Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

Multiple times in the past year, Democrats have threatened to change the composition of the Supreme Court because Republicans confirmed Constitution-loving justices. It isn’t a secret that Democrats prefer outcome-based justices. During John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked a question about what assurances the American people would have that Roberts would rule in the little guy’s favor. Roberts replied, saying that he’d guarantee that he’d rule in the little guy’s favor every time the Constitution was on the little guy’s side.

The Constitution isn’t meant to give “the little guy” an advantage. That’s what legislatures are for. In this post, I wrote about a brief that the Democrat senators Whitehouse, Rosenthal, Hirono and Durbin sent to the Supreme Court. In that brief, they wrote “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

This was clearly a threat from the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if Democrats didn’t get the outcome they wanted on a gun control lawsuit. Democrats haven’t been bashful about their desire to pack the courts. This article highlights the Democrats’ politicization of the Supreme Court:

Democratic candidates are increasingly advocating “court packing,” that is, upping the number of Supreme Court justices to balance the bench — or ensure a liberal majority. The idea is unlikely to succeed for historical and practical reasons but its resonance on the campaign trail reflects Democrats’ new emphasis on the judiciary during the Trump era.

While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the number of members of the Supreme Court is dictated by the Legislative Branch. In other words, a simple majority of Democrats in the House, a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate and a signature of a Democrat president could pack the Supreme Court for a generation or more.

It’s time to take that matter out of the hands of partisans. It’s time to pass a constitutional amendment that forever establishes a 9-member Supreme Court. That’s what we have now. The Court works just fine. Let’s see how many Democrats vote against such an amendment. I triple-dog dare Democrats to admit that they favor the full politicization of the Supreme Court. This is a campaign ad from Elizabeth Warren’s senate campaign:

There’s no way she wouldn’t pack the courts to tip the Supreme Court in the Democrats’ favor.

When I read the title of this article, I was a little surprised. Frankly, I was a little suspicious that the ABA would actually criticize a Democrat, much less the Senate Minority Leader. It didn’t take long to figure out that my suspicions were justified.

The ABA’s statement said, in part, that “Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the president, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable.”

President Trump didn’t threaten any Supreme Court justices. He said that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor should recuse themselves from specific cases, which isn’t anything like a threat. Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer emphatically stated “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Then Sen. Schumer added “The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues that you’re going to be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now.”

Anyone with a third-grade reading comprehension understands that Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, then predicted that Republicans who voted for Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be defeated this November. Justin Goodman’s spin isn’t convincing. He’s a third-rate political hack. The ABA is in the same category.

The day after the Democrats’ establishment ended Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, Chuck Schumer threatened a pair of Supreme Court justices. Standing in front of the Supreme Court while the justices heard oral arguments, Sen. Schumer threatened Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It didn’t take long for Josh Hawley to jump into action. Hawley announced that he’ll introduce a censure resolution that criticizes Sen. Schumer.

First, Sen. Schumer criticized the Justices, saying “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” After a predictable backlash forming, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman tried spinning Sen. Schumer’s statement:

Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision. For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.

This wasn’t a “misinterpretation.” Here’s what Sen. Schumer said:

Goodman is lying. There’s no question that Sen. Schumer made comments that went after GOP senators. The important point, though, is noticing that Sen. Schumer didn’t’ make that statement until after Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Any person with a sixth grade comprehension level understands that.

Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing legislation to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that two Supreme Court justices “will pay the price” for voting against the wishes of abortion advocates.

Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, announced on Twitter Wednesday that he plans to introduce a motion to censure the New York Democrat for threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Hawley’s announcement follows a torrent of criticism toward Schumer for his comments, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt,” Hawley wrote.

This is the appropriate action to take. Removal from the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote of all the senators. That means 67 or more votes. Censure requires a simple majority.

It’s important to understand that Sen. Schumer would run the Senate if Republicans lost their majority this November. Further, it’s important to note that Sen. Schumer is a nastier partisan than Harry Reid. In terms of honesty, in a two-man contest on honesty, they’d both finish 4th.

It’s time to help Republicans gain seats in the Senate this November. That means contributing to GOP candidates and GOP incumbents. In the interest of full disclosure, I just contributed to Jason Lewis’ campaign. Follow this link to contribute to Jason’s campaign to unseat Tina Smith.

When it comes to impeachment, it isn’t just the process that’s BS. It’s the things that’ve gotten said, too. For instance, Debbie Dingell said at the start that she would monitor the hearings before making a decision. Ms. Dingell just said that she’ll vote for impeachment.

While Rep. Dingell, who’s late husband was the longest-serving Democrat in Congress, sounds reasonable, that’s just imagery. Especially during the Schiff Show, the testifiers didn’t provide any first-hand evidence of anything approaching an impeachable offense. This isn’t a portrait in remaining open-minded. It’s a portrait in staying loyal to Speaker Pelosi.

Another Michigan Democrat legislator, freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, told Fox News’s Bill Hemmer that “I’m not going to be pushed into voting for impeachment. I literally have not made up my mind.” That’s BS, too. Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have emphatically stated that a) the evidence isn’t there, b) nothing that President Trump did rose to the level of impeachment and c) the charges are so vague that, using these standards, every president in US history would’ve gotten impeached.

How can voters take Democrats like Rep. Slotkin seriously after watching this testimony?

The thought that these Democrats are taking these charges seriously tells us that they’re partisans first, patriots far down the Democrats’ list of priorities. Picturing Democrats deep in thought over whether to impeach or not is ridiculous. The charges are weak and getting weaker. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert for President Trump’s lawsuit challenging the Democrats’ subpoenas. They don’t grant cert on frivolous lawsuits.

According to this USA Today article, Article 2 of Impeachment “accuses Trump of directing ‘the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas.'” According to the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t violate the Constitution by appealing the Democrats’ subpoena to the Supreme Court. That’s how disputes between the legislative and executive branches are resolved.

If the Supreme Court thinks that appealing a congressional subpoena is legitimate, then it’s impossible to think of that as an impeachable offense. If we’re being intellectually honest, then we’d admit that the Supreme Court’s decision should eliminate half of the articles of impeachment just voted on. It’s impossible to take House Democrats seriously if they insist that following the Constitution is an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz explained the foolishness better in this interview:

Later in the interview, Prof. Dershowitz was asked what he thought of his Democratic Party. He replied “Well, it should hurt them. The American people should hold them accountable. They have damaged the Constitution. They have inflicted a wound on our system of checks and balances and separation of powers.”

Let’s be exceptionally clear about this. Article 2 of the Democrats’ impeachment charges shouldn’t be passed. Let’s say, for the sake of this conversation, that the Senate convicts President Trump based on Article 2. That would mean that the Legislative Branch wasn’t a co-equal branch. It would mean that the Executive Branch took its orders from the Legislative Branch. That isn’t how the Constitution was written.

Professor Turley is right. This would be an abuse of power. Specifically, it would be Congressional Democrats’ abuse of power.

This afternoon, I wrote this post, which I titled “Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?” Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That’s the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.

This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 New York” with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:

Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that’s misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff’s bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?

Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum’s show. Here’s that interview:

During tonight’s interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked “what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?” That’s a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it’s been used before or whether it’s precedent-setting isn’t relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.

For now, the process doesn’t matter from a legal standpoint. That won’t last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn’t a set way to impeach a president, she’s foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren’t essential.

For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn’t important, then she doesn’t understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats’ witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won’t fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president’s counsel sit in on witness testimony can’t be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn’t be acted upon capriciously. It’s wonderfully ironic that Pelosi’s words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.

Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.

It isn’t surprising that AFSCME thugs don’t care about the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling. AFSCME cares more about political power than about the rule of law. This is what they’ll do to maintain political power:

In Minnesota, a Scandia Elementary School worker sued after AFSCME refused to let her out of the union. In Massachusetts and Oregon, unions have continued to illegally deduct dues. In Washington State, union members trying to exit were told they had to wait until a 10 day “escape period,” which wasn’t publicized and wouldn’t come until the next year. These are but a few examples.

AFSCME should get fined for these deliberate violations of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling. They weren’t the actions of people who didn’t understand the Supreme Court’s ruling. Quite the contrary. These were the actions of a union willing to do anything to maintain its political influence.

As for states that have an escape period (Washington State), the courts should abolish that provision. According to the Janus ruling, the First Amendment gives the people, as individuals, the authority to pick who they want to represent them to redress their grievances. The union, in this case AFSCME, doesn’t have the right to put conditions on when people can leave the union.

AFSCME is on the defensive, though they’re doing a good job of hiding it. This video is instructive:

The spokesman, Lee Saunders, said that many predicted AFSCME’s collapse after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME but that they’re rebounding. Saunders proclaims victory for a bill that hasn’t been introduced that would let employers “voluntarily” deduct union dues from workers’ paychecks.

That isn’t a victory. That’s a step back for the unions.

Yesterday, I watched Harris Faulkner’s interview of former NYTimes’ Executive Editor Jill Abramson. This article shows that Ms. Faulkner is a great interviewer because she’s a quick thinker who relies on logic.

Here’s a partial transcript of the key exchange:

“It’s true that material fact was left out and The Times ran an editor’s note explaining that, which is what you do when you leave something out, but it was no conspiracy to leave out that fact. It was, you know, unfortunately, cut from the piece — as I understand it,” Abramson said.

Faulkner responded by asking how the accuracy could be challenged when the alleged victim, and an alleged witness, didn’t cooperate.

“It’s hard to take on something that even the victims doesn’t say happened,” Faulkner said.

“Well, it’s friends of the victim… she has chosen not to talk to the press,” Abramson said, before adding that alleged witness Max Stier went to the FBI over the alleged incident.

Faulkner quickly added that Stier is a “former Democratic operative for the Clintons,” but the ex-Times honcho downplayed his liberal agenda.

“He works for a nonpartisan political group now,” Abramson said. “I don’t know that you can characterize him as a partisan. If he was such a partisan, why didn’t he go public with this right during the confirmation hearing when he could have really dealt a blow?”

Faulkner reminded Abramson that Stier did go to the FBI at the time. Abramson said that proved the investigation into Kavanaugh was a “sham,” to which Faulkner asked, “Then why did it end up in your paper?” Abramson responded that the incident is a “third example of sexual impropriety” by Justice Kavanaugh, to which Faulkner quickly added, “allegation.” “It’s important,” Abramson said.

That’s when Faulkner’s jaw dropped:

“Wow, you really think that, without the evidence from the victim’s own mouth,” a stunned Faulkner said.

There isn’t a court in this nation that would convict a person who was accused of any crime by a witness who didn’t see the alleged crime but who heard about it third-hand. Further, the ‘witness’ (Max Stier) would get demolished on cross-examination because he was part of Bill Clinton’s legal team while Justice Kavanaugh was part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Star’s team. There isn’t an ounce of corroboration in the article. Victims who don’t talk and lawyers who won’t consent to interviews with law enforcement don’t strengthen a case.

When people accuse a high-profile person of a heinous crime, they’d better have everything nailed down 9 ways to Sunday. If they’re only sort of prepared, they’ll get annihilated in court. A legal system that routinely allows hearsay testimony and that lets people get convicted on allegations alone isn’t a nation. It’s a third world dictatorship.

God help us if we’ve descended that far.

Anyone that thinks that Brett Kavanaugh’s family went through a living hell are right. It’s indisputable that the Kavanaugh family went through hell and then some. What’s frightening is that it’s likely that what they went through is nothing compared to what will happen if President Trump or President Pence picks someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsberg, especially if that Republican has a Republican Senate.

What Republicans need to understand is that this isn’t a confirmation process. To Democrats, confirming a Supreme Court justice that would tip the balance of the Court to a pro-Constitution majority is political bloodsport. It isn’t hyperbole to say that this is an existential threat to the Democratic Party. The biggest victories in the Democrats’ history weren’t won in the political branches, aka the legislative and executive branches. They were won through the judicial branch.

A judicial branch that isn’t heavily tilted in the Democrats’ direction is a frightening thought to Democrat demagogues. A solid originalist majority on the Supreme Court is the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

The lengths that hardline progressives will go to undermine originalist justices is disturbing. This weekend, the NYTimes ran an article that attempted to take another shot at Justice Kavanaugh that was, putting it charitably, thinly sourced. The ensuing firestorm has been telling:

Democrats couldn’t stop Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation but that isn’t stopping them from attempting to take a second bite at the proverbial apple. A story that was peddled last year that the NYTimes and the Washington Post rejected at the time is being peddled this year as a new story. The thing about this new story is that it’s being pushed by a Clinton operative who’s refused to be interviewed and whose alleged victim can’t recall the incident. Nonetheless, everyone is hyping the article. That includes the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and various other propagandist websites and networks.

Ancient hatemongers like Nan Aron will be out in force when the next nominee is named. Youthful hatemongers like Pete Buttigieg will criticize Republicans by preaching the liberal theology of taking the Bible out of context. Fictional stories, otherwise known as filthy lies, will be published claiming that the nominee is a combination of being meaner than Hitler, more bloodthirsty than Stalin and more ruthless than Ebenezer Scrooge.

Don’t think that these Democrat activists won’t attempt to subtly intimidate the nominees’ families. Remember that, to these Democrats, this is an existential threat. They won’t stop at throwing the kitchen sink at this nominee. If you think that I’m overreacting, remember what Democrats did to state legislative candidates last fall:

A candidate for Minnesota House in District 15B, Shane Mekeland, said he suffered a concussion when he was attacked while campaigning Friday at a restaurant in St. George Township. Benton County Sheriff Troy Heck said his office is investigating the alleged assault.

In another case, Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, says a man punched her in the arm after she confronted him about kicking some of her yard signs Sunday.

If people think that Democrats won’t come after the next Supreme Court nominee that a Republican makes, they haven’t learned from recent history. If Democrats won’t hesitate in attacking state legislators, why wouldn’t they attack a potential Supreme Court justice?

Republicans better prepare for the next confirmation battle. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be a test of wills. It’ll be a preview of Armageddon.

This weekend, the NYTimes ‘reported’ that “a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at [Deborah Ramirez], prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.” Here’s how the NYTimes article opens:

Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn’t prepared for what she’d find there. A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little. She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing. In the summers, she worked at Carvel dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she’d bought with babysitting earnings.

At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds. Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools. They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior that Ms. Ramirez, who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night, lacked.

During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

After that article ran this weekend, virtually all of the Democrats’ presidential candidates called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Sen. Hirono, one of the Democrats who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee start an impeachment investigation into the matter. This was a big story this weekend.

This morning, “The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.” According to this article, “The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.”

Suffice it to say that the NYTimes and the Democrat presidential candidates have egg on their face this morning. Ditto with Sen. Hirono. They were so willing to pounce on this story because they saw it as the perfect opportunity to take down Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump with a single story. Now the NYTimes is apologizing:


It said “Also, a tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive. We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved.”

Here’s Elizabeth Warren’s tweet:


The nomination wasn’t rammed through by any stretch of the imagination. What happened was that Democrats brought forth tons of unsubstantiated allegations once they knew Justice Kavanaugh would be confirmed. These allegations weren’t substantiated. Democrats panicked because they were certain that Kavanaugh would be part of the 5-4 ‘Republican majority’ that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, “Let us never forget what courage looks like.”

Let’s never forget what dishonesty looks like:

What do the shooters who killed people in Odessa, TX, El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH have in common? This isn’t difficult. I’m betting that we’d quickly agree that the 3 shooters are criminals. Considering that fact, isn’t it interesting that the Democrats’ first ‘solution’ is to violate law-abiding citizens’ civil rights?

Stop and think about that in those terms. If you wanted to lower crime, why would your first step be to restrict the civil rights of law-abiding citizens? That’s like a mechanic changing the oil and coolant when the customer told him that the car was having difficulty shifting from reverse to overdrive. In other words, it’s stupid to fix things that aren’t broken instead of fixing what’s broken.

Why wouldn’t Democrats fix the things that are broken rather than tinker with things that aren’t broken? They might if their highest priority was to fix things rather than to acquire power and check things off the Democrats’ ideological check list. The things that Democrats most want are checking items off their ideological checklist and obeying Resist Movement activists.

Most of the criminal gun violence is committed by handguns. Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike know this. They’ve known that for a generation or more. Why hasn’t Robert Francis O’Rourke insisted on a mandatory handgun confiscation program like he’s pushing his mandatory assault weapons confiscation plan?

O’Rourke won’t champion such a confiscation program because he knows that the fastest-growing group of people applying for conceal-carry permits are single moms. Taking the guns away from single moms that they use to protect their families is politically stupid. That’s why Robert Francis O’Rourke won’t propose such legislation. Neither will other Democrats.

Instead, it’s easier to propose confiscating scary-looking weapons like this:

The weapon above isn’t any more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that doesn’t have a pistol grip. That’s just reality. Finally, the assault weapons ban didn’t have an appreciable affect on gun crime because the so-called assault weapons that were banned in the legislation didn’t exist by the time the legislation took effect.

The assault weapons ban outlawed specific brands and models. The minute that the legislation was signed outlawing those guns, the manufacturers changed the model number. Problem solved. As I wrote here, the Heller Decision held:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled on guns “in common use.” As long as a gun is commonly owned, Congress can’t confiscate it.