme Court


Reported By Ben Marquis | August 8, 2018 at 1:31pm

The issue of corruption among elected officials is one that enrages many American citizens as far too often it seems that the “powers that be” are willing to let suspected corrupt officials slide or slink away quietly without ever being held accountable to the people. However, in at least one instance it appears that won’t be the case. The four sitting justices on West Virginia’s state Supreme Court are collectively facing 14 counts of impeachment for alleged corrupt activities, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

The 14 articles of impeachment against the justices were approved on Tuesday by the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee and include such charges as corruption, neglect of duty and “unnecessary and lavish” spending of taxpayer money, among other allegations.

The articles of impeachment will soon be submitted to the House for a vote, and if they obtain a majority will then proceed to the Senate. If two-thirds of the senators approve the impeachment articles, a trial will commence that would require another two-thirds majority for conviction, at which point the justices would be removed from the bench and barred from ever seeking public office in the state again.

“It’s a sad day, and it certainly isn’t a cause for celebration,” Judiciary Chairman John Shott said Tuesday, according to the Gazette-Mail.

The four justices charged under the articles of impeachment, which stem from violations of the impeachable offenses listed in Section 9, Article 4 of the West Virginia Constitution, include

  • Chief Justice Margaret Workman (four counts)
  • Justices Robin Davis (four counts),
  • Allen Loughry (eight counts)
  • Beth Walker (two counts).

All four justices face charges of “unnecessary and lavish” spending of taxpayer money to renovate their offices. They’re also accused of failing to develop and maintain court policies with regard to the use of state resources.

Davis, Loughry and Workman also face a charge of signing documents that authorized pay for senior status judges in excess of what was allowed by law. Loughry faces additional charges that include allegedly using a state vehicle for personal travel, using state-owned computers and furniture in his home and using taxpayer money to have artwork, documents and personal photos framed.

Former Justice Menis Ketchum, who resigned from his seat on the bench last month, escaped being named in the articles of impeachment by virtue of his recent resignation, which removed him from the oversight of the Judiciary Committee. It is worth noting that Ketchum just pleaded guilty to one count of federal wire fraud. Loughry was also recently hit with a 23-count federal indictment that included 16 counts of mail fraud, three counts of making false statements to federal investigators, two counts of wire fraud and one count each of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

On top of that, Loughry — who was suspended from the bench without pay on June 8 — has also been charged with 32 counts of violating state’s Code of Judicial Conduct by the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission for similar charges included in the articles of impeachment, as well as for lying to lawmakers, the media and the public about his alleged conduct.

Of course, there were several lawmakers who opposed the articles of impeachment, not necessarily because they believed the justices were innocent of the charges against them, but because taking out all of the sitting justices in one fell swoop would allow Republican Gov. Jim Justice to appoint their replacements, most likely for at least a two-year term, given the close proximity and limited time-frame between now and November’s elections.

Such was the argument put forward by Democrat Del. Mike Pushkin, who said he didn’t like the fact that all four justices were grouped together in the articles of impeachment, as well as by Democrat Del. Barbara Fleischauer, minority chairwoman of the committee, who likened the move to an attempted “coup” against an entire branch of the state government by Republicans.

“We said this to our committee when we started, this was a no-win situation,” Chairman Shott said of those accusations. “Especially in an election year, there’s going to be people who will spin it however it creates the most advantage to them. That’s just part of the process.”

While impeaching all of the sitting justices on the state’s Supreme Court at once does seem rather drastic — and certainly opens the door to partisan complaints — it nevertheless also appears to be the correct remedy in this case for holding apparently corrupt elected officials accountable for their actions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few weeks and months.

Planned Parenthood Dares Make Demands About Supreme Court Pick


Ann Coulter Letter for June 27, 2018: “Country Overboard! Women and Children Last!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

I’m still ticked off at him for not building the wall, but THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, FOR POINTING OUT THAT MAXINE WATERS HAS A LOW I.Q.! And there’s more great news! Contrary to every single New York Times editorial and opinion piece on the president’s “Muslim ban,” this week, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.

Or, as a Times op-ed put it back on Jan. 27, 2017: “(T)he order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin. …” “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal,” by David J. Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

For your immigration news, New York Times, maybe stop thinking you’re getting “both sides” by going to open borders activists at the International Refugee Assistance Project and, for the opposing view, open borders activists at the Cato Institute.

Last week, in a column that does not misstate the facts and the law about immigration, I covered some typical asylum and refugee admissions to our country, including Beatrice Munyenyezi. She was the Rwandan who got into our country by claiming to be a victim of the genocide that killed nearly a million people, even though she had helped orchestrate it.

Munyenyezi wasn’t the only participant in the Rwandan genocide who’s gotten in as a victim and then been unmasked as a perpetrator. So far, nearly 400 Rwandans granted special refugee status have been convicted of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide. Great job, U.S. refugee admissions officials!

Courts are dealing with so many genocidal Rwandans who came to America as “refugees” that just last Friday, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of another one, Gervais “Ken” Ngombwa, who not only lied about his participation in the genocide, but also about his family relationships. (You can’t get anything past our State Department!)

Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty, misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture?

It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport”?

Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators.

Remember the Baby Hope case? In 1991, a little girl’s unidentified body was found in an Igloo cooler alongside the Henry Hudson Parkway. Twenty-two years later, the New York City police finally solved the case: The perpetrator turned out to be Baby Hope’s illegal alien cousin from Mexico, who had raped and killed her when she was 4 years old.

And how had he escaped justice for 22 years? The girl’s mother and aunt, also illegals, helped orchestrate the cover-up. The aunt helped dispose of the body and the girl’s mother never said a peep, despite admitting that she suspected all along that the corpse in the cooler was her unreported, missing daughter.

Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.

(One of the major articles reporting on the Hmong rape culture, helping diversify America, was Pam Louwagie and Dan Browning’s “Shamed Into Silence,” published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2005. It used to be here: startribune.com/local/11594631.html. The detailed story won first place for In Depth Reporting from the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists, but it seems to have disappeared from the Tribune’s website. Welcome to the Soviet Union!)

In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.

Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures.

Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in.

How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?

Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.

They’re just like the feminists willing to forgive Bill Clinton for rape. Well, you know, taking in the totality of his contributions …Today, it’s: Who cares what kind of society we become — provided America is no more.

Primitive people will not stop trying to come here until America is no different from Calcutta. Then, liberals’ work will be done. And there will be no charity ward left for anyone to flee to.

That’s how much liberals care about women and children.

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “I Have a Dream … About Gay Wedding Cakes”


disclaimerCommentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/06/07/i-have-a-dream-about-gay-wedding-cakes/

The Supreme Court’s recent decision on whether a Christian baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage (no) arriving on the same day that Bill Clinton reared his syphilitic head on NBC’s “Today” reminded me how liberals always use black people as props.

Midway through the last century, bedrock legal principles about property rights and freedom of association were abrogated to deal with a specific, intractable problem: We could not get Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks. 

So Republicans, with very little Democratic help, passed a slew of laws saying: No, even though you own that restaurant, you cannot discriminate against black customers. And no, even though we are a free people, you cannot refuse to associate with black people in your clubs, universities or sports teams.

This should have been a one-time exception to the law for one specific group of people based on an emergency.

But Democrats, never wild about freedom in the first place, saw “civil rights” as a great gig. Instead of civil rights being used to remedy historic injuries done to a specific group of people, they’d use “civil rights” as a false flag for all their pet projects.

Just six years after passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats in New York had dropped black people from the equation and moved onto legalized abortion. State senator Manfred Ohrenstein of Manhattan explained why killing the unborn was a “right”: “It was the end of the civil rights era, and we viewed [abortion] as a civil right.”

In the 1991 case Kreimer v. Morristown, a Carter-appointed federal district judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled that a public library’s discrimination against smelly, frightening homeless people violated the equal protection clause because it had a “disparate impact” on people who refuse to bathe compared to those who bathe regularly. Three years later, President Clinton promoted him to an appellate judgeship. (The judge, not the homeless person.)

In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer vowed that “New York state will continue to be a beacon of civil rights” — when proposing a state law that would guarantee access to late-term abortions.

In June 2012, The New York Times chirpily reported “gay rights the fastest-moving civil rights movement in our nation’s history”!

These days, you could be forgiven for not realizing that civil rights ever had anything to do with black people. According to Equal Opportunity Employment Commission statistics, for a least a decade, 65 percent of all “civil rights” claims have had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.

The gay wedding cake caper is only the most recent example of our majestic “civil rights.”

Instead of basing favored treatment under the law on a history of brutal and widespread injustice in America, liberals thought it should also be based on other forms of suffering, such as: being a woman, being a Muslim, wanting an abortion, having been born in Mexico, being a smelly homeless person stinking up the public library and — according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week — being a gay couple who wants to force a Christian to bake a cake for your wedding.

It must make blacks feel great being compared to daft women, smelly homeless people and bossy gays harassing a Christian baker.

And apes!

Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer compares black people to apes, citing the black liberation movement as a model for the liberation of apes. We must “extend to other species,” Singer says, “the basic principle of equality” that we extend “to all members of our own species.”

This wasn’t an Ambien-induced Twitter rant by a comedian. Singer wrote it, calmly and deliberately, in a book on “ethics.”

Still, I believe the greatest insult black Americans have had to endure from liberals was when they called Bill Clinton the “first black president.”

I notice that he was not the first black president when Democrats were singing Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration, nor when he was appointing the first woman attorney general or passing welfare reform. Only after Clinton was caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in U.S. history did he suddenly become “the first black president.” (Which is not true, according to Monica Lewinsky’s description of Clinton’s private parts.)

During the House impeachment hearings, Rep. Maxine Waters ferociously defended Clinton, saying, “I am here in the name of my slave ancestors.” She said she had woken up in the middle of the night, “with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for justice.”

What this had to do with Clinton perjuring himself about molesting a chubby Jewish White House intern was anyone’s guess.

Always the master of subtlety, as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton promptly invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House to “pray” with him. Two months later, he took off on an 11-day, six-nation $43 million trip to — guess where? Africa!

Haven’t black people suffered enough without this horny hick piggybacking on their oppression?

please likeand share and leave a comment

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Christian Baker Who Refused To Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding



disclaimerReported By Jack Davis | June 4, 2018 at 8:19am

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Christian Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex marriage when the ceremony violates his religious principles.praise-the-lord-png

Monday’s 7-2 decision reversed a Colorado court’s ruling against baker Jack Phillips, who in 2012 refused to bake a cake for gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The decision focused on the initial ruling against Phillips from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and left untouched the broader issue of whether professionals who oppose same-sex marriage can be compelled to provide goods and services for those ceremonies, USA Today reported.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” the majority opinion said, noting the broader battle in which this case was one part. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” Kennedy wrote, according to The Hill.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.

“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment,” he wrote. 

Kennedy said Colorado failed that test.

“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy noted that the case does represent a collision of rights, according to The Washington Post.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws, he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority along with Justices Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

Phillips had lost every round of his lengthy legal fight until Monday. Phillips said the question was not about the customers but rather about violating his own principles.

“It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said, according to Fox News.

The Trump administration supported Phillips’ legal claims.
please likeand share and leave a comment

Travel Ban Back in Place, SCOTUS Halts Lower Court Injunctions


Reported by Ian Mason | 4 Dec 2017 | Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/04/travel-ban-back-place-scotus-halts-lower-court-injunction/?

President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order is once again to largely go back into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States stayed two lower courts’ injunctions Monday.

The orders come in response to filings by the Department of Justice Friday, asking the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunctions in the two main travel ban cases, Hawaii v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump in the Fourth Circuit. These cases have been proceeding up and down the federal court system for months.

The district courts, especially that of Barack Obama-appointed District of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson, have repeatedly ruled that the bans must be blocked from going into effect or must, in the interim, be interpreted in such a way as to have little effect on the list of mostly Muslim majority countries from which travel is prohibited under the orders.

The petitions in the two cases were made to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts respectively. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor declined to sign on to the orders staying the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in statement after the orders were announced.

He continued:

We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the President’s lawful proclamation protecting our country’s national security to go into full effect.  The Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.

With the order, the third – permanent – version of the travel ban, promulgated in September after an interagency review of the dangers posed by the different countries included, will go back into effect while the case on the merits works its way through the court system. The Supreme Court had dismissed the earlier lawsuits based on the earlier, temporary versions of the ban because they had expired.

The government, represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, asked the justices to re-instate the ban based in part on the findings of the review, which provided new security-based justifications for the inclusion of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and, he argues, turns the likelihood of success against the plaintiffs.

This Trump Decision Is A Major Blow To The Administrative State


Reported by Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter | 3:12 PM 11/30/2017

FILE PHOTO: The seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission hangs on the wall at SEC headquarters in Washington, DC, U.S. on June 24, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions.

The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations.

The litigation concerns an agency’s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings. ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review — if a final review occurs at all.

The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all “inferior officers” of the United States.

A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ALJs in an enforcement proceeding convened against them for alleged violations of securities law. The managers argue these proceedings are unlawful, because the ALJs are exactly the sort of “inferior officer” who must be appointed by the president, the court, or the head of an agency, since they exercise meaningful discretion on behalf of the federal government.

A lower federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found in favor of the SEC. A three-judge panel found for the SEC, and the full court affirmed that decision on a five to five vote. The investment managers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department sided with the SEC in the dispute, but Trump’s new solicitor general, Noel Francisco, changed positions Wednesday, and backed the money managers.

“Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” Francisco wrote in a new brief at the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling against the SEC could have important implications for similarly-situated officials in other agencies. ALJs often preside in actions brought by a whole host of federal agencies. A finding against the SEC would potentially jeopardize, and perhaps invalidate, the legal status of thousands of other agency proceedings.

The Justice Department generally represents federal agencies before the high court. Accordingly, the solicitor general asked the justices to appoint another lawyer to represent the SEC as the litigation continues.

The high court could decide to take the case as soon as January.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Gay Couple Lawyers Up Against Christian Baker, Then Trump Steps in


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/gay-couple-lawyers-up/?

Advertisement – story continues below

A Christian baker from Colorado received an unexpected blessing from the administration of President Donald Trump last week when the Justice Department filed a brief on his behalf to the Supreme Court, which is slated to hear his religious liberty case upon returning to the bench next month.

For Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the trouble started five years ago when he politely refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Although he only meant to protect his religious beliefs, he wound up triggering a chain reaction of undeserved backlash.

It included death threats from angry activists, character assassinations from the liberal media, a judgment of illegal discrimination from a Colorado civil rights commission and an affirmation of the commission’s ruling by a lower court.

The tide finally began to turn in Phillips’ favor in late June when the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal and decide whether he actually discriminated against the gay couple when he refused to bake their cake over his religious objections.

And just on Thursday, he won yet another “huge” victory when Trump’s DOJ filed an amicus brief defending his decision five years earlier to not bake the gay couple’s wedding cake. In the brief, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall specifically argued that allowing the lower court’s ruling against Phillips to stand would create a violation of the First Amendment “where public accommodations law compels someone to create expression for a particular person or entity and to participate, literally or figuratively, in a ceremony or other expressive event.”

“When Phillips designs and creates a custom wedding cake for a specific couple and a specific wedding, he plays an active role in enabling that ritual, and he associates himself with the celebratory message conveyed,” he added. “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights.”

This is good. Very good, in fact.

And according to The Washington Times, the DOJ’s surprising decision to file a brief in Phillips’ case “raises the possibility that the government will also ask for time to argue in front of the justices when the case goes for oral argument.”

That would be even better.

During the administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama, a man who loved sitting idly by as Christians were persecuted, the DOJ said nothing about Phillips, instead choosing to allow him to suffer the indignity of being persecuted for his Christian beliefs. But with Trump in the White House, it appears those days are finally behind us. Thank God.

H/T Informed Folks

Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake


Reported by  Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs. 

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Supreme Court won’t hear transgender bathroom case


Authored

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a high-profile case on transgender rights, sending it back to the lower courts. The justices tossed out a ruling Monday that allowed Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy in Virginia, to use the bathroom he chooses, and ordered that a lower court reconsider the case in light of new guidance issued by the Trump administration last month.

The justices had planned to hear arguments later this month and both sides had pressed for the high court to weigh in amid a national debate over rights for the transgendered.

ADVERTISEMENT

Grimm, born female, was barred from using the boy’s bathroom in 2014 after the Gloucester County School Board enacted a policy requiring all students to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender assigned at birth. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm, who argued that the school board “impermissibly discriminated against him” in violation of Title IX anti-discrimination laws and his constitutional right to equal protection under the law.  The court cited Obama administration guidance that transgender students should be allowed to use the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, claiming those rights were covered federal anti-discrimination laws addressing “sex.”But on Feb. 22, the Trump Justice Department and Education Department sent a letter to the lower court rescinding that Obama guidance.

The fight now returns to the lower court, where both sides vowed to press forward with their case.

“On remand to the lower courts, the Board looks forward to explaining why its commonsense restroom and locker room policy is legal under the Constitution and federal law,” the Gloucester County School Board said in a statement. LGBTQ advocates expressed disappointment in the justices’ decision.

“This announcement speaks volumes to the ways that President Trump’s actions are already having devastating consequences for transgender youth across the country,” said Freedom for All Americans Executive Director Matt McTighe, in a statement.

“All students, including transgender students, deserve to participate fully and succeed in school, and to feel safe and respected while doing so.”

At issue is whether Title IX’s anti-discrimination measures can force schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. The Obama guidance said it did. The Trump administration in withdrawing that guidance said the Obama administration failed to “explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX,” but didn’t make their own case for whether Title IX applies. Legal experts say it’s unclear what the Fourth Circuit will do.

“It could ask for more briefing, it could send it back to the district judge to rule on the merits and then let it come back up,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

“It could also wait and see what DOJ and DOE [Department of Education] are planning on doing or it could just go forward and reach the merits under Title IX and try to discern the legislative intent from 1972.”

In a statement, Mark Phillis, a discrimination and harassment lawyer at Littler Mendelson P.C., said there are two cases pending before the Second Circuit and Seventh Circuit Courts in which the interpretation of “sex” is being considered in the employment context under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“Since Title IX cases often look to cases decided under Title VII, these cases could have an impact on the way the this case may be decided,” he said.

Legal experts say that the issue could eventually end up back before the Supreme Court, with other cases also making their way through the courts.

“No question about it,” Tobias said. “It’s just a matter of which case is the right case.”

He said Grimm’s case was premature. “The district court never reached the merits,” he said. “I don’t know why they granted cert.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the case forward on Grimm’s behalf, told the justices on March 1 that the Trump administration’s actions made it critical for the high court to quickly resolve the question of transgender students and bathrooms.

“[T]he Court will inevitably have to settle the question by clarifying the proper interpretation of Title IX,” the group said. 

–This report was updated at 3:04 p.m.

Legal Fight Rages to Save Voter ID Laws. Supreme Court weighs review of ruling that struck down North Carolina election integrity statute


waving flagAuthored by Brendan Kirby | Updated 06 Feb 2017 at 9:23 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/legal-fight-rages-to-save-voter-id-laws/

The Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether to review an appellate court decision striking down North Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. The ruling by the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was something of an outlier in the ongoing war over voter ID laws, finding not just that the statute disproportionately impacted minorities but that lawmakers had acted intentionally to suppress minority voters.

“Although the new provisions target African-Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist,” U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in an opinion signed by all three judges on the appeals panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the  State’s true motivation.”more-leftist-propaganda

If the high court decides not to hear the case, it will leave North Carolina without a photo ID law. If the justices do take the case and adopt the reasoning of the appeals court, it could jeopardize voter ID laws elsewhere — particularly in Southern states that previously had to get advance go-ahead from the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act to make even minor changes to voting rules.

/* */

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of North Carolina’s law, argues that the justices should lay down a clear marker that states are within their rights to require identification to ensure the integrity of elections.more-leftist-propaganda

“Voter ID works just about wherever it’s tried,” said Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the group.

North Carolina passed the law in 2013. In addition to the ID requirement, it also eliminated same-day voter registration, scaled back early voting dates, prohibited voters from casting ballots in the wrong precinct, and eliminated straight-ticked voting, requiring voters to mark their choices in each race individually. It provided a free photo ID card for anyone who stated he could not obtain a driver’s license.amen

Even before the Supreme Court weighs in on the appeal, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper could try to short-circuit the law by withdrawing the appeal. He refused to defend the law in court when he was the attorney general.

“Gov. Cooper continues to oppose this law and believes we should make it easier, not harder, for people to exercise their right to vote,” gubernatorial spokeswoman Noelle Talley told WRAL-TV in Raleigh last week. We’re currently reviewing this case inherited from the prior administration.” Attorney General Josh Stein, also a Democrat, issued a similar statement.

Even if both pull out, though, the Republican-controlled legislature could appoint its own attorney to pursue the appeal.

Meanwhile, it is possible the federal government might switch sides, as well. The Justice Department of former President Obama had been supporting the plaintiffs. But President Donald Trump’s administration might reach a different conclusion.

The Justice Department filed its brief in support of the plaintiffs one day before Trump’s inauguration — 11 days before the deadline. It is similar to an attempt by Obama’s outgoing administration to kill a lawsuit accusing the IRS of improperly targeting conservative nonprofit groups.

In its legal brief in the North Carolina case, the Public Interest Legal Foundation argues that the appeals court applied the wrong standard in evaluating the state’s law. The judges used a standard under the Voting Rights Act that placed the burden of proof on North Carolina and other states tainted by discriminatory practices in the past to show that electoral system changes were race-neutral. But the Supreme Court struck down that portion of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, holding that the formula for determining whether jurisdictions should be subject to so-called “preclearance” was outdated.

 

As a result, attorneys J. Christian Adams and Kaylan Phillips argue in their brief, the appeals court should have used the legal standard that applies to every other state under the Voting Rights Act. That would have put the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate discriminatory intent.

“That standard requires a far more robust showing than a statistical demonstration that a given minority might be less likely to be able to vote at a certain time, use a particular voting practice more often than non-minorities, or possess certain types of documentation at different rates,” the brief states.

Churchwell, the spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, predicted the issue will not go away, even if the justices pass on taking the case. Different courts have used different standards to evaluate voter ID laws, he said. What’s more, he added, issues like redistricting that must take place every 10 years also could be affected.

“If they don’t take this case, we will continue to have that split,” he said. “This is bigger than North Carolina. It’s bigger than voter ID … If this ruling takes hold, it’s going to cause a whole lot of problems in a few years when redistricting comes along.”

picture6

Iran Wants More Pallets of Cash


waving flagAugust 9, 2016By

I wonder if now that the Obama administration has paid the ransom “we owed” the Iranian regime, whether it will set a precedent for others to put their hands out and demand, or at least request funds from the U.S. treasury?

Heck, even before the precedent, the Israeli government asked the U.S. to bump up its annual military stipend from $3 billion to $5 billion. Those dirty, money-grubbing Jews – asking for an additional $2 billion. You might think that, but they are blaming the Obama administration for the fact that they must request it in the first place.

It seems the Middle East is poised to get a lot more dangerous thanks to the huge infusion of cash which was part of the US-Iran nuclear agreement. So thanks to Obama, Israel expects to have to spend a lot more on defense. They do have a point.

Now in, we’ll call the post-ransom period, another has come forward asking for cash. Our old buddy, “former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is asking President Obama to release nearly $2 billion in Iranian assets frozen in a New York bank account.”

The Hill reports that Mahmoud is back and may be considering dealanother run for president next year.

I guess he plans to return to the election circuit as the conquering hero, with $1.75 billion in tow.

However, as you may recall – this is the same $1.75 billion that the supreme Court voted 6-2 to disperse over 1,000 victims of various terrorist atrocities perpetrated on Americans over the years, “including the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Khobar towers…”

“Iran is appealing the case at the international Court of Justice.” Court of Justice. Sounds like a place where superheroes gather. Not quite – more like super-leftists.

pallets-of-cash-to-iranBut Mahmoud isn’t content to leave it in the hands of the courts. He instead has penned an open letter to Obama.

After a full paragraph of praising Allah and Mohammed, he gets down to it, spending the next couple paragraphs buttering up Obama – telling him that basically nothing is his fault. Birds of a feather, I suppose, as Obama has said the same for years.

However, Mahmoud doesn’t mention Bush specifically as does Obama – just past administrations that have been responsible for “about 60 years of oppression and cruelty by different American governments against the Iranian nation…”extra bowl of stupid

He then cites the supreme Court case which he claims illegally seized Iranian assets. He asks for “his Excellency,” Obama to “quickly fix” the problem and “that not only the Iranian nations must be restored, and the seized property released and returned, but also the damages caused be fully compensated for.”

Iran-ATM-600-LIWow – he sure knows the American legal system. If he loses his bid for the presidency, Mahmoud could no doubt become a slip and fall lawyer. And he also knows Obama, the leftist, as he plays to Obama’s legacy. “I passionately advise you not to let the historical affirmation and bitter incident be recorded under your name,” writes Mahmoud.

I don’t know whether Obama has the authority to release the funds the court has already allocated. Of course I also don’t think the court should have the authority, regardless of the good cause.

In my opinion, if Obama does “find” the authority, he would certainly get out the forklift again and load up the unmarked jet with more pallets of Euros. Anything for his pals in Iran.

Bright-Future-NRD-600 Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Satanic Temple Is a Fraud


waving flagAugust 1, 2016 By

A group from Salem Massachusetts is fighting for the right to institute their own version of an afterschool program to elementary schools across the nation. The Satanic Temple’s cofounder Doug Mesner, who goes by the name Lucien Greaves, is attempting to introduce “Satan After School” (SAS) to “counterbalance Christian afterschool programs.”

And not just any Christian afterschool program. They are targeting schools which have allowed the Christian “Good News Club” in.

The Washington Post writes  that what brought on the desire of the Satanic Temple to start an afterschool program was a 2001 supreme Court ruling. The ruling allowed for the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) to be included in afterschool programs as a matter of free speech rights.

As if we needed the supremes to tell us that. The Post says that the “CEF then went on a tear, and by 2011, it reported 3,560 Good News Clubs, putting them in more than 5% of the nation’s public elementary schools.”

More than 5%? Is that a lot, because it sure doesn’t sound like it. It sounds more like around 95% of the nation’s elementary schools have not invited in the CEF. But this matters not to Mr. Greaves and his Satan After School program. Anymore than 0% is too much for him.

Greaves did however add that, “We would like to thank the Liberty Counsel specifically for opening the doors to the After School 36BC6DF200000578-0-image-m-25_1469922732593Satan Clubs through their dedication to religious liberty.”

Okay – now I have it. It’s not about free speech as much as it is about religious liberty. That’s interesting. They too, like the CEF, want to be included in afterschool programs for reasons of religious liberty – evidently. That is interesting, considering the Satanic Temple states that they really don’t worship anyone or anything. It’s all just an act.

Instead, the Satan After School program intends to include a healthy snack, literature lesson, creative learning activities, a science lesson and art. Is it me, or does this sound like what the kids are doing during a normal school day? What would they need the Satan After School program for?

In other words, the Satan After School program is a fraud, which Greaves is purposely perpetrating on schools and has nothing whatsoever to do with religious liberty.

Chalice Blyth, head of the Satanic Temple’s Utah chapter, said: “The Satanic Temple doesn’t espouse a belief in the existence of a supernatural being that other religions identify solemnly as Satan, or Lucifer, or Beelzebub. The Temple rejects all forms of supernaturalism and is committed to the view that scientific rationality provides the best measure of reality.”Bull

That doesn’t sound at all what Satan would espouse. If I signed my kids up for the SAS program, I’d feel cheated. I thought we signed them up for some good old-fashioned Devil worship. I want my money back! The fact is, this group – at least their leaders, are just dopey atheists who, if pressed, would surely admit that they prefer religion not exist at all. In school – afterschool – anywhere.

fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: