Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

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.

After reading this article, there’s no doubt that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford had a sinister motive in stepping forward and making her wild accusations. At the time, I thought that it was highly possible Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn’t telling the truth. When Dr. Ford’s best friend said that she’d never met Brett Kavanaugh, I thought it was almost certain that Dr. Blasey-Ford hadn’t told the truth.

It’s worth noting that Debra Katz, a “high-powered progressive lawyer” who represented Dr. Blasey-Ford, said “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.”

The assault against Kavanaugh has been exposed, especially in the fantastic new book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, written by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. There will be an asterisk associated with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but it will be attached to the far-left activists who tried derailing Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Here’s the video proof of Katz’s statements:

What’s now known is that Dr. Ford came forward for partisan political reasons, not because she had proof that Brett Kavanaugh had done the things she’d accused him of doing. Lots of accusations were thrown at Justice Kavanaugh. The most discredited accusations were made by Julie Swetnick, then represented by Michael Avenatti, aka CPL, aka Creepy Porn Lawyer. In September, 2018, Swetnick swore out a statement under penalty of perjury, stating “I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.”

In October, 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred both Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal prosecution to the DOJ. The Democrats’ attempt to derail the confirmation of a judge who happened to be Catholic should frighten people who think that we shouldn’t hold a person’s religious beliefs against them if they’re applying for a position within the federal government. The Constitution forbids religious tests:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That text is found in Article VI, Clause 3. This is just the start. If/when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and President Trump still occupies the Oval Office and Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, all hell will break loose. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to figure that out. Joe Biden could even figure that out.

Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they’re threatening. In fact, I’d argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they’ll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let’s remember what the courts are to Democrats.

Without the courts, many of the Democrats’ ‘victories’ (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have ‘won’ less and less.

Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was “motivated by politics.” Democrats haven’t explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less “motivated by politics.”

The goal of these Democrats isn’t to make the courts less “motivated by politics.” It’s to pack the courts so the Court’s rulings are friendlier to Democrats. That’s what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here’s that text:

Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats’ goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That’s what Democrat machine politics looks like. It’s all about exercising raw political power. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing what’s right for the people.

This morning, Chris Wallace interviewed Vice President Pence, then House Majority Whip James Clyburn. Wallace noted, as I did in this post, that Democrats rejected President Trump’s offer literally before he officially made it. This morning, Wallace asked Clyburn why they rejected it instead of sitting down at a negotiating table.

Clyburn replied “What we’re trying to do here is get the government open. What we’ve said to the President is ‘let’s open the government. We could do that, as you said, tomorrow morning. He has bills that he could sign and open up the government right away.”

First, that isn’t the truth. None of the bills that Pelosi passed have been even been debated by the Senate. There aren’t any bills for President Trump to sign. Next, the Democrats aren’t dealing with a rookie negotiator. They’re dealing with Donald Trump. He knows that the minute he signs those bills is the minute Democrats insist on a take-it-or-leave-it deal on the wall. They will have gotten everything they wanted.

Democrats are experts at making promises, then virtually reneging on those promises. There’s nothing honorable about Democrats at the negotiating table.

There’s no reason to trust Democrats. Their record of reneging is lengthy. If Democrats filibuster President Trump’s bill this week, as I’m certain they will, President Trump should immediately announce he’s invoking the National Emergencies Act and that he’s intending to use his authorities to deal with the national emergency crisis hitting our southern border.

Democrats will file a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit, which they’ll win. President Trump should immediately ask the Supreme Court to hear the lawsuit. The sooner the lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, the sooner Democrats will lose.

Kevin Lindsey, the current commissioner of Minnesota’s Department of Human Rights, is on a collision course with the US Supreme Court. According to this article, Carl and Angel Larsen, the owners of Telescope Media Group, want to “use their wedding cinematography [business] to reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Standing in their way is the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which “mandates that if the Larsens make films celebrating marriage between one man and one woman, then they must make films celebrating same-sex marriages as well.”

The Minnesota Human Rights Act is likely unconstitutional, thanks in large part to a Supreme Court ruling from this past summer that said that a baker didn’t have to bake cakes for same-sex marriages.

There’s likely a First Amendment argument to be made, too. Government shouldn’t have the authority to tell businesses what they have to write.

State officials have repeatedly threatened to prosecute expressive business owners who decline to create speech promoting same-sex marriages. And there are steep penalties for violating the law, including payment of a civil penalty to the state, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $25,000, and even up to 90 days in jail.

The Larsens can’t comply with Minnesota’s speech-compelling law. Telling stories that celebrate a same-sex marriage would violate their religious beliefs and directly contradict the very message about marriage they desire to express. But they also don’t want to be investigated, prosecuted, and possibly jailed simply for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Whether you’re for or against same-sex marriage, the heart of the matter is that government shouldn’t have the authority to tell individuals or companies what they have to write.

According to the WCCO video, the Larsens won their appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. If Lindsey appeals the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, which is likely, he’ll likely lose in the Supreme Court. Simply put, the DFL should stop passing laws that aren’t constitutional.