Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

Thank God (literally) for William Clark, a high school senior at a charter school in Nevada. He and his mother filed a lawsuit, titled Clark v. State Public Charter School Authority, on the grounds that it’s violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

According to the lawsuit, “the young plaintiff William Clark and his mother Gabrielle Clark claim their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated. Students were allegedly told that by refusing to identify with an oppressive group, they were exercising their privilege or underscoring their role as an oppressor.” That’s just part of it. Here’s more information on what’s happening:

William was directed “in class to ‘unlearn‘ the basic Judeo-Christian principles [his mother] imparted to him, and then [the school] retaliated against [him].”

“Some racial, sexual, gender and religious identities, once revealed,”the complaint states, “are officially singled out in the programming as inherently problematic, and assigned pejorative moral attributes by Defendants.”

That’s what real oppression looks like. That isn’t perceived oppression. It’s definitely real.

William Clark was required for assignments the legal complaint says “to reveal his racial, sexual, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities and religious identities,” by his teacher who greeted the students by saying, “Hello my wonderful social justice warriors!” Clark was told the next step would be to determine if parts of his identity “have privilege or oppression attached to it.” Privilege was defined as “the inherent belief in the inferiority of the oppressed group.”

The legal argument the Clarks make is that William is being compelled “to make professions about his racial, sexual, gender and religious identities in verbal class exercises and in graded, written homework assignments which were subject to the scrutiny, interrogation and derogatory labeling of students, teachers and school administrators.” The defendants “are coercing him to accept and affirm politicized and discriminatory principles and statements that he cannot in conscience affirm.”

This is professional brow-beating by unaccountable administrators. That’s otherwise known as indoctrination, which is totally unacceptable. Most importantly, telling people what they’re allowed to practice in terms of religion is what started the writing of the Declaration of Independence, which led directly to the Revolutionary War, then subsequently to the First Amendment. The oppressor isn’t white people. It’s Big Government Democrats! They’re the people governing by fiat. Think Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Andrew Cuomo, Lori Lightfoot, Keith Ellison and Eric Garcetti.

How many lives have those Democrats ruined this year? It’s disgusting. These Democrats have ruined lives through school indoctrination, COVID shutdowns and one-size-fits-all COVID policies. Whitmer, Newsom and Pelosi have disgusted people through the Democrats’ do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fiats. It’s time to throw these jacka$$es out of office the next election.

Most importantly, it’s time to stand up for the Constitution and the First Amendment. If we do that, though, it’s essential that all who trust in the First Amendment stand up together. William Clark has provided the example. I pray that we all stand with him in this fight.

During a tour-de-force presentation this afternoon, Rudy Giuliani presented a lengthy list of evidence of systematic voter fraud encompassing multiple battleground states. The news conference was part scolding of the MSM for being totally incurious about the system that Democrats have allegedly put together, part presentation of signed affidavits from people with firsthand information from the vote-counting locations.

It’s especially disheartening that FNC wrote “His descriptions largely entailed recitations of allegations put forth in several lawsuits that the Trump campaign has filed. Former Vice President Joe Biden is the projected winner in the contest, but the Trump campaign is contesting those calls, raising concerns in several battleground states.” These weren’t “recitations of allegations put forth in several lawsuits.” Giuliani cited specific affidavits, which are sworn out under penalty of perjury. I expect that sloppiness from CNN or the NYTimes. I expect better from FNC because I’ve gotten better from FNC in the past.

Later in the article, the reporter contradicted himself:

[Giuliani] cited sworn affidavits from cases in Pennsylvania and Michigan from poll workers who spoke about instructions from supervisors. One affidavit said that workers in Pennsylvania were instructed to assign ballots without names to random people, resulting in thousands of people in Pittsburgh showing up to the polls to find that votes had been cast in their names.

Another affidavit said that a supervisor in Michigan instructed workers to change the dates on absentee ballots to show that they arrived earlier than they had. An affidavit also claimed that workers were told not to request photo identification from Michigan voters, even though state law requires it.

Giuliani also said that approximately 100,000 absentee ballots in Wisconsin should have been deemed invalid because there were no applications for them. President-elect Joe Biden leads President Trump in that state by roughly 20,000 votes. “If you count the lawful votes, Trump won Wisconsin,” Giuliani said.

These aren’t allegations. They’re eyewitness testimony from people who witnessed the law not being followed.

It’s time that the MSM paid attention to these details. Saying that the Trump campaign hasn’t collected evidence of wrongdoing is BS. It’s a fabrication on steroids. This isn’t acceptable in a developed nation. If the judiciary sanctions this level of fraud, we might as well disband the judiciary because our system of checks and balances will have disappeared.

Last night, Sean Hannity talked about a number of things that need changing before the 2022 midterm elections. I’ve been talking about changing election laws for months so I’d better throw in my 2 cents worth. One thing that’s important to change is the last date that early voting/mail-in/absentee ballots can be submitted. I’d love a change to end early voting but that isn’t likely with Democrats controlling enough governorships or state legislative bodies to prevent that outcome.

If the words ‘early voting’ mean anything, then the last day of early voting shouldn’t be the day before Election Day. The only reason to have it that late is to create a chaotic system. If you want an orderly system, you have to end early voting 7-10 days before Election Day. Further, you allow the counting and inspection of early voting/absentee/mail-in ballots a week before Election Day.

To ensure accountability with mail-in, early and absentee ballots, ballots and envelopes should have a barcode printed on it. Day of Election, aka DOE, ballots shouldn’t have a barcode on them. That way, we could separate DOE ballots from mail-in, early and absentee ballots.

As usual, Kim Strassel’s article highlights the problems she found:

Yet the beauty of ballot harvesting is that it is nearly impossible to prove fraud. How many harvesters offered to deliver votes, only to throw away inconvenient ones? How many voters were pushed or cajoled, or even paid—or had a ballot filled and returned for them without their knowledge? And this is before questions of what other mischief went on amid millions of mailed ballots (which went to wrong addresses or deceased people) and reduced voter verification rules. As the Heritage Foundation’s election expert Hans von Spakovsky has explained, mail-in voting is the “single worst form of election possible” because “it moves the entire election beyond the oversight of election officials.”

Election integrity legislation should be the first priority of every GOP legislator or governor in 2021. Legislators and governors should insist that accountability be their state’s highest priority. If possible, wipe away the agreements that courts reached with Democrat politicians:

Using the virus as an excuse, Democratic and liberal groups brought scores of lawsuits to force states to adopt its provisions. Many Democratic politicians and courts happily agreed. States mailed out ballots to everyone. Judges disregarded statutory deadlines for receipt of votes. They scrapped absentee-ballot witness requirements. States set up curbside voting and drop-off boxes. They signed off on ballot harvesting.

Challenging these courts’ rulings is the essential first step. Get federal courts involved as often as possible. That’s why President Trump nominated all those conservative judges and Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell got them confirmed. Put them to work.

These are just the first few suggestions. They aren’t the only things that need fixing to implement election security. This project requires vigilance, activism and educating/persuading people. Let’s get this system fixed.

When Joe Biden tells reporters that he’ll tell voters after the election where he stands on the issue of packing the Supreme Court, what he’s really saying is that he intends to expand the Supreme Court if elected, then nominate legislative-minded justices to the Supreme Court. Democrats don’t want jurists on the SCOTUS. They want legislators in black robes.

Democrats, whether they’re supposedly moderates (think Christopher Coons) or far left nutjobs (think Kamala Harris), intend on gutting the US Constitution by confirming justices whose highest priority is establishing laws that Democrats couldn’t get passed legislatively. With these ‘jurists’, it isn’t about what the legislative language says. With these jurist/legislators, it’s about their policy preferences. But I digress.

As for packing the courts, Biden’s allies have taken to TV to lie about the definition of court packing:

Also on Fox News Sunday, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a close Biden ally, said the rushed way in which Republicans are trying to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court prior to the election “constitutes court-packing.”

That isn’t the definition of court packing. This is:

Typically, court-packing refers to expanding a court’s seats, and then confirming judges for those seats.

The term was created in the 1930s when FDR wanted an obedient court. Congress rejected FDR’s initiative. In 1983, then-Sen. Biden understood what court-packing was:

Democrats are pushing the theme that Mitch McConnell isn’t being straight about confirming justices to the Supreme Court. They’re both right and irrelevant. Republicans are defending themselves quite nicely by saying that the Constitution gives a) the president the authority to nominate justices right through his last day in office and b) the Senate the authority to confirm judges even on the last day of their term in office. Now that that’s been established, the public isn’t interested in other arguments.

What people won’t put up with is a secretive candidate. Joe Biden isn’t being straight with the people. Biden thinks that people don’t have the right to know whether he’d pack the court. I don’t think that’ll play well with voters. Voters prefer public servants over imperial rulers. Right now, Biden is acting like royalty. That isn’t a good look for him.

If you’re as tired of hearing Republicans and Democrats complain about the other being a hypocrite about confirming Supreme Court justices, get in line. Better yet, let’s change the subject to something worthwhile. Since the process is going forward, let’s talk about the Constitution and Judge Barrett’s qualifications:

  1. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution assigns the authority for nominating Supreme Court justices to the president up to the day he leaves office.
  2. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the term of the Senate is 6 years.
  3. Article VI prohibits religious tests, saying “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
  4. Amy Coney-Barrett’s credentials are impressive.
These 4 things won’t change, meaning that all the huffing and puffing happening in Washington, DC, is theatrics. Theatrics should be ignored because they’re unimportant. What’s important is that, at least until January 20, 2021 and perhaps longer, President Trump has the constitutional authority to appoint judges to the courts. What’s important is that the Senate has the authority to confirm judges to the Supreme Court. What’s important is for Democrats to refrain from talking about Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith. What’s important is that Judge Amy Coney-Barrett is more than qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

This is whining at its worst:

This is what religious bigotry in the 21st Century looks like and how to respond to it:

Sen. Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate, is part of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She’s put her prosecutor’s hat on against Republican judicial appointees. Sen. Harris’ biggest weakness is her ego. She thinks she’s smarter than she is. That might get her in trouble. Judge Barrett is a truly smart, likable person. Shifting into attack mode isn’t the wisest tactic.

Chuck Schumer isn’t the brightest bulb in the Senate Democrats’ chandelier. Still, this week, he’s outdone himself. This week, Sen. Schumer said that “By every modicum of decency and honor, Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have no right to fill it.” The Constitution disagrees. Article II, Section 2 says “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court…”

“Article II, Section 1” says “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:” Article I, Section 3 says “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years…”

It doesn’t say that the Senate can’t confirm judges if we’re nearing an election. As long as they’re in session, a confirmation vote is justified.

In addition to not being bright, Sen. Schumer isn’t terribly honest, either. Whatever. Sen. McConnell said that there will be an up-or-down-vote on President Trump’s nominee. At the time, Sen. McConnell didn’t know that it would be Judge Amy Coney-Barrett.

I hope Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats throw a Schumer-like temper tantrum against Judge Coney-Barrett. If they do, it’ll sink the Democrats this election. In fact, President Trump thinks it’ll be difficult for Democrats to attack her:

Attacking ACB is like attacking ‘Mrs. Suburban Housewife.’ Nonetheless, I’d be surprised if Democrats don’t go too far. That’s just who they are.

During his interview with Sean Hannity, Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Republicans have the votes to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. The woman will be sworn in before the election.

Senate Republicans have enough votes to confirm a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the Nov. 3 election, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told “Hannity” Monday. “It’s pretty obvious that if they [Democrats] want an outcome, they’ll just destroy anybody’s life to keep the seats open,” Graham told host Sean Hannity.

“They said they tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh so they could fill the seat — they were dumb enough to say that,” Graham added. “I’ve seen this movie before. It’s not going to work, it didn’t work with Kavanaugh. We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election. We’re going to move forward in the committee, we’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election. Now, that’s the constitutional process.”

This is the video of the interview:

If Republicans have the votes to confirm, which I think they do, that means that Democrats will wage full-out thermonuclear war on President Trump’s nominee starting the night before the nominee is named. If you thought Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were bad, this nominee’s confirmation hearing will make that look timid.

With Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Democrats were worried that Kavanaugh’s Catholic pedigree would influence his thinking on so-called reproductive rights cases. This time, instead of replacing a Republican-appointed justice, they’ll be appointing the Court’s Liberal Lioness replacement. That isn’t just a cultural shift. It’s a seismic shift in judicial philosophy.

Mitch McConnell is right in warning his caucus of the upcoming fight:

“Already some of the same individuals who tried every conceivable dirty trick to obstruct Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh are lining up … to proclaim the third time will be the charm,” McConnell said in what amounted to the official opening salvo in the war over the vacant seat. “The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present and more threats against our institutions from the same people, the same people who already have been saying for months … they want to pack the court.”

He added: “Two years ago a radical movement tried to use unproven accusations to ruin a man’s life because they could not win a vote fair and square. Now they appear to be readying an even more appalling sequel.”

After Chairman Graham’s statement, Sen. Cory Gardner announced that he’ll support President Trump’s nominee. Even if Mitt Romney votes to not confirm President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Republicans have enough votes to confirm, with Vice President Pence casting the tie-breaking vote. I’m confident that Romney will vote to confirm, partially because he’s generally on board with strict constructionist judges, partially because voting against confirmation and for impeachment means the end of his political career.

Judge Michael McHaney criticized Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker in his ruling. In fact, Judge McHaney’s ruling was more of a blistering than a ruling. In his blistering/ruling, Judge McHaney opened by saying “Since the inception of this insanity, the following regulations, rules or consequences have occurred: I won’t get COVID if I get an abortion but I will get COVID if I get a colonoscopy.”

Judge McHaney’s ruling stings Gov. Pritzker after that by saying “Selling pot is essential but selling goods and services at a family- owned business is not. Pot wasn’t even legal and pot dispensaries didn’t even exist in this state until five months ago and, in that five months, they have become essential but a family-owned business in existence for five generations is not. A family of six can pile in their car and drive to Carlyle Lake without contracting COVID but, if they all get in the same boat, they will.”

Later in the ruling, Judge McHaney unleashes his harshest criticism:

The defendant in this case orders you to stay home and pronounces that, if you leave the state, you are putting people in danger, but his family members traveled to Florida and Wisconsin because he deems such travel essential. One initial rationale why the rules don’t apply to him is that his family farm had animals that needed fed. Try selling that argument to farmers who have had to slaughter their herds because of disruption in the supply chain.

Then there’s this:

Make no mistake, these executive orders are not laws. They are royal decrees. Illinois citizens are not being governed, they are being ruled. The last time I checked Illinois citizens are also Americans and Americans don’t get ruled.

Pritzker employed the Democrats’ time-tested tactic of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. His family lived in Florida virtually all winter while Ron DeSantis managed things properly. Pritzker got them out of Illinois while he mismanaged the COVID crisis.

Read Judge McHaney’s short ruling. It’s well worth the time spent.

Another day, another judge has ruled against another Democrat governor. This time, “Circuit Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff granted a preliminary injunction to 10 churches that had sued the governor.” Unfortunately, Gov. Kate Brown’s office “appealed to the state Supreme Court to keep her emergency orders in effect.”

Gov. Brown, another iron-fisted Democrat, issued a statement after appealing. The statement said “This will ensure we can continue to safeguard the health of all Oregonians, including frontline health care workers, those living in nursing homes, workers in agriculture and food processing plants, and Oregonians with underlying health conditions, while the legal process moves forward.”

In his opinion, Judge Shirtcliff struck a different position. Here’s what Judge Shirtcliff said:

The governor’s orders are not required for public safety when plaintiffs can continue to utilize social distancing and safety protocols at larger gatherings involving spiritual worship. Plaintiffs have shown that they will be harmed by deprivation of the constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. Other plaintiffs have also shown great economic harm to their businesses and their ability to seek livelihood.

First, Brown will lose the fight with churches. If churches utilize social distancing, then Gov. Brown, or any other iron-fisted Democrat governor for that matter, can’t prohibit the free practice of religion. Overcoming the Bill of Rights is the legal equivalent of fighting uphill with a weight tied to your waist.

The legal position on other restrictions is that they have to be the least intrusive restrictions that accomplish the government’s legitimate goal. If these store owners show that they’re following the same rules that big box stores are using, then this fight is finished.

This isn’t the only instance of a Democrat governor overreaching. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’s iron-fisted Democrat governor, is attempting an end-run around the legislature. Pritzker “filed an emergency rule that would penalize owners of restaurants, bars, gyms, barbershops and other businesses for reopening before coronavirus restrictions are lifted.” That’s unconstitutional because governors don’t write laws. They enforce them. State Sen. Dan McConchie replied through Twitter:


This says it all:

This is a clear breach of the separation of powers. It is the role of the legislature to make the law, and the role of the Governor to enforce it. He has assumed both roles and shut out the legislative branch. It is beyond time for the Governor to stop ruling by fiat.

Sen. McConchie better file a lawsuit on this because a judge’s ruling will take this out of Pritzker’s hands.

UPDATE: The Oregon Supreme Court intervened in the case, essentially throwing out the Shirtcliff ruling. This is, in my opinion, proof of why they should’ve filed this in federal court. State courts can get packed with partisan political operatives, which appears to have happened here.

Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democrat governor, is upset with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling on Evers’ Wuhan Virus executive order. After the Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Evers’ EO, Gov. Evers said “Republican legislators convinced four members of the Supreme Court to throw the state into chaos. Republicans own that chaos.”

That’s an incomprehensible statement considering what’s been happening in Wisconsin. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s reporting “The ruling immediately lifts all restrictions on businesses and gatherings imposed by the administration’s order but keeps in place the closure of schools until fall. It comes after Evers had already begun lifting some restrictions because the spread of the virus has slowed for now.

This is what makes Gov. Evers’ statement that much stranger:

To put any new limits in place, the Democratic governor and Republican-controlled Legislature will be forced to work together to deal with the ebbs and flows of the outbreak — something the two sides have rarely been able to achieve before.

The horror of it all. Evers thinks that it’s the apocalypse if he has to work with — gasp!?! — Republicans? I can feel ice forming in Hades as I type.

I thought that J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’s Democrat governor, was a drama queen. I’m not certain that Evers shouldn’t fit into that same category.

In less than a minute, Gov. Evers said that ‘Wisconsin people aren’t idiots. They’ll do the right thing.’ then says that those same people have been thrown into chaos. It doesn’t work that way, Gov. Evers. Either they’re smart and they make good decisions or they’re idiots and they’re prone to creating chaos. It isn’t both.

Gov. Evers, the court has ruled. You can whine like you did in this interview or you can work with Republicans. Wisconsin elected you to govern, not to go on MSNBC and play a Democrat drama queen. It’s time you grew up. If your ideas are worthwhile, Republicans will work with you. If they aren’t, then they don’t deserve support. It’s just that simple.