Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category
Thursday night, I was flipping through the channels at about 10:30. Lou Dobbs was discussing gun violence with Bill O’Reilly so I thought I’d take a moment to hear what they’d have to say.
O’Reilly said that background checks were good but that it was necessary for legal gun owners to register guns. Then he said something that frightened me and angered Dobbs. O’Reilly said that there should be a law that gave a 10 year mandatory sentence to people who didn’t register their guns. Here’s O’Reilly’s explanation/’justification’ for his law:
O’REILLY: But if you had the registration and the cops went out and stopped and frisked and grabbed the gun, that’s a 10 year penalty.
Later, he said that this would be done as a preventative measure. There’s just one sticky problem with O’Reilly’s law. It’s unconstitutional. The first time it got challenged in the Supreme Court, it’d be ruled unconstitutional with a near-unanimous vote. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches of this kind. Here’s the text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I’m not a constitutional attorney but I’d argue that requiring probable cause to be proven prohibits ‘preventative searches’.
Imagine police being able to search a person without obtaining a warrant. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, law officers would be able to go anywhere and search for anything at any time for any reason. That isn’t American. That’s what Third World dictators do in a police state. It’s what they did in the former Soviet Union or Saddam’s Iraq. It’s what they’re doing in China and North Korea.
I don’t doubt that Mr. O’Reilly’s intentions are sincere. There’s no question in my mind that he genuinely wants to protect children from gun violence. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. O’Reilly is a reactionary. He doesn’t think things through. It isn’t likely that he ever will.
While watching Vice President Biden talk on the substantive issues of the day, I often get the impression that the color of the sun in his world is different than the sun that this earth orbits. This interview is one for the ages:
Block: Let’s start with the assault weapons ban that does appear to be dying in the Senate. Is the White House still pushing to have that passed? Do you assume that it’s now not going to happen?
Biden: I am still pushing that it pass. We are still pushing that it pass. The same thing was told to me when the first assault weapons ban in 1994 was attached to the Biden Crime bill; that it couldn’t possibly pass. It was declared dead several times. I believe that the vast majority of the American people agree with us. The vast majority of gun owners agree with us. That military-style assault weapons are – these are weapons of war. They don’t belong in the street, and the recent decision declaring the right of someone to own a weapon in their home for self-protection, Justice [Antonin] Scalia acknowledged that you can constitutionally banned certain type of weapons. And, so, I haven’t given up on this.
Block: You are going to push for it. The Majority Leader Harry Reid says he doesn’t even have 40 votes for the assault weapons ban.
Biden: Look, last time we passed it we only had seven Republican votes in 1994.
Block: But he doesn’t have the Democrats.
Biden: Well, again. I have never found that it makes any sense to support something and declare that there is no possibility of it passing. There is a lot happening. Attitudes are changing, and I think the president and I are going to continue to push and we haven’t given up on it.
Having only 7 Republicans vote for the 1994 assault weapons ban is one thing. Having all 45 Republicans and 15 or more Democrats voting against Sen. Feinstein’s bill is quite another. Apparently, Vice President Biden hasn’t figured that out.
As foolish as that is, the part that’s more telling is when he says that “attitudes are changing” about assault weapons. If he’s thinking that attitudes are changing in the administration’s direction, he needs to hop in his spaceship and return to this solar system.
Then again, perhaps we’re better off with him off in that distant galaxy.
This video shows how in the tank and/or stupid MSNBC is about the Constitution:
Here’s what Andrea Mitchell said about the shootout at the I’m not a sixth grader corral:
I brought my handy pocket Constitution with me today just to make the point that this (the fight between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein) was not a fair fight because Ted Cruz thought that, somehow, he was going to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there.
Ms. Mitchell is a blowhard and a political hack. Notice that she didn’t address the arguments Sen. Cruz made in belittling Sen. Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee. Here’s that video:
Here’s what Sen. Cruz said that ripped Sen. Feinstein’s arguments to shreds:
My fourth and final point is that the Constitution should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws and it’s up to the courts to determine constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body.
There has been a suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case, having been an active part in litigating and winning it 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court said in Heller — it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissable. For example, it specifically identified the current ban on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as, in that case handguns were the principle issue being discussed, and the same arguments that are being suggested about why assault weapons could be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller why handguns could be banned.
The Supreme Court said “No, if they’re in common use for self defense, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.” We have heard testimony that there are some 4,000,000 weapons that would be covered by this legislation. I would suggest that, by any measure, 4,000,000 weapons qualifies as common use. So, under the terms in Heller, they can not be constitutionally prohibited.
Mitchell’s argument is based totally on the logic that Sen. Feinstein has been in DC a long time. She’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, she wins the fight. Sen. Cruz’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, which dealt with Washington, DC’s ban on handguns.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional because it infringes on people’s right to defend themselves and their families. That’s consistent with the plain language of the Second Amendment.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to argue against SCOTUS’ ruling in Heller, she has to argue against the plain language of the Second Amendment. That’s an uphill fight at best.
Sen. Feinstein’s argument, if it can even be classified as such, isn’t based on the Constitution. It’s based on the time-tested liberal axiom of “Surely, we must do something.” That axiom isn’t rooted in thinking things through. It’s based on emotion, which is basing policy on the shakiest of grounds.
Ms. Mitchell is right in the sense that this wasn’t a fair fight. Sen. Feinstein was overmatched by the freshman Republican who knew substantially more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It’s pretty embarrassing when a freshman schools a committee chair on the chair’s supposed area of expertise. That’s what happened, though. That’s because Sen. Feinstein didn’t think about the rights protected by the Constitution. Conversely, Sen. Cruz had an intimate and thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling.
What’s most delightful is that the best is yet to come. Sen. Feinstein’s bill doesn’t stand a fighting chance in the Senate. I’d bet that Republicans won’t filibuster Sen. Feinstein’s bill because they’ll want vulnerable Democrats to vote on Sen. Feinstein’s bill.
The confrontation between Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cruz showed how little respect Sen. Feinstein has for the Bill of Rights. When she told Sen. Cruz that she “isn’t a sixth-grader“, she guaranteed tons of publicity for her bill. Here’s the key exchange between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein:
“Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” Cruz said, speaking to Feinstein.
“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?”
Pointing her finger and glaring at Cruz, Feinstein shot back.
“One, I’m not a sixth grader,” Feinstein said. “Senator, I’ve been on this Committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in and I saw people shot with these weapons.
“I’m not a lawyer,” she added, “but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. … So I, you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.”
“I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you used the word ‘prohibit’ – it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that other people use in close combat? I don’t think so.”
First, Sen. Feinstein apparently thinks that it’s ok to infringe upon people’s rights to defend themselves. Second, it’s apparent that Sen. Feinstein thinks there’s a secret exception to the Second Amendment, one where it’s ok to prohibit the manufacture of certain types of weapons as long as a pompous senator “saw people shot with” the weapons she wants banned.
Using Sen. Feinstein’s logic, she’d be fine with banning the manufacture of handguns, too. In fact, handguns kill more people than so-called assault weapons by a huge margin.
What’s frightening is Sen. Feinstein’s criteria for violating the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein thinks anything that looks frightening should be banned. Sen. Feinstein apparently didn’t pay attention to the SCOTUS rulings on the DC and Chicago bans on handguns. The text of the Second Amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Passing laws that prohibit the manufacture of certain types of guns is infringing on the people’s right to protect themselves.
What’s most frightening isn’t that Sen. Feinstein isn’t smarter than a sixth grader. It’s that she doesn’t respect the clearly written text of the Bill of Rights.
This has been an intense week of hearings on Rep. Paymar’s gun confiscation legislation. Tim Jazursky’s testimony was particularly riveting. Not all of the testimony was intense. This testimony wasn’t intense as much as it was educational:
After Rep. Hausman talked about how Second Amendment advocates don’t talk about the opening words of the Amendment, Hamline law Professor Joseph Olson explained why. Here’s what he told the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee:
I actually had one of my articles cited in Heller so I know Judge Scalia knows — is familiar with my work. I’ve read the opinion a number of times. I teach it in my seminar at Hamline Law School. The Supreme Court did 2 things in the Heller case that are relevant to the discussion as Rep. Hausman brought it up.
One, in Heller, the Supreme Court made clear that the introductory clause of the Amendment isn’t part of the normative statement. In other words, the introductory clause is not part of the rule of law. The rule of law is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
The Paymar-Hausman gun confiscation hearings show why this issue is fraught with perils for the DFL. The DFL has been on the wrong side of this issue for most of my adult life. They’re wedded ideologically to a failed set of policies.
Stricter gun control laws aren’t the solution. Whether they’ve been implemented in Chicago, Washington, DC or elsewhere, they haven’t solved the problem. The DFL’s policy perscriptions are ideologically driven. Not only that but they’re constitutionally questionable.
If any of these bills are signed into law, the DFL will be bigtime losers. Rural DFL legislators might get defeated simply by being tied to the metro DFL anti-gun extremists. That might also hurt Gov. Dayton’s re-election chances. The DFL would be better off steering clear of this issue. They’d be better off figuring out solutions to the problem of violence in society.
It’s easy to picture Minnesota Republicans praying that the DFL pushes this legislation. The DFL is all but guaranteeing a GOP majority in the House of Representatives in 2015.
President Obama touted his gun confiscation agenda during his visit to Minneapolis Monday. One of the first things he touted was his call to ban “military-style assault weapons.”
He later said that it was time to limit clips to no more than 10 rounds. President Obama’s advance team didn’t do their homework because Rep. Michael Paymar has introduced HF241, which would define assault weapon as:
Subd. 7. Semiautomatic military-style Assault weapon. “Semiautomatic
1.17military-style Assault weapon” means any:
1.18(1) any of the following firearms:
1.19(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-47) semiautomatic rifle type;
1.20(ii) Beretta AR-70 and BM-59 semiautomatic rifle types;
1.21(iii) Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle type;
1.22(iv) Daewoo Max-1 and Max-2 semiautomatic rifle types;
1.23(v) Famas MAS semiautomatic rifle type;
1.24(vi) Fabrique Nationale FN-LAR and FN-FNC semiautomatic rifle types;
2.1(vii) Galil semiautomatic rifle type;
2.2(viii) Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, and HK-94 semiautomatic rifle types;
2.3(ix) Ingram MAC-10 and MAC-11 semiautomatic pistol and carbine types;
2.4(x) Intratec TEC-9 semiautomatic pistol type;
2.5(xi) Sigarms SIG 550SP and SIG 551SP semiautomatic rifle types;
2.6(xii) SKS with detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle type;
2.7(xiii) Steyr AUG semiautomatic rifle type;
2.8(xiv) Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolving-cylinder shotgun types;
2.9(xv) USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun type;
2.10(xvi) Uzi semiautomatic pistol and carbine types; or
2.11(xvii) Valmet M76 and M78 semiautomatic rifle types;
2.12(2) any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the
2.13firearms listed in clause (1), and has the same action design as one of the listed firearms,
2.14and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed in clause
2.15(1), or has a slight modification or enhancement, including but not limited to a folding or
2.16retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed shooters; shorter barrel;
2.17wooden, plastic, or metal stock; larger clip size; different caliber; or a bayonet mount; and
2.18(3) any firearm that has been manufactured or sold by another company under a
2.19licensing agreement with a manufacturer of one of the firearms listed in clause (1) entered
2.20into after the effective date of Laws 1993, chapter 326, to manufacture or sell firearms that
2.21are identical or nearly identical to those listed in clause (1), or described in clause (2),
2.22regardless of the company of production or country of origin.
2.23The weapons listed in clause (1), except those listed in items (iii), (ix), (x), (xiv),
2.24and (xv), are the weapons the importation of which was barred by the Bureau of Alcohol,
2.25Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury in July 1989.
2.26Except as otherwise specifically provided in paragraph (d), a firearm is not a
2.27″semiautomatic military-style assault weapon” if it is generally recognized as particularly
2.28suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes under United States Code, title 18,
2.29section 925, paragraph (d)(3), or any regulations adopted pursuant to that law.
2.30(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
2.31has one or more of the following:
2.32(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
2.33(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the
2.35(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
3.1(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the
3.2barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
3.3burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
3.4(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a
3.5fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition
During his speech, as with all his speeches, President Obama said that his political opponents are attempting to gin up fear with talk of confiscating guns. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” President Obama said. While Rep. Paymar didn’t use the term confiscate in his legislation, banning semi-automatic pistols that have standard issue clips is confiscation. As such, it doesn’t stand a chance of passing constitutional muster in the SCOTUS:
Under Heller and McDonald, it is settled that Americans have a constitutional right to possess handguns for purposes of self-defense. The overwhelming majority of handguns in the United States are semiautomatics. A semiautomatic handgun is essentially inoperable without a magazine. (I suppose you could put a single bullet in the chamber and use the gun like an old-fashioned derringer, but that would reduce its value for self-defense to close to the vanishing point. [UPDATE: As a commenter points out, even that wouldn't work with the many pistols that have magazine safeties.]) The vast majority of magazines have more than a seven-bullet capacity. There are some small pistols designed for concealed carry with magazines that limited, but any ordinary-sized pistol comes with a magazine that will hold at least ten bullets, and usually more. So a magazine that holds more than seven bullets is not “high capacity,” it is “standard capacity.”
President Obama didn’t criticize Rep. Paymar’s gun confiscation legislation during his visit to highlight the legislature’s gun confiscation hearings this week at the Capitol.
By not criticizing Rep. Paymar’s legislation, he’s opening himself up to speculation that he’s ok with confiscating semi-automatic pistols. Couple his legislative agenda to ban scary-looking weapons with his not speaking out against Chicago’s ban of handguns and it’s pretty clear that President Obama isn’t opposed to banning handguns.
This morning, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a number of President Obama’s recess appointments violated the US Constitution:
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments, those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.
This wasn’t a split decision. It was unanimous. President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB aren’t legitimate, thereby depriving that board of the quorum needed to make rulings.
The question now is whether President Obama will act as defiant as he usually acts. My bet is that he’ll act defiant because he doesn’t know any other way of acting. Another question left unanswered is whether the American people will express outrage over this president’s indignation towards the US Constitution. Finally, will Democrats defend President Obama’s extraconstitutional actions in their attempt to appease Big Labor?
I’m betting that President Obama will remain defiant. I’m betting that the American people won’t express outrage that President Obama thinks that the Constitution and the laws don’t apply to him. Finally, I’m betting that Democrats will defend President Obama’s appointments because they’re afraid of incurring Big Labor’s wrath.
This is significant, too:
The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.
“The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote.
TRANSLATION: The patriots that crafted the Constitution had more respect for the Constitution than do today’s politicians. I heartily agree.
Democratic lawmakers are urging President Obama to force Republicans to take him to court over the controversial issue of raising the debt ceiling.
They believe the Supreme Court ultimately will have to resolve the battle over spending now raging between Republicans and the president.
But how the courts will rule is shrouded in uncertainty because little case law exists to serve as meaningful precedent, legal scholars say.
Democrats in Congress argue Obama should not feel constrained by the 1917 debt-limit law, which the federal government is projected to hit in late February, because it conflicts with other laws.
“The president, I think, has the authority under the Constitution and under the various statutes that are passed, if nothing is done, he must do something about paying the bills,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). “That issue may well go to the courts in our system.
It’s disgusting that a US senator would say something this deceitful. Ed excoriates Sen. Udall’s argument in a New York minute:
Supporters of this newfound presidential power over statute have been pointing to the 14th Amendment, specifically its fourth clause: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” However, that passage doesn’t give the executive branch authority to do anything, and in fact requires that the debt “be authorized by law.”
Who does the authorizing? The more directly relevant Constitutional reference comes in Article I, Section 8, which specifically assigns Congress the authority to borrow: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States[.]“ The debt limit itself is Congressional authorization for the executive branch (through the Treasury) to borrow what is needed.
If President Obama attempted to raise the debt limit through executive fiat, he’d be challenged in the courts before the announcement would be an hour old, most likely in the DC Circuit. One thing that might happen is that the court could grant a TRO prohibiting President Obama from enforcing this. The other option is that they’d rule against President Obama’s anti-constitutional action.
The clear language of the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. That means the executive branch is prohibited from taking this extraconstitutional action. Further, any ConLaw professor will quickly note that laws that conflict with the US Constitution are unconstitutional, meaning that they’re a moot point.
It isn’t likely that President Obama will take this action because it would clearly expose him as running an imperial presidency. That isn’t the type of thing he’d want as part of his legacy.
This article makes lots of sense in saying the ACA might well go the way of the BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold. First, here’s what Catron said about the process that got rid of the BCRA:
Another provision of Obamacare being challenged in court is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). IPAB, you will recall, is Obamacare’s rationing board. When PPACA was signed into law, Congress transferred much of its power to this committee, which will decide what services will be approved by Medicare and how much the providers of those services will be paid. The Goldwater Institute has filed a lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, which challenges the constitutionality of IPAB under the separation of powers doctrine.
Congress has sole authority on setting the parameters of service. Congress essentially said that they were getting out of the oversight business and that they were giving future presidents a blank check on health care.
This might be the biggest sticking point in the ACA:
And, no list of Obamacare lawsuits would be complete without mentioning the Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the illegal IRS rule by which the Obama administration will attempt to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, despite the law’s stipulation that such premium-assistance can only be offered via state-run exchanges. This litigation is, in many ways, the most important of all the lawsuits. Without its insurance exchanges, and the accompanying subsidies, Obamacare will crash and burn.
The bill’s language is quite clearly written. Only those people who purchase their health insurance through state-run exchanges can get premium-assistance subsidies. If the Obama administration can’t extend these subsidies to exchanges run by the federal government, they’re in a difficult position because tons of states have said that they aren’t establishing state-run exchanges:
Over the past week, the list of states not participating in the system has grown to nineteen as the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Nebraska chose to join sixteen others in rejecting the state health insurance exchange that is called for under the Obamacare law.
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced his choice in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday writing, “No matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents.”
Maine Governor Paul LePage wrote to Sebelius explaining why his state won’t implement the state exchange saying, “In the end, a state exchange puts the burden onto the states and the expense onto our taxpayers, without giving the state the authority and flexibility we must have to best meet the needs of the people of Maine.”
It’s clear that at least 19 states are opting not to establish state-run exchanges, meaning the federal government must implement fed-run exchanges. That’s without undecided states making their decisions. Those states include Florida, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arkansas and Iowa.
NOTE: That’s the status as of Nov. 16. It’s likely that at least half of the states that are undecided will reject state-run exchanges, driving the total north of 25 states. If all those states reject establishing state-run exchanges, that represents approximately 162,616,000, which is significantly more than half of the U.S. population of 309,000,000.
Not only wouldn’t those people get subsidized health insurance but it would force the federal government to foot the bills for the exchanges. That will dramatically drive up the federal government’s annual deficits. If you think they’re outrageous now, you’re right. If the federal government has to run 25-28 individual exchanges, these deficits will seem like the good old days.
Killing the PPACA can’t happen soon enough. Once that’s done, serious people can implement real health care reform.
People for the American Way, one of DC’s most liberal special interest groups, is trying to kick Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee with trumped up charges. Here’s what they’re saying:
In an Oct. 3 paid message in The Nation magazine, People for the American Way said “these fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics have no place in Congress and especially have no place on the House Intelligence Committee.”
Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Feeney and Trent Franks asked the IGs of several cabinet departments to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence on US foreign policy. That’s what PFAW characterizes as “fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics.”
PFAW is nothing more than another fringe lefty organization. They’ve got a patriotic-sounding name and a radical leftist agenda. PFAW’s board of directors reads like a who’s who of committed leftists. Alec Baldwin, Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond and founder Norman Lear are the highest profile board members. This key paragraph from PFAW’s statement on John Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court speaks volumes:
We are disappointed with those Democrats and moderate Republicans who chose to support Judge Roberts, despite his long record of working to undermine rights and legal protections, his evasive answers to the Senate, and the Bush administration’s continued refusal to release key documents that would have illuminated his record and approach to the Constitution.
That’s BS. John Roberts was a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for 2 years before his confirmation as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s impossible to accumulate a “long record of working to undermine rights.”
Now PFAW is criticizing Michele Bachmann, arguing that she’s using McCarthyite fear tactics.
“Rep. Bachmann’s reckless behavior is an abuse of her sensitive position on the committee, a threat to our national security, and an discredit her office and to our great nation ….I think the time has come for her to be removed from Congress once and for all.”
Graves’ statement sounds awfully similar to PFAW’s statement. That’s proof he isn’t the new Democrat he’s said he is.