Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Judiciary category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat. Let me rephrase that. When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat, except in court. In this instance, it’ll get beaten like a drum.

Harmeet Dhillon lays out what’s happening when she writes “No one, not Congress, not the president, and certainly not a state government, may unilaterally change the requirements to be president of the United States without first amending the U.S. Constitution.” Then she writes “The U.S. Constitution is very clear as to the requirements to run for president: one must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, resident in the United States for 14 years. That’s it.”

That didn’t prevent California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom from signing a bill that attempts to add additional criteria to the Constitution through making new state law. It’s nothing but a PR stunt. That doesn’t mean action shouldn’t be taken. That’s where Harmeet’s law firm comes in:

On behalf of the Republican National Committee, the California GOP, and three Trump-supporting Republican voters in California, my law firm filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to block this unconstitutional law before it can interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The president and his campaign have done the same.

Good for her. Good for them. It’s what I’d expect from California Democrats. It’s what I demand from Republicans.

Saying that Sen. Tina Smith’s intellectual heft isn’t impressive is understatement. Sen. Snith’s op-ed is filled with Schumer-styled partisanship. What isn’t said is that Senate Democrats went all-in with the Resist Movement in slowing down the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees. What isn’t said is that Democrats did this to keep Obama appointees in key positions as long as possible.

Now, Sen. Smith has written this op-ed to complain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate is in the personnel business. Sen. Smith has a problem with that, saying “…McConnell has transformed the Senate into little more than the Trump administration’s personnel office, the place where good ideas go to die.”

Had Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), not tied the Senate up in nots with procedural gimmicks, President Trump’s appointees might’ve gotten finished by now. That’s why Senate Republicans changed the rules to limit debate on nominees. Sen. Smith doesn’t mention that fact, though. Then, to pour white gas on the fire she just started, she wrote this:

What that means is that day in and day out, the work of the Senate has been reduced to voting to pack the courts with Trump-appointed, lifetime federal judges, as fast as we can. And because McConnell and the Republicans have dramatically reduced the time for debate on most of these judges — from 30 hours to two — they can pack the courts faster than ever before.

Democrats created this problem. Had Pelosi and Schumer not pledged to empty the rules toolbox to slow down President Trump’s entire agenda, perhaps Sen. McConnell might be more willing to debate bills. Why should he take up far-left bills from the Democrat House knowing that they won’t fix America’s problems?

Then there’s this howler:

Voting on these nominees is part of my job as a senator, and I take this responsibility seriously. I make time to research the background of each nominee, but the truth is, there’s never any real debate.

That’s BS. She was part of a press conference prior to President Trump nominating Justice Kavanaugh to fill the opening caused by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. At that press conference, held hours before the nominee was known, a bunch of Democrats announced that they’d oppose whoever President Trump nominated. What part of that sounds like Sen. Smith and those other Democrats took “time to research” that nominee?

It’s well-known that Smith was the vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Sen. Smith’s decision to announce how she’d vote on the nominee wasn’t the result of painstaking, exhaustive research. It was the result of Sen. Smith’s far-left ideology on abortion on demand. Sen. Smith tries to keep that part of her history secret. Imagine that.

Sen. Smith is a waste of a Senate seat. She does whatever the Democrats tell her to do. That isn’t just on major issues. Sen. Smith follows the Democrats’ instructions to the letter on virtually every issue. In this video, Sen. Smith looks like the robot she’s been since becoming part of the Democrats’ minority:

Like Al Franken before her, Sen. Smith has been a partisan hack. The thought of her working across the aisle on important issues is laughable. It’s that simple.

It’s clear that CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin can’t take being humiliated any longer. Toobin’s ongoing humiliation triggered this eruption:

Our constitutional system never contemplated a President like Donald Trump. The Framers anticipated friction among the three branches of government, which has been a constant throughout our history, but the Trump White House has now established a complete blockade against the legislative branch, thwarting any meaningful oversight. The system, it appears, may simply be incapable of responding to this kind of challenge.

The President has been candid about his plans for responding to investigations from the House of Representatives, which has been controlled by the Democrats since January. “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Trump said, last month, and the pace of his defiant actions has since quickened. The President and his Administration have defied congressional inquiries about security clearances, access to the full Mueller report, the President’s bank records, his tax returns, and the continuing investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia.

First, let’s talk about Congress’s request for “access to the full Mueller report.” The minute this fight reaches the Supreme Court, it will be unanimously defeated. Congress isn’t entitled to information that’s been put off-limits by … Congress. Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s talk about why grand jury testimony shouldn’t be public information.

In a grand jury investigation, the accuser isn’t allowed to be cross-examined by the defense attorney. Further, the witnesses are questioned only by prosecutors. What part of that procedure sounds like the accused person’s due process rights were followed? If a person’s due process rights are violated, then that testimony should be off-limits with only a few exceptions.

Next, let’s talk about Toobin’s supposed “meaningful oversight.” President Trump has been in office for 27-28 months. Why does the House Ways & Means Committee need 6 years of President Trump’s tax returns? Congressional oversight isn’t meant for private citizens. It’s meant for legislative purposes. Let’s throw that intellectually feeble argument into the garbage where it belongs. This is the Democrats’ attempt to harass President Trump. This doesn’t have anything to do with providing with proper oversight.

Finally, congressional oversight is about finding out new facts about government operations. Why would any person with a functioning brain think that a bunch of publicity-seeking politicians will find anything that 50 FBI agents and 20 trained attorneys couldn’t find?

So, after nearly two and a half centuries, Trump will create a new constitutional norm—in which the executive can defy the legislature without consequence. The only likely remedy, therefore, will lie with the voters, next year.

Actually, Obama did that. Actually, Obama and Holder did that. When AG Holder sent guns to south-of-the-border drug cartels without having a plan in place to track them, he was showing he wasn’t ready for a heavyweight job like Attorney General. When he refused to cooperate with a legitimate oversight investigation, he showed that he was a corrupt AG who wasn’t ready for primetime. When he and other Democrats acted like refusing to actively participate in a legitimate investigation, they blazed a path that’d never been blazed before.

Any trash-talking from lightweights like Toobin might confuse some but not all. The truth is that he isn’t a convincing spinmeister or history re-writer. That’s why he’s employed by CNN. That’s why he’s a Democrat.

The only way to characterize this article is to call it Democrat spin from another planet. How else would you characterize this BS?

Supreme Court reform has entered the public debate, with legal luminaries like former Attorney General Eric Holder and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe supporting adding justices to the Supreme Court, and a number of 2020 presidential candidates expressing openness to the idea.

Regardless of your views on proposals to reform the Supreme Court, there is important context to this discussion that is often missed: Conservatives are already packing the courts. Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and ignoring long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with narrow-minded conservative elitists. Their goal is to use the courts to implement conservative policies, regardless of their popular support. The issue we face now is how to respond to this power grab.

Conservatives have done everything they can to keep their years-long court packing efforts under the radar. Rather than start by adding new judges, they instead subtracted them, quietly refusing to let President Barack Obama appoint judges. Then, under President Donald Trump, they have changed the rules to fill those seats with ultra-right wing judges at breakneck speed.

First, it’s BS to say that conservatives quietly refused “to let President Barack Obama appoint judges.” They stood in the way of Judge Merrick Garland. That’s the only one. Period. That’s judge (singular), not judges (plural.)

Next, conservatives aren’t “packing” any court. They’re doing a fantastic job of confirming judges appointed by President Trump, just like Harry Reid did when he was the Senate Majority Leader and President Obama did the nominating. The difference is that Sen. Reid threw out the rulebook (and the filibuster) on district court and appellate court judges.

The other difference is that Sen. Mitch McConnell is doing a far better job of confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees than Reid did with confirming President Obama’s judicial appointees. That falls under the category of “Elections have consequences. I won.” Only presidents get to nominate judges. Congress’s role is advise and consent. They play a roll but their role is well-defined and limited.

Packing the court has always meant that a president has tried adding judges to a court when it’s already full. This idiot spinmeister is attempting to tell people that a president filling vacancies on the district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court, which is the president’s responsibility, is somehow a constitutional crisis. Hint to the author: Presidents have been doing this since the late 1700s. They’ve done it because it’s part of their job.

I have a few suggestions for President Trump’s SOTU address. First, I’d wait until after the Feb. 15 funding deadline to give it. If Congress does what it’s supposed to do and funds the wall, I’d give a different speech than I’d give if Democrats obstruct again. That being said, I’d be surprised if Democrats didn’t continue with their open borders agenda. In that case, I’d prefer that President Trump open his SOTU Address like this:

As I traveled across the nation, I saw cities getting rebuilt, communities coming together and great unity. Across that nation, the state of our union is as strong as it’s ever been.

Unfortunately, when I’ve tried working with Congress, especially Democrats under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, what I’ve seen is a dysfunctional union, a union that refuses to protect our southern border and the people living in the Southwest. Democrats haven’t paid much attention to Angel families. In fact, I’ve spoken with Angel families who visited Speaker Pelosi’s office, only to be told she wasn’t in.

I canceled my Christmas vacation so I could stay available to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer. Rather than work on re-opening government, Speaker Pelosi left for a Hawaiian Christmas vacation. After the new congress was sworn in, Speaker Pelosi tried leaving on a week-long trip paid for by taxpayers. Senate Democrats took a different path. Thirty Senate Democrats accepted a lobbyist-funded vacation in Puerto Rico rather than negotiating in good faith with me.

While they were making these extravagant trips, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer talked about hold the American people hostage. How are their travels not holding the American people hostage? How were the Democrats’ trips not proof that they didn’t negotiate in good faith.

Speaker Pelosi, you started with no funding for border security. Your next bid was literally $1 of border security funding. Drugs are pouring across our southern border. Human trafficking is as awful as it’s ever been. That’s why, after attempts to negotiate multiple times in good faith with Democrats, I’m declaring a national emergency. Later tonight, I will sign an executive order to build 150 miles of border wall in Texas to stop the drug cartels, illegal aliens and human traffickers from crossing the border in those sections.

I specifically want President Trump to focus on building the barrier in Texas because that isn’t in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

As long as the Democrats can’t file their lawsuit in the 9th Circuit, which is a virtually guaranteed victory, President Trump holds the upper hand. Democrats were ecstatic last week when President Trump “caved”. If Democrats don’t negotiate in good faith, they’ll regret it because President Trump still has, metaphorically speaking, another card to play, namely the National Emergencies Act. Once that gets into the courts, the president wins.

I’m betting that Democrats will overplay their hand because that’s what they typically do. Right now, I’m betting that Speaker Pelosi thinks she’s won the final battle. I’m betting that because she knows that she can manhandle the moderates in her caucus.

While leftists hyperventilate about impeaching President Trump and imprisoning Paul Manafort, a powerful yet relatively unknown figure has stepped onto the stage. His name is Judge Emmet Sullivan.

While Mueller has been operating “as a law unto himself“, according to the WSJ’s Kim Strassel, the truth is that Judge Sullivan isn’t likely to let Mueller run roughshod.

Ms. Strassel wrote “agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him ‘relaxed’ and ‘unguarded.’ Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more ‘organized’ administration. The whole thing stinks of entrapment, though the curious question was how the Flynn defense team got the details.”

This interview by Kennedy of Mollie Hemingway is chilling to legitimate civil rights advocates:

Thankfully, Judge Sullivan has stepped into this situation. It’s clear that Mueller and McCabe haven’t paid attention to the Constitution or the principles of justice being blind. When the history books get written, Robert Mueller’s and Jim Comey’s legacies should be that of scofflaws who didn’t care about the Constitution.

I agree with Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich that the Democrats’ smear factory, aka the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democrats, owe Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh an apology. Unfortunately, that won’t happen. It won’t happen because too many of that Committee’s Democrats have presidential ambitions.

Pavlich is right in quoting the Committee’s report when it said “After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh. In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh.”

It isn’t difficult to predict that House Democrats will open another investigation into the FBI’s investigation of these charges. Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings can’t wait to start that investigation. Further, it isn’t difficult to predict that their investigations will produce tons more allegations but no corroborated testimony that verifies the women’s accusations.

It’s difficult to picture the House getting much done during the next 2 years. It isn’t difficult to picture them opening dozens of investigations into the Trump administration. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if Pelosi insists on passing a corporate tax increase. Here’s why:

Don’t be surprised if House Democrats cause a recession in the next 16-20 months. When Pelosi was speaker the last time, she helped create a financial crisis. We didn’t get out of it until unified Republican government and President Trump’s leadership produced the current surge in economic growth.

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.