Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

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.

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.