In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t hit a home run. Metaphorically speaking, he hit a grand slam in his first major league at-bat. It’s apparent that it’s a grand slam when the NY Times publishes an op-ed gushing about Judge Gorsuch.
Neal Katyal’s op-ed isn’t something that you’d expect to find on the NY Times’ op-ed page. The fourth paragraph of Katyal’s op-ed is gushy, saying “I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the editors at National Review wrote “Originalism has faced resistance in modern times mostly because liberals would rather not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution in order to edit it to their liking, removing its structural limits on governmental power and putting their preferred policies beyond democratic review. Gorsuch’s record gives us cause to believe that he would use his vote and his voice to side with the actual Constitution.”
President Trump looked totally confident when he announced his pick:
President Trump explained why he picked Judge Gorsuch. He outlined the lengthy, impressive list of qualities Judge Gorsuch possesses. After President Trump finished his presentation, he turned the microphone over to Judge Gorsuch.
One thing that seemed to jump out at everyone was when Judge Gorsuch said that a judge that agrees with every ruling he’s made “is probably a bad judge.” The clear intent of that statement is that judges that agree with their rulings are most likely substituting their policy preferences for the text on the page. For instance, a judge that bans flag-burning isn’t doing his/her job. Few people think that burning the flag is the right thing to do. Most people would criticize it. The First Amendment, though, says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It doesn’t prohibit people from saying things we find hateful.
Based on what’s out there, Judge Gorsuch understands that perfectly. That’s why we should think he’s the best possible pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.
This article highlights some questionable activities during the SEIU Healthcare’s organizing drive. If these PCAs can get an investigation into SEIU Healthcare started, look for that investigation to thin out SEIU leadership. Several statements in the article are important for the readers to hear about.
First, Russ Brown, who is helping with the law firm’s investigation, said “We had about three teams of canvassers, we started doing postal mailings, we started doing phone banks and a website. That was based on a list that we believed to be mostly good. We were thinking the list might be off by as much as fifteen to twenty percent. As it turned out the list was mostly bad.”
The next paragraph states “Some addresses led to empty lots where there was no house. Others led to homes where people lived that didn’t match the name provided on the list. The questionable list, however, wasn’t the only thing amiss. The campaign also alleges identity theft, unlawful due deductions, and voter disenfranchisement of those opposed.”
Then there’s this:
“There was just a lot of different weird things going on,” Brown said. “At the places where we would find people we would hear stories about how all of a sudden their dues were being taken out of their Medicaid payments and they specifically told the union they were not interested.”
Then there’s this, too:
“One woman believes very strongly and provided evidence that the union forged her signature on an authorization card,” CWF Executive Director Matt Patterson told InsideSources. “The basic picture this paints, in my view, is that the election was highly suspect, and there was possibly identify theft.”
“She is absolutely certain the union forged her signature in order to take money from her,” Patterson said. “You wonder how many people this happened to that just never noticed or they just didn’t complain about it or whatever. We suspect the number is fairly high because if they did this to one person, it probably wasn’t just one person.”
This isn’t the first time that a public employee union did questionable things. After the DFL legislature passed a forced unionization bill, reports started popping up from in-home child-care providers that the union organizers told them that the cards they were signing weren’t cards asking for a unionization vote. The organizers instead said that they were cards saying they wanted more information on the bill.
When the vote finally happened, AFSCME was defeated, losing 1,014-392.
Does this sound like SEIU Healthcare is on the up-and-up?
“At one point they turned over a list that had nothing but names on it,” Brown said. “There was no other information at all. It was just names. So we cross referenced that list with the [other] list, and we found they didn’t match. And that took place about two weeks before we got the actual supposed real list, which we cross referenced, and it didn’t match that list. It was like the state was making up names and throwing them at us.”
Finally, there’s this:
SEIU Healthcare Minnesota has hit back against the decertification campaign. The union alleged the campaign has coerced members into signing cards to authorize the decertification vote. SEIU organizer Phillip Cryan sent a letter listing 12 members who claimed to have been coerced by the canvassers. Brown notes only two of the names listed were on the membership lists the state provided.
“He sent us a letter stating that our canvassers coerced the PCAs,” Brown said. “So I got these ten cards supposedly signed by people where my canvassers went to their door, which is impossible because if we never had their name or address, we just wouldn’t do that. If we don’t know they’re there, we didn’t know they existed.”
That’d be a nifty trick … if it was possible, which it isn’t. SEIU better hope a full-fledged investigation doesn’t get started. If it’s launched, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota might be in trouble.
This morning, Senate Democrats staged a protest walkout of the Finance Committee hearing. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch had scheduled confirmation votes for Tom Price and Steve Mnuchin. Instead, Democrats proved that they’re incapable of governing. (It’s impossible to govern if you don’t show up, right?) The simple truth is that this walkout essentially ended the political careers of 4 Democrat senators. Vulnerable Democratic senators serving on the Committee are Bill Nelson of Florida, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Mark Warner of Virginia. Nelson, Brown, McCaskill and Casey are up for re-election in 2018.
Chairman Hatch is right in criticizing Democrats for this boycott. First, let’s go over what happened. According to the article, “Senate Democrats on Tuesday refused to attend a committee vote on two of President Trump’s more controversial nominees, effectively delaying their consideration. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steven Mnuchin, his selection to head the Treasury Department. The pair had been among some of the more contentious selections to join Trump’s Cabinet.”
Let’s cut this crap. Pete Schroeder’s description of Price and Mnuchin as “controversial” is parroting the Democrats’ chanting points. They aren’t controversial. They’re just highly qualified people that the Democrats vehemently disagree with. Further, Democrats are denying that they’re protesting this hearing for political reasons. This video gives the Democrats’ official explanation for why they’re protesting the hearing:
According to their ‘official’ explanation, Democrats insist that Dr. Price and Mr. Mnuchin lied to the Committee. That’s a lie. Democrats haven’t offered a single bit of proof that justifies that accusation. The key for the Democrats is that they’re throwing out these accusations without providing proof, knowing that the media won’t question the Democrats’ accusations.
The Democrats are sore losers, with a heavy emphasis on them being losers. They lost the election. Rather than accepting defeat and putting Americans first, Democrats are putting political gamesmanship first.
Democrats said they wanted to bring Price and Mnuchin in for further questions, saying some of their statements did not line up with the facts.
“We have great concern that Chairman Hatch is asking us to vote today on two nominees who out and out lied to our committee,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). Both Price and Mnuchin had been targeted fiercely by Democrats on a range of ethical issues. Price was pressed on his investment activity in various medical companies, and whether he improperly mixed his political activity with his personal portfolio.
Where’s the proof, Sen. Brown? Accusations aren’t proof. The truth is that Sen. Brown hasn’t offered proof for his accusations because it doesn’t exist.
The only thing that’s worse than the Democrats’ wild accusations is the media’s willingness to parrot the Democrats’ accusations as Gospel truth. If the media won’t do its job, we should treat them with contempt. They aren’t speaking truth to power because they aren’t interested in the truth. The Agenda Media is interested only in advancing the progressive agenda.
The good news for Republicans is that the American people voted on this. They rejected the “dishonest media”. Finally, if Democrats continue to refuse to govern, they should expect to take a terrible beating in the 2018 midterm elections.
Technorati: Orrin Hatch, Tom Price, Steve Mnuchin, Senate Finance Committee, Confirmation Hearings, Republicans, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Mark Warner, Boycott, Political Gamesmanship, Accusations, Democrats, Election 2018
Sally Yates decided Monday night was the perfect time to not do her job. The good news is that President Trump decided that national security trumped putting up with corrupt lawyers. What triggered Ms. Yates’ termination was the fact that she was frustrated “with a President who seems to be running roughshod over American policy, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, announced she would not defend the order. Yates said she would refuse to put the power of the Department of Justice behind this measure in the courts. Human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties supporters were bolstered by her defiance.”
It isn’t Yates’ responsibility to agree or disagree with the policy. Yates’ responsibility is to uphold the law. She said that she wouldn’t defend President Trump’s executive order on vetting. Whether that fits the legal definition of insubordination is something others can debate. What’s indisputable is whether it fits the dictionary definition of insubordination. That definition is “the quality or condition of being insubordinate, or of being disobedient to authority”. Dana Boente, the new acting head of the Justice Department, said that he’ll enforce and defend the laws of this land.
Of course, Sen. Schumer isn’t impressed:
“The firing of Sally Yates underscores how important it is to have an Attorney General who will stand up to the White House when they are violating the law,” said Schumer, who has choked up while discussing the impact of Trump’s travel ban. “Many people have doubts about whether Jeff Sessions can be that person.”
Speaking of speaking truth to power, why was Sen. Schumer silent so often when the Obama administration’s decisions got people killed? This article highlights Sen. Schumer’s insincerity:
When an American facility was under attack in Libya and the president, secretary of state, and others did not lift a finger to save the Americans, I did not see any protests, outrage, or empathy from the media, Hollywood, or Democrats – nor when Obama, Hillary, and others concocted alternative facts instead of telling the truth. Instead of the media calling the president and Hillary the liars they were, they went after Republicans for trying to get to the truth. I did not see Schumer shed a tear for the families of those who died.
Sen. Schumer, spare me the theatrics. You aren’t a man of integrity. You’re a man of poorly scripted theatrics.
This video shows how the legal merits of President Trump’s EO should be debated:
Finally, isn’t it time Democrats allowed a vote for Jeff Sessions to become the next US Attorney General?
The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.
This article highlights just how unhinged today’s Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying “Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. ‘This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,’ Merkley told Politico. ‘We will use every lever in our power to stop this. … I will definitely object to a simple majority.'”
This isn’t surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they’d get former President Obama’s third term. They thought they’d win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.
The important point, though, is that today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in putting America first. Today’s Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don’t get their way. Today’s Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.
Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.
The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.
Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”
If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don’t care about this:
Democrats only care about maintaining power.
Technorati: Jeff Merkley, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, One Man Pocket Veto, Obstructionists, Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, Patriots, Donald Trump, Supreme Court Nominee, Constitution, Mitch McConnell, Senate Leadership Fund
This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”
Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”
Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”
Here’s the real exchange:
Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”
“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.
Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:
That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.
This article points to the possibility that the Democrats’ uproar over the so-called Muslim ban is manufactured. The article starts by saying “Many of President Donald Trump’s core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down. The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump’s historic upset victory – working- and middle-class residents of Midwest and the South – provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained.”
Let’s get serious about something. Democrats didn’t utter a peep in 2011 when then-President Obama temporarily stopped admitting Iraqis when 2 al-Qa’ida in Iraq terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY after getting admitted as refugees. The Washington Post’s ‘fact-checker’, Glenn Kessler tweeted his explanation for why the media didn’t say anything about Obama’s temporary halt in bringing in refugees, saying “two big differences: 1) pause was not announced at the time, done quietly. reporters only found out years later. 2) not based on religion.” Roxanne Chester put Kessler in his place with this tweet, saying “The most transparent adm did things they didn’t publish? Isn’t it the job of a free press to monitor that?”
The chances of the Democrats’ protests being spontaneous aren’t high. They’re pretty unlikely. It’s difficult to say that the grass roots are rising up when they’re rent-a-protesters. If these ‘grass roots’ activists are that into human rights, why didn’t they say anything about this?
These protests are as phony as the Democrats. It’s that simple.
This article puts forth an interesting legal theory, though I’m not sure it’s applicable. The novel legal theory revolves around whether President Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional. I’m betting this theory fails.
In the article, Damon Root brings up the original Obamacare lawsuit, otherwise known as National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, aka NFIB v. Sebelius. Mr. Root notes that “At issue was whether Congress exceeded its Spending Clause powers when it threatened to cut off all existing Medicaid funding to any state that refused to expand Medicaid in accordance with the new health care law. The federal government’s Medicaid expansion amounted to a ‘gun to the head,’ the Supreme Court held. ‘A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage…stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it.'” That sort of ‘economic dragooning…leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce.'”
The difference between the commandeering of state budgets in NFIB v. Sebelius and cutting off of law enforcement grants is that the ACA told states that they had to expand Medicaid. The federal government, through the ACA, said that states that didn’t expand Medicaid would lose all Medicaid funding. The withholding of funding to sanctuary cities isn’t commandeering because these sanctuary cities opted to apply for grants in exchange for helping the Department of Homeland Security with immigration-related issues.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the federal government told states what they had to do without giving them an option. Cutting off funds to sanctuary cities isn’t the same because these cities applied for (think requested) federal grants. In exchange for these grants, those cities sign maintenance of service agreements that obligate them to specific things. In this instance, that means helping DHS capture illegal aliens.
The short story is simple. These sanctuary cities want the money but they refuse to enforce the law. That isn’t commandeering. That’s negotiating in bad faith.
What’s ignored is what’s important. After Congress appropriates the money, it’s the Executive Branch’s responsibility to ensure that the money is spent in accordance to the law. With sanctuary cities, they aren’t spending the money in accordance with our nation’s laws. It isn’t just within the Trump administration’s rights to monitor how cities spend this grant money. It’s their affirmative responsibility to verify that this grant money is spent in compliance with our nation’s laws.
Summarizing, commandeering is when the federal government tells local governments what they must spend their money on. In this instance, cutting off grants that cities requested in exchange for doing things that the federal government wants done isn’t commandeering. That’s simple contract law.
The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.
William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”
Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.
Then there’s this:
The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”
If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:
I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.
This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.
If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:
It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.
Elizabeth Warren has been bitchy for a couple weeks. First, she was bitchy about President Trump’s cabinet picks. Now, she’s upset that President Trump is protecting Americans instead of welcoming in terrorists. This article highlights Sen. Warren’s part in “The Resistance.”
The article starts by saying “Facing a crowd of protesters at Logan International Airport on Saturday night, US Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced President Trump’s recent immigration order, proclaiming, ‘we will not turn away children. We will not turn away families,’ said Warren, as the crowd repeated the words back to her. ‘We will not turn away people who try to help Americans. We will not turn away anyone because of their religion.'”
Elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton tweeted “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”
In one sense, Mrs. Clinton is right. Protecting Americans isn’t who the Democrats are. President Obama is famous for frequently reminding “his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.”
As for Sen. Warren, she said “persecuting anyone ‘for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy.'” This article highlights this interesting fact:
The Order Suspends Visas From “Nationals of Countries of Particular Origin.” The Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, are tasked under the order with determining the standard necessary for visa entry within 30 days. All entry into the United States is suspended, “as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” This isn’t unprecedented – Jimmy Carter issued a cancelation of visas for Iranian citizens in 1980.
It’s pretty apparent that Sen. Warren isn’t good with facts or history. The only other explanation is that she’s bitch with a political agenda who doesn’t care about the truth.
Nah. That can’t be it.