Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

If Kim Gardner wanted to pick a fight, she’s picked the wrong fight. She isn’t just fighting the McCloskeys, who are both attorneys. She’s also picked a fight with Antonin Scali, who wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. That’s a fight that she’s already lost. Further, she’s picked a fight against Eric Schmitt, the Missouri Attorney General and Josh Hawley, Schmitt’s predecessor. These are fights she’s destined to lose.

This Redstate.com article highlights the extent that AG Schmitt is prepared. This won’t be a pretty ending for Ms. Gardner. AG Schmitt’s tweet storm is both blistering and extensive. I won’t post all of AG Schmitt’s tweets. I’ll just post 3 tweets to illustrate the foolishness of Ms. Gardner’s case.


If Ms. Gardner wants to fight that fight, that’s her option. It’s a foolish option, though, because her prosecution might prevent the McCloskeys from assisting their clients. If the McCloskeys prove that they’ve been harmed financially because of Ms. Gardner’s prosecution, that might expose her office to a lawsuit.

If that happened, Eric Schmitt would make a powerful opening witness. Video of the broken down gate to the community would strengthen such a lawsuit. Testimony by the McCloskeys themselves would seal the deal. They’ve told law enforcement that the troublemakers pointed to specific rooms, then told the McCloskeys how they planned on using each room after they’d conquered the property.

Discretion is the better part of valor. If Gardner was smart, she’d drop this before this gets to trial. Otherwise, the outcome might be quite painful.

In 2018, Democrats insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh shouldn’t be presumed innocent. Sen. Schumer, the Democrat Minority Leader, said that in this press availability:

By comparison, Nancy Pelosi insisted that Joe Biden be afforded due process rights:

Let’s be clear about this. Democrats are world-class hypocrites. During his disastrous interview with Mika Brzezinski, Joe Biden said that his life “was an open book.” Then he said that he wouldn’t let his congressional records be searched for any records related to Tara Reade. Biden insisted that they wouldn’t find anything because “it never, ever happened.”

First, Biden painted himself into a corner by saying that his Senate documents contained speeches from the Senate floor, in addition to white papers and other work-related documents. That means that the documents aren’t his. They belong to We The People.

Next and most importantly, Dr. Blasey-Ford’s friends didn’t offer corroboration that substantiated Dr. Ford’s allegations:

It wasn’t the quality of the allegation that led to this reaction. Blasey Ford had no evidence she had ever met Kavanaugh, much less that he had tried to rape her. She wasn’t sure about any detail related to the event other than that she had precisely one beer and that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her.

She didn’t know how she got to the alleged event, where it was, how she got home, or whose house it was. None of the four witnesses she identified to reporters as having been at the event in question supported her claim. That included her close friend Leland Keyser, who was pressured by mutual acquaintances to change her testimony that she had no recollection of the event in question. Kavanaugh had an army of close friends and supporters who testified to his character throughout his adolescence and adulthood.

Compare that with Tara Reade’s accusation:

For instance, Reade has evidence she met Biden. No one disputes she worked for him in 1993. Further, she has incredibly strong evidence that she told multiple people that Biden assaulted her at the time she claimed it happened. Her own mother called into CNN’s Larry King show to discuss the matter in 1993!

Democrat women senators unanimously insisted that Kavanaugh wasn’t fit to serve on the Supreme Court. Those same Democrat senators aren’t wavering a bit about Creepy Joe Biden:

The big question is whether those Democrat senators, starting with Mazie Hirono, will “shut up and step up”, then do the right thing. It’s time that she, especially, should apologize for her unhinged antics.

Some outrageous things were said by Democrat senators when they attempted to demolish then-Judge Kavanaugh’s family. Elizabeth Warren, later a Democrat presidential candidate, made some disgusting statements regarding then-Judge Kavanaugh. In a speech from the Senate floor, Warren said “Republicans want to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and they will ignore, suppress, or shout down any inconvenient facts that might give the American people pause about this nomination. Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court, and they are willing to step on anyone — including the victim of a vicious sexual assault — in order to advance their agenda.”

The biggest thing missing from Sen. Warren’s diatribe was the truth. Christine Blasey-Ford’s best friend, who was supposed to corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, testified that she didn’t know Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, including the misstatement that Dr. Ford doesn’t fly. We found this out after-the-fact:

Senate Democrats and the legal team for Ford forced multiple delays of the hearing because Ford was allegedly unable to fly due to extreme anxiety. He pivoted to Ford’s statements to Senators that she couldn’t come to Washington D.C. by Monday because she’s “afraid to fly on airplanes” and that her fear is directly connected to her alleged assault by Kavanaugh.

“But wait, is this true?” Carlson asked. “Ford has relatives on the east coast. According to published accounts, she’s been here recently. Did she drive back and forth to California every time she visited? We don’t know. Then last week, The New York Times reported that Ford did graduate work at the University of Hawaii. That’s on an island thousands of miles in the Pacific. How exactly did she get there?”

Apparently, telling the truth isn’t one of Sen. Warren’s priorities.

Apparently, protecting creepy old senators is one of Sen. Warren’s priorities. She hasn’t said a thing about VP Biden’s alleged sexual assault of Tara Reade. Sen. Klobuchar provided some odd opinions of Dr. Ford, too:

2018: “She was so graceful and so dignified, went through every question you could imagine… What she was doing was basically laying out the fact that you have so well articulated during the show, is that she actually has talked about this in the past, she said it to a therapist, her husband had remembered the name Brett Kavanaugh, she has with some detail remembered the assault. And all she’s asked is that the FBI figure out when Mark Judge was working at this Safeway when she saw him later because that would help her get the exact date.” – Sept. 27, 2018 to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

Sen. Klobuchar pretends to be a warrior for women. Selective accountability seems more her style:

Fox News reached out to Klobuchar for comment after the “Larry King Live” video resurfaced, which occurred after the interview with NPR, but did not receive a response.

This is hilarious:


Then there’s Kamala Harris’s opinion:

2018: “Ours was not a search to determine whether a crime occurred. Ours was not a search to determine whether we had enough facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred. No, ours was an investigation to figure out enough about what happened to determine if Brett Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the highest court in our land. Is he fit to be a jurist in the place where we have said justice in our country occurs? In the house where we listen to evidence and truth and make determinations based on the veracity and truthfulness of what has occurred. That is our role when it comes to Dr. Ford’s allegations, and we fell short. We fell short. We did not do her justice. We did not do the American people justice.” – Oct. 5, 2018, in a floor speech opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

Notice that Harris used the term allegations. She didn’t vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Harris, like the other Democrats in the Senate, voted against Justice Kavanaugh. After praising VP Biden, the Tara Reade accusations came out:

Fox News reached out to Harris for comment after the “Larry King Live” video resurfaced, which occurred after her interview with “It’s All Political,” but did not receive a response.

Apparently, selective accountability is the Democrats’ strategy.

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.