Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Judiciary category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

Let’s stipulate at the start that progressives hyperventilate about virtually anything conservative anytime it’s brought up. Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings aren’t an exception, apparently. This article fits into that category.

It starts by saying “The Brett Kavanaugh hearings—such as they are—began on Wednesday to take on a shape that ordinary citizens can understand. When discussing the law, Judge Kavanaugh has been an impressive witness. But anyone watching the hearings Wednesday morning could see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails a decade and a half ago.”

I watched yesterday’s hearing. Actually, you couldn’t “see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails.” Check out this video and determine for yourselves if Judge Kavanaugh looked uncomfortable at any point in this heated exchange:

There was a point when Judge Kavanaugh looked inquisitive but there wasn’t a point when he looked worried.

Saying that Sen. Klobuchar was outmatched when she questioned Judge Kavanaugh is understatement. Simply put, she got her butt kicked — royally. At issue was an article Judge Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review.

In the article, “Kavanaugh, a D.C. appeals court judge, had proposed that presidents not be subject to criminal investigation while in office, citing the distractions caused by probes into misconduct by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.” During testimony Wednesday, Kavanaugh explained, saying “that it would be up to Congress to consider what constitutes an impeachable offense, and that he had not intended to address it as a constitutional issue”, adding that “The idea that I talked about was something for Congress to look at if it wanted to.”

In other words, Judge Kavanaugh has a policy position on the matter and that it’s irrelevant because his policy preferences don’t matter once he puts on his black robe. This is the key part of the exchange:

Judge Kavanaugh clearly stated that he hadn’t written the article from a judicial position, that he’d written it as a thought piece. That apparently escaped Sen. Klobuchar, which is actually revealing. Based on her reaction, she apparently thinks that a person’s personal beliefs should translate into their judicial rulings. It’s apparent that Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a judge’s personal opinions are irrelevant, that the law and the Constitution are the most important things.

Those are pretty dramatic differences in styles and outcomes.

After the passing of Sen. McCain, it was well-established fact that Gov. Doug Ducey, (R-AZ), would name someone to serve the rest of Sen. McCain’s term. I’m thrilled that Gov. Ducey picked Sen. Jon Kyl to serve the rest of Sen. McCain’s term.

The key part of the article said “Under Arizona law, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) named McCain’s successor to serve until the 2020 election. The winner there will serve the remainder of McCain’s term, until the 2022 election. If Kyl leaves before the 2020 election, Ducey would make another appointment.” It then continues, saying “Ducey said he opted to ‘pick the best possible person, regardless of politics. There is no one in Arizona with the stature of Jon Kyl,’ Ducey said, noting how Kyl has been working with the White House over the past few months to advance the nomination of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. ‘Now Sen. Kyl can cast a vote for Kavanaugh’s nomination.'”

Speaking of today’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Sasse’s speech is must viewing:

It’s a history lesson on the Democrats’ tactics at SCOTUS nominees’ hearings. It’s especially brutal after hearing Amy Klobuchar’s attempt to lecture senators on the importance of the rule of law right before Sen. Sasse’s speech.

Hearing Sen. Klobuchar lecture people on the rule of law after she sat silent after Mollie Tibbets was murdered by an illegal alien is more than a little rich. The good news is that Sen. Kyl is a real senator, not a showboat like St. Amy of Hennepin County, my nickname for Sen. Klobuchar because of her pristine image.

Since the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, Democrats have complained that they’re getting stonewalled in terms of documents in addition to making claims that Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v. Wade or side with President Trump in determining that presidents “are above the law.” BTW, that might be the Democrats’ most ridiculous allegation.

The Democrats’ latest line of complaint is that they aren’t getting all of the documents they’re entitled to. Chairman Grassley demolishes those arguments in a New York minute in this interview:

When Chairman Grassley stated that “this is more documents than the last 5 Supreme Court nominees have had in total”, he totally obliterated the Democrats’ arguments. Then Chairman Grassley polished them off by saying “They should say ‘Praise the Lord. We’ve got more to ask for.’ Besides, don’t forget, 307 opinions he wrote and both Schumer and Leahy have said in the case of Sotomayor, “We know what you stand for because you’ve got a lot of opinions.” It’s the best basis for making your objective judgment to be on the Supreme Court.”

This nomination fight is over. The Democrats lost. The Constitution wins. Hooray. Kavanaugh isn’t a wannabe politician in a black robe. He’s a judge. That’s what Democrats hate about him. That’s part of the Kavanaugh conundrum.

This incoherent scribbling in the Huffington Post highlights what desperate straits the Democrats are in. The chief scribbler says Brett Kavanaugh’s “confirmation is far from inevitable”, noting that, thanks to “Sen. John McCain’s illness, Republicans have a tiny effective majority of 50 to 49 in the Senate. If Democrats all vote against confirmation — which is not impossible — Republicans must unanimously hold the line.”

Clearly, this is a case of extreme wishful thinking. First, Chuck Schumer isn’t whipping this vote. Next, red state Democrats won’t sacrifice their seats just to keep some Indivisible/Resistance crazies happy.

Then there’s this:

Two of the Republicans who voted against ending the Affordable Care Act, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are still very much in play, despite early signals that some think may mean they are leaning toward confirmation. Three other Republican senators may also be unreliable votes for confirmation, depending on how the confirmation process plays out: Jeff Flake of Arizona, Dean Heller of Nevada and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

This writer doesn’t offer any evidence that Collins, Murkowski, Flake, Heller or Gardner are considering voting against confirming Kavanaugh. It’s entirely speculation.

Kavanaugh’s record indicates he would likely vote to reverse the narrowly decided Supreme Court ruling finding the Affordable Care Act constitutional. That allows opponents to argue that if a senator votes for confirmation of Kavanaugh, he or she is voting to take away your health care. This is the issue that caused Murkowski and Collins to dramatically break with their party last summer, and you can expect it to take a major role in efforts aimed at swaying their votes again.

There is also very little question that Kavanaugh would vote to gut Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Yet a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose repealing Roe, including 52 percent of self-identified Republicans. Even in red states like Manchin’s West Virginia, Heitkamp’s North Dakota or Donnelly’s Indiana, voters don’t want a woman’s right to make her own choices about pregnancy taken away.

Is there anything in this scribbling that suggests a connection with reality? I’ll stipulate that it has a connection with the Democrats’ talking points. That isn’t the same as a connection with reality, though.

The truth is that I hope that Democrats vote unanimously against confirming Judge Kavanaugh. It’ll make defeating them this November that much easier. ‘Uncle Orrin’ Hatch has had enough of the Democrats’ stupidity:

Good for him. It’s long past time.

This Politico article contains some of the best news I’ve seen all day. When I read “the party’s base is demanding Schumer and his colleagues wage a knock-down, drag-out fight”, I couldn’t help but smile from ear-to-ear.

Let’s be upfront about this. I don’t expect this to happen. Still, if the Democrats want to imperil their most vulnerable senators, I’ll be happy to see that happen. I’d love to see Republicans pick up 6-7 seats instead of 2-3 seats in the Senate.

Still, if the Democrats’ base insists on a knock-down-drag-out fight, Republicans should smile, then hit these red-state Democrats hard until they’re too toxic to win. In some cases, that shouldn’t be that difficult. It’s important that we remember that this vote isn’t the only thing that senators like Manchin, Donnelly, Tester, Heitkamp and Nelson will be judged on. Tester and Nelson voted against Gorsuch. All of them voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Don’t think that those votes won’t be included in the GOP’s closing arguments in late October and early November.

Still, how long at-risk Democrats can or should hold out is a complicated political equation that could affect their survival in November. As long as they remain undecided, deep-pocketed conservative groups like the Judicial Crisis Network and Americans for Prosperity will continue pounding them with pro-Kavanaugh ads and activism in their states.

A spokeswoman for JCN said it would pull ads when and if Democratic senators come out in support of Kavanaugh and shift to thanking the nominee’s supporters. Meanwhile, GOP opponents, who expect some of these Democrats to ultimately support Kavanaugh, are hitting them for their supposed indecision.

Organizations like the Judicial Crisis Network are already running ads like this against Democrats:

This is another hard-hitting ad from JCN:

Good luck dealing with that pressure.
UPDATE: Rand Paul has announced that he’s supporting Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The pressure just got a lot more intense for Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester, etc.

Written by Rambling Rose

Even on the Left Coast of the USA, justice wins occasionally. On Tuesday, July 24, 2018, Addison Barnes prevailed in his lawsuit against Liberty High School, where his liberty or expression was not tolerated in January because he wore a T-shirt that supported the construction of the wall along the southern border of this country and also included a quote from President Donald J. Trump.

The topic in class that morning was immigration. So much for tolerance when he was forced to cover his shirt, which he did for a short time, and then removed the jacket to exercise his First Amendment Right of freedom of expression. He was then escorted from the school grounds and suspended, even though the year before he had attended a class where a pro-sanctuary city poster hung all year long.

This valiant young man was awarded $25,000.00 and an apology from the school. Actually, the apology is lame—it expresses regret but does not admit culpability for nullifying his rights when he, and probably others, have been offended by the liberal stance of the school.

For the full story, please read this article posted on May 28, 2018.

Editor’s note: This is beyond insulting:

“I had a teacher who had a pro-sanctuary city poster in her room which was up all year,” Barnes told NBC News-affiliate KGW. “Yet as I wear a pro-border wall shirt I get silenced and suspended for wearing that.”

The term double standard isn’t strong enough for this situation. The school should apologize to the community for holding such obvious double standards. I’ve read the First Amendment many times. I’ve never recalled it suggesting that it protects liberal speech but not conservative speech.

It’s ironic that Addison was suspended from Liberty HS.

Are the Democrats’ special interest armies dooming the Democrats this fall? Based on what I’m reading in this article, I’d argue that these organizations are setting Democrats up for a historic failure in the Senate this fall.

What gives it away is where it says “Activists have developed plans to pressure these senators as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who they are holding accountable to keep the entire caucus together in opposition. Indivisible has set up a toll free line to connect constituents directly with senators, as well as a call script to be used when they reach their respective offices. According to a member of the organization, the website briefly crashed due to overwhelming interest when the organization’s co-founder Ezra Levin appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show last Thursday. The group also held a town hall on Monday at which Schumer was supposed to field questions from constituents, seen as an opportunity to hold him accountable. His plane had mechanical issues which kept him from the sweltering event at the air conditioning less-Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn, leading him to do a telephone town hall instead.”

If all Democrat senators vote not to confirm President Trump’s nominee, the campaign ads against Tester, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly, Nelson, Brown, Manchin, Casey, Kaine, Baldwin, Stabenow and Smith will write themselves. With the exception of Tina Smith, all of these senators will have voted to keep Obamacare and against the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Seven of these senators will have voted against both of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, too. If that sounds like smart strategy for red state Democrats, then you must be part of one of the Democrats’ special interest groups.

Do these clowns look like they’re capable of rousing the Democrat base? I don’t think so. If the Democrats succeed in stopping President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, 2018 will be the Senate version of 2010.

Saying that U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III was fed up with Mueller’s team of lawyers is understatement. Judge Ellis rebuked them, saying “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort. You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”

That wasn’t the only bombshell coming from Judge Ellis’s courtroom. Later in the hearing, “where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe, in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.”

The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation. But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe, and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation. “We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

That’s definitely pushing the envelope. Saying that Judge Ellis wasn’t amused is understatement. Things got more interesting when Judge Ellis asked for the unredacted “scope letter”:

The judge also gave the government two weeks to hand over the unredacted “scope memo” or provide an explanation why not after prosecutors were reluctant to do so, claiming it has material that doesn’t pertain to Manafort. “I’ll be the judge of that,” Ellis said.

If Judge Ellis rules that Mueller doesn’t have the authority to prosecute Manafort, that doesn’t mean Manafort is off the hook. It simply cripples Mueller’s investigation, both from a political and legal standpoint. From a political standpoint, Mueller will have been exposed as overstepping his authority. Also politically, it’ll cast doubt on Rod Rosenstein’s letter authorizing the special counsel investigation. If Judge Ellis rules that the Rosenstein letter amounts to a blank check, Judge Ellis has the authority to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation.

This wasn’t a good day for the prosecutors or Mueller. It doesn’t end things but it gives the Trump administration and legal team the ammunition to attack Mueller’s propriety with regards to this investigation.

If you aren’t outraged after reading Taylor Nachtigal’s article, then you aren’t human. Nachtigal’s article starts by saying “A Rochester man received a 365-day jail sentence, to be served as work release, for sexually assaulting a woman in 2015. A jury convicted Darren Phillip Williams, 50, of third-degree criminal sexual conduct-force or coercion, a felony, on April 10 in Olmsted County District Court. Williams was acquitted of a second charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. In addition to the jail sentence, Williams received a 48-month prison sentence, stayed for 15 years, according to court documents. He’ll be required to register as a predatory offender and complete a sex offender program.”

According to Nachtigal’s reporting, this isn’t a he-said/she-said case. According to the article, “Williams allowed authorities to search his apartment, and to take a comforter and towels from the home. He also consented to a DNA swab. In August 2015, results from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reportedly found Williams’ DNA on swabs from the woman’s genitals and body.”

That’s bad enough but that isn’t why I’m upset. This is why I’m upset:

In addition to the jail sentence, Williams received a 48-month prison sentence, stayed for 15 years, according to court documents. He’ll be required to register as a predatory offender and complete a sex offender program.

Williams’ conviction is now official. They found the convict’s DNA “on the victim’s genitals.” How can the court sentence this criminal to a year in jail, then essentially give him 15 years of probation? Sexual predators like Williams deserve to be locked up for a couple of decades, if not longer.