Waiting For The Court Cases On This New Law To Begin

On June 23rd, The New York Post reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the restrictions New York State had put on concealed carry permits.

The Court ruled:

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is ​specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Well, the New York legislature decided that the Supreme Court decision was unacceptable.

On Saturday, The American Thinker reported:

In an act of breathtaking defiance and spitefulness not seen since Southern states engaged in “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision, the New York State Legislature gave a middle finger to the Supreme Court and voted Friday to effectively nullify the Court’s decision last week in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After an extraordinary session for the explicit purpose of defying the Court, Senate Bill S51001 was rammed through on a party-line vote by the Democratic supermajority, passed the Assembly, and received the signature of Gov. Kathleen Hochul.

Writing for the majority in Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas struck down New York’s century-old requirement that an applicant for a handgun carry permit demonstrate a “special need” if he wanted to carry for self-defense.  New York’s licensing process was entirely discretionary and arbitrary, and in many jurisdictions, licensing officers simply refused to issue permits for self-defense.  This was particularly true in New York City, where applicants were routinely and summarily rejected unless they were politically connected or celebrities — such as Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Don Imus.  In other jurisdictions, licensing officers simply invented acceptable reasons on a whim, often issuing handgun licenses for “hunting and target shooting” only, if at all.  (In one rural upstate county, a former judge who had authority as a licensing officer invented a requirement that he would not allow any permit-holder to have more than five handguns without appearing before him personally and giving a “good reason.”)

In Bruen, Justice Thomas ruled that these arbitrary restrictions were unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee to keep “and bear” arms for self-defense, ordering New York State and New York City to issue concealed carry permits to qualified applicants for that reason.

In response, Gov. Hochul (who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 when she ran for Congress in rural Western New York) vindictively declared that New York would restrict guns to the point where the State would “go back to muskets.”  Hochul called the Legislature back from recess and presented a bill that criminalizes as a felony offense concealed carry in perhaps 98% of the state.

At some point you begin to wonder why some people in our government are so anxious to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Another Win For The Supreme Court

Does anyone remember this gem from 1975:

This is a kid-oriented explanation of how laws are supposed to be passed in America. Unfortunately, many of our laws are currently being passed by unelected bureaucrats in government agencies. These bureaucrats are not held accountable by the people because they never have to run for office. Well, on Thursday the Supreme Court took a small step to bring America back to the lawmaking procedure established by our Founding Fathers.

Red State posted an article on Thursday reporting the decision.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court sharply curtailed the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court sided with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

The Court found that Congress had not authorized the EPA to induce a shift toward cleaner energy sources.

“Congress did not grant EPA…the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” the majority wrote.
The ruling was spurred by an appeal to a decision last year that struck down a Trump-era power plant rule.

In appealing that decision, West Virginia asked the court to consider whether the EPA has the authority to try to push the entire system away from coal and reshape the country’s electric grid.

The article notes:

Justice Kagan in her dissent acted as though it was the Court’s responsibility to address climate change, rather than interpret the law and the Constitution.

Maybe she needs to go back and reread the Constitution.

If the Biden administration wants to change the source of America’s energy, they need to ask Congress to pass a bill to do that. Elected officials need to be held accountable for the laws they make. Bureaucrats are not elected and cannot be held accountable. That is why our laws are supposed to be made by Congress and not by bureaucrats.

In Case You Are Wondering, It Is Ultimately About The Money

The protests continue against the Supreme Court ruling against abortion, despite the fact that the ruling did nothing more than allow each state to make its own rules regarding abortion. So what is all this noise actually about? First of all, abortion is a million-dollar industry that contributes large amounts of money to politician’s campaign coffers. If abortion is limited, campaign contributions will also be limited. Secondly, it is cheaper for a corporation to pay for an abortion than to pay for maternity leave and the costs associated with motherhood. Also, a mother’s first priority is generally her child–not the corporation. So abortion does make a large contribution to the economy and to the political class. That explains some of the horror at the idea that some states will be limiting abortion. Meanwhile, the government is seriously interested in maintaining the status quo.

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

The Biden administration is considering setting up abortion providers on federal land in red states, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said Tuesday.

The administration has not decided yet whether it will pursue the plan, which is favored by left-wing legislators Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but Becerra said that “every option is on the table.”

…Becerra’s comments are at odds with those of Vice President Kamala Harris, who said just Monday that the administration was not discussing clinics on federal lands. 

The article concludes:

The proposal, if pursued by the administration, would offer women a safe haven for abortion access in red states, most of which have already curtailed access. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban overturned the 49-year-old constitutional guarantee of the right to an abortion, sending the power of regulating access to the procedure back to the states. But abortion is not federally illegal.

“We know that there is misinformation out there about what the Supreme Court did. We want to make sure it’s clear that Americans didn’t lose every right they have. Americans still can assert their rights, and we will do everything we can to protect you,” Becerra said

Just for the record, abortion was never and never should be a right.

Punished For Doing Your Job Well

On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the attorneys who argued the concealed carry case before the Supreme Court were forced to retire from their law firm.

The article reports:

The lawyers who won a major Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week got even less than a pat on the back from the white-shoe law firm they work for – they were forced to quit.

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.

“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”

The article concludes:

The decision has implications for at least eight other so-called “may issue” states, where bureaucrats have the final say in whether a citizen merits a permit. In New York, the law was used to render concealed carry handgun permits nearly impossible to obtain.

Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Murphy, also an experienced appellate attorney, were partners in the firm. But they wrote that they were resigned to leaving after being told they can’t take on Second Amendment cases.

“This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client,” they wrote. “What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.”

We are in danger of losing our Republic.

A Good Decision

On Tuesday, CNS News reported that the Supreme Court has ruled that the State of Maine cannot limit its tuition assistance programs to non-religious schools. Six of the Justices voted against limiting the assistance to only non-religious schools, citing the First Amendment prohibiting laws that limit the free expression of religion.

The article reports:

“Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority:

“Under the program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend — public or private — and the school district transmits payments to that school to help defray the costs of tuition. Most private schools are eligible to receive the payments, so long as they are ‘nonsectarian.’

“The question presented is whether this restriction violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

As the opinion noted, Maine has limited its tuition assistance payment to “nonsectarian schools” since 1981.

The petitioners wanted to send their children to accredited religious schools, but since those two schools did not qualify as “nonsectarian,” they were denied the state tuition assistance payments.

The petitioners sued the commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As parents increasingly speak out against some of the values being taught in our public schools, religious schools that better reflect the values of parents are becoming more popular. Since the State of Maine provides tuition assistance where secondary schools are not available, the parents should have the right to choose their child’s school. I thought liberals were about ‘choice.’

Still Searching For The Leaker

On Tuesday, The Western Journal reported that the investigation into the leaking of the abortion opinion draft from the Supreme Court is heating up.

The article reports:

Inside the Supreme Court, an investigation into the leak has now reached the point where law clerks are being asked to provide cellphone records and sign affidavits, CNN reported Tuesday, citing three sources it did not name.

Why are people inside the Court still leaking to CNN?

The article notes:

Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks after the leak. Each justice gets four clerks, and the prized spots that can be steppingstones to a high-profile career.

CNN estimated that in addition to the 36 clerks, others would have had access to the draft, totaling about 75 people in all.

The report said it was not clear whether other court employees were being asked to share cellphone records.

The court’s internal investigation is being led by the court’s marshal, Gail Curley.

Curley, a lawyer and former Army colonel, oversees the police stationed at the court’s building.

The article concludes:

Justice Clarence Thomas said the damage done to the court by the leak was severe.

“I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad,” Thomas said at a recent conference.

“I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder when they’re gone or destabilized, what we will have as a country? And I don’t think the prospects are good if we continue to lose them,” he said.

If the pool of suspects is only 75 people, the investigation should be completed fairly quickly. I wonder why it has not been.

Challenging Admission Policies

On Sunday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

  • University of Michigan professor Mark Perry told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he filed a Title VI complaint over a program application at the University of South Carolina that was restricted to students of certain race and ethnicities. 
  • Following his complaint, the application was updated stating the program is  “Open to all Rising High School Juniors and Seniors in South Carolina,” but highlighted students “who are in support of the advancement of business students from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply,” Perry told TheDCNF. 
  • “They’re so corrupt and they’re so unprincipled, that they do this all the time,” Perry said. “They might not even realize they’re violating federal civil rights laws or they know that it’s illegal, but they do it anyway because they’ve done it in the past (and) they’ve always gotten away with it because no one has ever challenged them.”

On Monday, The Carolina Journal reported:

The N.C. Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson and Virginia Lt. Gov Winsome Sears, each the first black lieutenant governor of their respective state, have joined forces to pen a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Asian-American students suing Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. Carolina Journal was present at the Lieutenant Governor’s Mansion on May 19 at a press conference where the North Carolina Asian American Coalition (NCAAC) thanked Robinson for his support.

The students in the lawsuit accuse the institutions of discriminatory admissions practices, where they are held to a higher standard during consideration because of their race. The Robinson/Sears Amicus brief was filed May 9th.  

“While it can be argued that these policies had a role in helping many Americans overcome the persistent effects of historical and past discriminations in higher education, those effects are becoming less impactful the further we travel from the dark days of state-sanctioned discrimination,” said Robinson at the event. “Instead, they now function to unfairly discriminate against and deny opportunity to other ethnic and racial groups. Discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is immoral in all of its forms, and we can do better. We must do better.”

The nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions filed the original suit in 2014, but when it was ruled in November 2021 that Chapel Hill could continue to use affirmative action in their admissions, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

College admissions should be based on merit. If a student is admitted because of race or ethnicity and does not have the ability to do college work, the student is being set up to fail. No one gains by doing that. I hope the lawsuit is successful and we go back to rewarding people who work hard and stop rewarding people or punishing people for something they have no control over.

Allowing Ordinary Citizens To Run For Office

On Monday, The Patriot Journal posted an article about a recent Supreme Court decision that will make it easier for the average American to run for political office.

The article reports:

All of America is waiting for the Supreme Court to release a number of ground-breaking rulings. Last week, the court revealed it was set to release “one or more” rulings today.

It seems they are holding off that one ruling and addressing other important cases. One of them came from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who was challenging a campaign finance law.

Cruz claimed the law was wrongfully punishing him. And the court, in a 6-3 ruling, backed the senator.

The ruling involved how much money a candidate could raise to pay off their personal debts after an election. In other words, if a candidate funded his own campaign, he could only pay himself back $250,000. Like it or not, in today’s elections, that is chump change. The Supreme Court agreed with Senator Cruz that the cap on how much a candidate could pay himself back was a limitation on free speech. The ruling was 6-3. The Supreme Court’s three liberal judges voted against removing the limit. A vote against removing the limit is a vote to keep the incumbents in power in Washington by making it more difficult for political outsiders to run for office.

The article concludes:

Although this might not seem relevant to us peons who don’t have nearly $250,000 to our names, this benefits anyone who wants to run for public office.

This ruling means someone can donate their own money to their campaign, without fear that they’ll go bankrupt. Because, after an election, they can use campaign funds to pay themselves back.

This ruling can help folks who want to run for public office but had previously avoided out of concerns for their livelihood.

The Impact Of The Leak

On Saturday, NewsMax posted an article featuring Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments about the leak of the Supreme Court draft of the abortion decision. Notice that somehow the leaker has not yet been identified.

The article reports:

Justice Clarence Thomas says the Supreme Court has been changed by the shocking leak of a draft opinion earlier this month. The opinion suggests the court is poised to overturn the right to an abortion recognized nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

The conservative Thomas, who joined the court in 1991 and has long called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, described the leak as an unthinkable breach of trust.

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said while speaking at a conference Friday evening in Dallas.

…Thomas, a nominee of President George H.W. Bush, said it was beyond “anyone’s imagination” before the May 2 leak of the opinion to Politico that even a line of a draft opinion would be released in advance, much less an entire draft that runs nearly 100 pages. Politico has also reported that in addition to Thomas, conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett had voted with the draft opinion’s author, Samuel Alito, to overrule Roe v. Wade and a 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas said that previously, “if someone said that one line of one opinion” would be leaked, the response would have been: “Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.”

“Now that trust or that belief is gone forever,” Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference, which describes itself as a conference “to discuss alternative proven approaches to tackling the challenges facing Black Americans today.”

There is a need for confidentiality in Supreme Court negotiations and drafts. Justices need to be free to offer opinions, popular or unpopular, to reach a consensus on a decision. Knowing that drafts or notes from these deliberations are subject to being leaked could seriously impact the debates needed to rule on an issue. It bothers me that no one has yet been held responsible for the leak (only a small number of people had access to the draft), and the news reports do not see to be interested in finding out who the leaker is. This leak needs to be dealt with quickly and strongly in order to prevent future leaks.

Not Everyone Wants Roe v. Wade To Stay In Place

One of the things that seems to be getting lost in the debate over Roe v. Wade is what the consequences of overturning the law would be. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal in America. Overturning Roe v. Wade will allow every state to set its own abortion guidelines. It may be that abortion may be illegal in some states, but American women will still have access to abortion. It may not be as convenient, and possibly that will cause women to rethink their options. Also, overturning Roe v. Wade will have a negative impact on the campaign coffers of most Democrats. That may be the reason this fight has gotten so nasty. Some of the Democrats in Congress want abortion up until birth to be legal in every state. Attempting to get a law passed to codify that did not go well.

On Wednesday, Townhall reported the following:

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly shown his ineptitude when it comes to leading Democrats in the upper chamber, and he did so again in spectacular fashion on Wednesday afternoon. In what he seems to think was a grand gesture to prove his party’s commitment to a woman’s (birthing person’s?) right to kill her unborn child only put Democrats on the record supporting a bill that’s more radical than Roe ever was.

After the unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion signaling that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, Schumer jumped into action and called for the passage of a bill to supposedly “codify” Roe in federal law. But he once again failed to do the math among his own caucus or the Senate as a whole before holding what became nothing but a failed show vote to prove Democrats support radical abortion rights that go beyond what even most pro-abortion Americans support.

The vote to break a Republican filibuster and move to the final vote on the “Women’s Health Protection Act” came down 51-49, with every Democrat but one voting to move ahead — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined all the Republicans to block the legislation from moving forward.

The article details the Senate bill:

In summary, the Democratic bill would make elective abortions legal across the entire country for all nine months of pregnancy (with “mental health” loopholes eliminating any real limitations), eliminating virtually all existing state-level restrictions (including lopsidedly popular ones), gutting conscience protections for healthcare workers who don’t want to participate in abortions, allowing non-doctors to facilitate the abortions, and likely forcing taxpayers to finance all of it.  Short of endorsing post-birth infanticide or instituting CCP-style compulsory abortions, it’s hard to imagine a more extreme piece of legislation on this issue.  Dressing this up as “codifying Roe” is astoundingly dishonest, yet it’s mindlessly — or perhaps not so mindlessly — repeated by journalists, ad nauseam.

I suspect Senator Schumer knew that the bill would fail. What the bill probably did was energize that small fringe of the Democrat party that supports unlimited abortion. I will admit that I have a hard time understanding why some people are fighting so hard for the right to kill a baby.

The Leak

On Monday, Politico reported that they have obtained an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that strikes down Roe v. Wade. This is an unprecedented leak.

Here is what we actually know:

1. The draft is from February–it is a draft–not a final decision. Votes could change.

2. Whoever leaked this will be disbarred. If it is a Republican, the person will have a lifelong problem finding a job in the legal profession. If it is a Democrat, the person will be promised a lucrative career somewhere in Democrat politics.

3. This is a first. Up until now, everyone who worked in the Supreme Court bureaucracy respected the institution enough not to leak.

Here is my speculation:

1. This was leaked to energize the Democrat base for the mid-term elections–it is a desperate move.

2. Within days, Congress will move to pack the Court in an effort to intimidate the Justices and change the decision indicated in the draft.

Yesterday, Breitbart reported the following:

Turley (Jonathan Turley, criminal defense attorney and Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University) noted that if Politico indeed obtained a true copy of the drafted opinion, “it is hard not to view this as a malicious act.”

“What is the motivation of releasing such a decision? The only intent of such a leak is to trigger a response from outside of the Court,” he continued. “…This draft is from February and the majority can shift on such opinions. However, the act of leaking such a draft opinion ranks as an original sin for judicial ethics.”

He surmised the leak could be an effort to “pressure the Court and push the legislation in Congress on a federal abortion law before the midterm elections. It will also likely renew the call for court packing.”

This will get heated, but the lives of Americas future generations are on the line.

Why Primary Elections Matter

On Thursday, Townhall reported that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has been confirmed as the 116th Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Three Republicans voted in favor of her confirmation–Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah. All of the Democrats voted in favor of her confirmation.

The article reports:

Just before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the occasion “a wonderful day, a joyous day, an inspiring day for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and for the United States of America.”

One of the narrowest Supreme Court confirmation votes in history, the final step in Judge Jackson’s path to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the United States follows a much less chaotic set of hearings than Democrats and their leftist activists made Trump’s appointees go through. There were no disruptions inside the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing room as senators questioned Judge Jackson, no baseless accusations of sexual misconduct in anyone’s past, no demands for additional investigations, no public criticism of family members, and no Michael Avenatti-type characters. 

Instead, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee engaged in respectful but tough questioning that sought to elicit information about Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy. None was provided. 

Concerns about Judge Jackson’s stated belief that Critical Race Theory should “meld” with the Constitution to determine judicial decisions were brushed aside as obscure conspiracy theories. 

Choosing someone for a responsible position based on anything other than outstanding qualifications is foolish. I suspect Justice Jackson will make her presence felt on the Supreme Court fairly quickly. When we see criminals favored over victims and laws that have nothing to do with race declared as ‘racist,’ we will begin to understand the damage that has been done.

Hopefully all three of the Republicans who voted for confirmation will face a primary opponent the next time they are up for reelection.

Asking Valid Questions

There are some valid questions that need to be asked about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Hopefully these questions will be asked in a respectful way and answers will be given in a respectful way. I may be overly optimistic on this, but hope springs eternal. On Tuesday, Issues & Insights posted an article reminding us of the decorum (or lack thereof) of the Democrats in two recent hearings for potential Supreme Court Justices.

The article notes that the Democrats standards for nominees by Republican Presidents probably do not apply here:

…They also, no doubt, have jettisoned previous standards for Supreme Court nominees, including the ones put forth by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, such as that a nominee who can’t get 60 votes in the Senate shouldn’t be approved, nor can anyone “with a deep-seated ideology” because they wouldn’t have “a neutral legal mind.”

The article quotes a few questions asked of Justice Kavanaugh:

  • Who or what is Lowenbrau? A classmate? A secret party place? Is it related to the ‘Devil’s Triangle,’ or a type of ‘boofing’?
  • I don’t know if it’s “boufed” or “boofed” — how do you pronounce that?
  • Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
  • Have you ever passed out from drinking?
  • What do you consider to be too many beers?
  • Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?
  • Do you believe Anita Hill?
  • Do you agree that it is possible for men to both be friends with some women, and treat other women badly?
  • Do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?”

What the Democrats have done to Republican President’s Supreme Court nominees in recent years is disgraceful. It would be a good idea for the Republicans not to follow that model and simply ask appropriate questions. I doubt the Republicans will get answers, but they can ask. It is bad enough that we have an ultra-liberal Supreme Court nominee chosen by a quota system, but hopefully she will answer questions honestly during her hearing.

 

 

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson?

President Biden has nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Recently The Daily Wire posted an article about some of the items Judge Jackson has supported in the past.

The article reports Judge Jackson’s stand on various issues:

Abortion: Ketanji Brown Jackson represented NARAL Pro-Choice America, the League of Women Voters, and the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts during her time in Boston’s Goodwin Procter law firm. In 2001, she helped write an amicus brief supporting a Massachusetts law that barred pro-life advocates from setting foot within six feet of any individual or vehicle that is within 18 feet of an abortion facility. Jackson’s record has earned her the fierce opposition of female leaders in the pro-life movement.

…Crime: Ketanji Brown Jackson served as vice chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission during the Obama administration. In April 2014, the commission propounded the “Drugs Minus Two” rule, which lowered the punishment for all drug-related crimes by two offense levels. The rule, which applied to an estimated 46,000 convicts, allowed judges to reduce convicts’ drug sentences by an average of two years and one month. “The result of the Sentencing Commission’s proposal will be to reward drug traffickers and distributors who possessed a firearm, committed a crime of violence, or had prior convictions,” wrote Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and then-Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) at the time.

Immigration: In September 2019, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a 120-page ruling (Make the Road New York v. McAleenan) that the Trump administration could not expand its use of “expedited removal”: that it could not fast-track the deportation of illegal aliens who had been in the country less than two years.

…Funding teen sex programs: When the Trump administration cut off $200 million in federal funding to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which teaches children as young as 10 to use condoms and other contraceptives without emphasizing abstinence, Judge Jackson ruled that the funding must continue.

…Government bureaucracy and labor unions: In 2018, President Donald Trump issued three executive orders that would reduce the power of public sector unions and make it easier to fire employees for poor performance. They also ordered employees to spend at least 75% of their time on “agency business.” Trump limited the use of “official time,” which allows government bureaucrats to use government resources to conduct union business during working hours, at taxpayers’ expense.

He also said the government would not negotiate with labor unions on issues where it was not legally required to do so. In August 2018, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a 119-page decision eviscerating those orders, denying most of Trump’s actions (American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump). She admitted that, while Trump’s action did not “specifically and directly conflict with individual statutory prescriptions” (i.e., he did not violate the law), it so “diminishes the scope of bargaining” that, it seemed to Jackson, Trump’s orders are no longer “a good-faith effort.” The D.C. Court of Appeals once again overturned Jackson’s decision, ruling that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Please follow the link to the article to read all of the notes on Judge Jackson’s previous decisions. She is not someone who is going to put the U.S. Constitution above her own political agenda. I suspect she will be confirmed, but that is not good news for America.

The Deep State Crosses Party Lines

In June I posted an article based on a post in The Conservative Treehouse about the appointment of Merrick Garland to the post of Attorney General.

The article in The Conservative Treehouse included the following:

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s (Ketanji Brown Jackson) nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.

Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)

On Friday, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Breyer.

On Friday, Just the News reported:

Jackson, 51, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and if confirmed by the Senate would become the first black female justice appointed to the nine-member high court. During earlier parts of her career, Jackson served as a clerk for Justice Breyer as well as a public defender, which made her resume appealing to Biden, who has voiced a desire to put more public defenders on the federal bench.

According to CNN, Jackson, received and accepted the offer from President Biden on Thursday night.

A decision Friday by the president would mark exactly two years since then-presidential candidate Biden promised to appoint the first black female justice to the court.

Biden said he would share his choice by late February. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said there would absolutely be a public announcement before March 1.

On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported:

The connection between Jackson and Ryan (former House Speaker Paul Ryan) is complex, as Jackson’s husband has a twin brother who is married to Ryan’s sister-in-law.

Ryan has also supported Jackson through previous nomination processes. When former President Barack Obama nominated her to a spot on the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit in 2012, Ryan testified on her behalf at the confirmation hearing and spoke highly of her qualifications, urging his fellow GOP colleagues to confirm her.

Jackson, 51, was known to be on a short list of contenders the White House considered for the role and exhibits a unique background, having been a federal trial court judge for eight years without experience as a prosecutor or major corporate lawyer. She also sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals bench, where notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh served as judges before their promotions.

It will be interesting to see exactly what her impact on the Supreme Court will be if she is confirmed.

Retirements Have Consequences

Elections have consequences, and retirements have consequences. It has been no secret that President Biden appoints people based on race, gender or sexual orientation. He has specified numerous times that his choice to fill the vacant Supreme Court position will be a woman of color. That limits the field considerably.

On Tuesday, The U.K. Daily Mail reported the following:

President Joe Biden touted his appointment of Clinton confidant and Kamal Harris-bestie Minyon Moore to help him choose the first black female Supreme Court justice, but he never mentioned that she’s a Black Lives Matter board member, CRT promoter and supports the Defund the Police movement.

Moore’s deep blue political credentials go all the way back to Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.

But when the president announced that he would be setting up a board of advisors to help him with his SCOTUS pick and confirmation strategy he soft-peddled Moore’s history.

The article also notes:

He never mentioned her affiliation with BLM Global Network Foundation, which has consistently advocated for the dismantling and defunding of police departments across the country because they consider them racist institutions.

The foundation has found itself on the defensive after co-founder Patrisse Cullors resigned amid questions about the whereabouts of millions of dollars in donations.

The California Department of Justice demanded an accounting of the money. AmazonSmile, a charity network affiliated with the online commerce site, suspended donations to the organization.

BLM told Fox News that Moore ‘has been required to cease all involvement in matters pertaining to her work with Black Lives Matter while she is part of the White House confirmation team.’ 

The White House also failed to mention that Moore is tight with Columbia Law School professor and crucial Critical Race Theory advocate Kimberlé Crenshaw.

In a Facebook video Moore asks Crenshaw how to further spread the word on CRT to counter resistance, like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s executive orders banning the teaching of the theory in public schools.

The Supreme Court was never apolitical. However, it would be nice if it at least gave the appearance of objectivity. Asking Minyon Moore to help with the choice of the new Supreme Court almost guarantees the the Supreme Court will be less objective–not more,

Gerrymandering In America

Gerrymandering is an American tradition (I didn’t say it was a good tradition–I just said it was a tradition).

According to Wikipedia (which I don’t generally recommend as a source):

The term gerrymandering is named after American politician Elbridge Gerry,[a][6] Vice President of the United States at the time of his death, who, as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative connotations and gerrymandering is almost always considered a corruption of the democratic process. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander (/ˈɛriˌmændər, ˈɡɛri-/). The word is also a verb for the process.

Our voting district in Massachusetts looked like a shadow drawing of a sea horse. It was drawn like that to minimize the Republican votes in the area of Massachusetts that bordered northeast Rhode Island. Districts are drawn by state legislators and are usually drawn to give the advantage to whichever party is in power. There are less noble reasons for drawing districts, but the fact remains that the state legislators have the responsibility to draw those districts. Recently a case involving districts drawn by the Alabama legislature was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, The Epoch Times reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday halted an order requiring Alabama to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2022 elections.

A lower court had determined in late January that the new Alabama congressional electoral map disadvantages black voters and likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The lower court’s three-judge panel said the state should have two majority-black districts, instead of one. The congressional map, approved by Alabama’s Legislature last year, has one majority-black district.

Alabama’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives consists of six Republicans and one Democrat.

Alabama was given until Feb. 11 to create a new map, but it appealed the district court’s decision instead.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling (pdf) grants a stay of the lower court’s order to have the districts redrawn.

“The stay order is not a ruling on the merits, but instead simply stays the District Court’s injunction pending a ruling on the merits,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote.

The legislature has the right to draw voting districts. The courts do not have the right to undo those districts and require new maps. The districts may not be drawn fairly in Alabama, but it is up to the voters in Alabama to vote for people in the legislature that will create districts that better reflect the population. There are other states where the courts are trying to control the redistricting process. This is an example of the courts attempting to usurp the job of the legislature. The courts do not have that right.

Wow! An Incredible Coincidence!

There have been a lot of incredible coincidences regarding the Biden family and those chosen for positions in the government under the Biden administration. The latest involves choosing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created when Justice Breyer retires.

On Saturday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about one possible choice to serve on the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

The Biden administration confirmed a U.S. South Carolina District Court judge backed by U.S. Rep. James Clyburn is among those considered to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 

Michelle Childs, 55, was tapped for a promotion last month by President Joe Biden to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the nomination has been postponed as she is now in consideration for the highest court in America after Biden vowed to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court in February. 

It came as part of a deal Biden struck with Clyburn, who previously chaired the Congressional Black Caucus and offered his endorsement for Biden in 2020 with a caveat – that the then-candidate publicly pledge to place a black woman on the Supreme Court should he get the chance in his tenure. 

…Childs had earned criticism after her September 2020 decision to kill a measure in South Carolina’s new elections bill that would have tightened security on mail-in ballots, which was believed to tip the favor for Democrats. 

Before the 2020 election, the South Carolina legislature passed a bill allowing all voters to vote absentee regardless of their reason in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but an amendment to remove a provision requiring a witness signature failed.

Childs upheld the law but struck down the signature requirement in a decisive victory for state and national Democrats who voted by mail at a higher rate than Republicans. 

It was swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court in early October.

Childs had also demonstrated a significant deference to Congress during her 2010 confirmation hearing the the South Carolina US District Court – indicating she may give federal lawmakers the benefit of the doubt on some occasions.

When asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein about her understanding of Congressional authority as given by the Constitution, the Childs had said: ‘With respect to any laws respecting your Congressional powers, I would presume that anything that you all are doing is constitutional and would approach it with that mindset, knowing that you would only enact laws that you have had due deliberance over and consider deliberation over.’ 

It sounds as if the judge has not read the Tenth Amendment. If you remember, the South Carolina primary was the turning point in winning the Democrat presidential nomination for Joe Biden. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn played a major role in that victory. Now it’s payback time.

 

Ending Racial Discrimination In College Admissions

On Wednesday, The New York Sun posted an article about a case the Supreme Court has recently decided to hear. The case involves Harvard University and its discrimination against Asian students based on their race.

The article reports:

The future of how America’s oldest university chooses its students will be decided not in faculty lounges in Cambridge, but in judicial chambers in Washington, D.C. As the Sun has reported, the high court looks set to decide the future of college and university admissions after elevating cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

Mr. Bacow (Lawrence Bacow, President of Harvard University) struck a defiant note in response to the dramatic legal development, maintaining: “Our admissions process, in which race is considered as one factor among many, makes us stronger.” He promised to “defend with vigor” that approach against “narrowly drawn measures of academic distinction.”

Harvard’s admissions process is one of the nation’s most selective. Last spring, it extended offers to just more than 3 percent of applicants, making it a bellwether for how thick and thin envelopes (or their email equivalents) are sent out nationwide.

Mr. Bacow wrote that Harvard is “more than our numbers, more than our grades, more than our rankings or scores.” The question is whether just such a “holistic” approach runs afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws and the promises of the Constitution.

The article concludes:

To argue this, Students for Fair Admissions, the group mounting the legal challenges, points to Harvard admissions practices that penalized Asian-American students by giving them low marks on such metrics as “likability,” “courage,” and “self-confidence.”

While Mr. Bacow argues that Harvard’s admissions process reflects the reality that “race matters in the United States,” Students for Fair Admissions maintains: “The cornerstone of our nation’s civil rights laws is the principle that an individual’s race should not be used to help or harm them in their life’s endeavors.”

The University of North Carolina, which shares a Supreme Court docket with Harvard, fired back that the “true agenda” for Students for Fair Admissions is to “deny opportunity to qualified students.”

While both North Carolina and Harvard are undaunted, all eyes will now be on affirmative action’s suddenly very uncertain future.

As Martin Luther King, Jr., once stated, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” If you truly want the students you admit to your college to graduate, you should admit them according to their academic record and their achievements–not on the basis of their race. Diversity is a nice idea, but how many of the students that colleges accept in the name of diversity have the academic skills to graduate in four years?

Stopping The End Run Around The Second Amendment

It is no secret that there are number of blue states that do not support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of those states have at various times passed laws to try to limit the Second Amendment rights of Americans or to find a way to take guns away from law-abiding Americans. In March 2021, I posted an article about one such incident. An article posted in May 2021 was about the Supreme Court decision regarding the incident.

On Thursday, Breitbart reported the following:

The Ninth Circuit federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the coronavirus lockdowns of gun stores in Ventura County, California, violated constitutional rights.

The case, McDougall v. County of Ventura, was appealed to the Ninth Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected a claim that Ventura County’s coronavirus orders closing gun stores, ammo shops, and gun ranges violated Second Amendment rights.

The article concludes:

Vandyke and Kleinfeld also noted, “Not only did Appellees fail to provide any evidence or explanation suggesting that gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges posed a greater risk of spreading COVID19 than other businesses and activities deemed ‘essential,’ but they also failed to provide any evidence that they considered less restrictive alternatives for the general public.”

Judge Ryan Nelson was the panel’s dissenting voice.

The case is McDougall v. County of Ventura, No. 20-56220 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

It should be noted that The Los Angeles Times reported the following in February 2020:

Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.

…Trump’s rapid transformation of the circuit courts — three others went from a majority of active judges appointed by Democrats to Republican majorities — was accomplished with the support of Senate Republicans.

Nominations of appellate judges may no longer be blocked by filibuster, and Republican Senate leaders have declined under Trump to follow the practice of allowing an appointee’s home-state senators to veto the president’s choice.

“Trump has set all records for the number of appellate appointees,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

The most important legacy of President Trump may be judges in the circuit courts who will protect the rights of Americans that are enshrined in our Constitution.

One Result Of The Supreme Court Ruling On Mandatory Vaccines

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported that General Electric has suspended its vaccine mandate and testing requirements due to the Supreme Court decision on vaccine mandates. After the Court decision, President Biden requested that companies keep the vaccine mandates in effect anyway. I guess General Electric realized the potential lawsuits and loss of employees keeping the mandates would bring.

The article reports:

“The maker of jet engines, wind turbines and medical scanners confirmed the decision Friday via email,” Bloomberg News reported. “GE is the first major company to announce a halt after the court’s decision Thursday to block the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s push to boost Covid-19 vaccinations.”

The article concludes:

“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to block common-sense life-saving requirements for employees at large businesses that were grounded squarely in both science and the law,” Biden said. “This emergency standard allowed employers to require vaccinations or to permit workers to refuse to be vaccinated, so long as they were tested once a week and wore a mask at work: a very modest burden.”

“As a result of the Court’s decision, it is now up to States and individual employers to determine whether to make their workplaces as safe as possible for employees, and whether their businesses will be safe for consumers during this pandemic by requiring employees to take the simple and effective step of getting vaccinated,” Biden continued. “The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure, but that does not stop me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans’ health and economy. I call on business leaders to immediately join those who have already stepped up – including one third of Fortune 100 companies – and institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, customers, and communities.”

Adhering to President Biden’s suggestion will only create more chaos in the supply chain and more lawsuits in the workplace. I suspect a lot of companies realize that. It is a shame that the President either doesn’t realize that or doesn’t care.

Controlling The Vocabulary To Control The Narrative

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article that illustrates how words can be misused to create a false narrative.

The article reports:

NBC’s Chuck Todd pressed Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves (R) to accept vaccine mandates as “pro-life” actions, while simultaneously suggesting that access to abortion should be protected as an individual liberty.

Reeves made an appearance Sunday on “Meet the Press,” joining Todd for a discussion on the emergence of a new coronavirus variant and Mississippi’s vaccination rate as well as the 15-week abortion ban that will face the scrutiny of the Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

Governor Reeves pointed out that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from limited abortion.

The article also includes some of the Governor’s comments on vaccine mandates:

Todd then attempted to use Reeves’ own comments about his opposition to vaccine mandates to argue that a vaccine mandate was actually a “pro-life” position.

“This is a power grab by the federal government. We’ve seen this time and time again by the Biden administration, and now we’re seeing their strong desire to trying to make decisions on behalf of individual Americans. We believe in freedom and individual liberty,” Reeves said of the vaccine mandates.

“‘Freedom and individual liberty,’” Todd repeated. “Why should the state of Mississippi tell a woman what they should do with their body? Why shouldn’t they have that individual freedom on their body, particularly in the first 20 weeks?”

“Well, this is a prime example, and the far left loves to scream, ‘My body, my choice.’ What I would submit to you, choice, is they absolutely ignore the fact that in getting an abortion there is an actual killing of an innocent unborn child that is in that womb,” Reeves replied. “Here is what we know about babies that are 15 weeks. We know that they have a heartbeat. We know that those babies at 15 weeks actually can open and close their hands. We know that they have developing lungs, and we know that those babies at 15 weeks can feel pain, and so when you talk – the difference between vaccine mandates and abortions is vaccines allow you to protect yourself. Abortions actually go in and kill other American babies. Let’s just put this in perspective –”

‘My body, my choice’ totally falls apart when you realize that an abortion involves another body with an entirely different DNA. We can expect more of this sort of twisting words in the near future when the Mississippi case comes before the Supreme Court.

Modified Good News

On Wednesday I reported that the Supreme Court had struck down the CDC’s extension of the eviction moratorium (article here). However, the celebration may have been a bit premature.

Yesterday NewsMax reported the following:

The court’s action late Thursday ends protections for roughly 3.5 million people in the United States who said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.

The court said in an unsigned opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reimposed the moratorium Aug. 3, lacked the authority to do so under federal law without explicit congressional authorization. The justices rejected the administration’s arguments in support of the CDC’s authority.

“If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it,” the court wrote.

Just for the record, I don’t believe that Congress has the authority to specifically authorize a moratorium on evictions. An eviction is usually the result of someone either not paying their rent or destroying the rental property. Those events are usually detailed in a contract that the renter signs with the Landlord. That contract requires the payment of rent and puts certain requirements on the tenant for the upkeep of the property. For Congress to interfere in a private contract between the renter and the Land goes against the private property rights guaranteed by our Constitution. A Supreme Court that was actually upholding the U.S. Constitution would strike down any law from Congress that interfered with private property rights.

Good News From The Supreme Court

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported that the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Biden administration is required to reinstate the “remain in Mexico” policy put in place by the Trump administration. The policy requires people seeking asylum in America to remain in Mexico while they await hearings in the United States. Theoretically this prevents the problem of asylum seekers simply not showing up for their hearings, disappearing into the country, and working illegally. This policy also provides a small degree of protection against the continued spread of the coronavirus.

What has been happening is that people coming across the border illegally have been flown to various parts of the country and released. Because there is very little, if any, corona virus testing of illegals, we were essentially seeding the coronavirus throughout the country. Requiring people to remain in Mexico will limit some of this.

There is, however, the matter of whether or not the Biden administration will abide by this decision. The Biden administration does have a history of ignoring the law when the law is in conflict with their desired policy. The moratorium on evictions was illegal–it was government interference in a contract–and the Biden administration still declared it law. There are a lot of reasons to impeach this President, but unfortunately impeachment (even if it were possible) would install a President even less able to do the job.

 

The Question Of The Day

The American Thinker posted an article today asking a really good question about the 2020 election. The questions is very simple – “What if the 2020 Election Audits Show Trump Really Won?” There is no quick and obvious answer.

The article notes a few historical precedents and a few observations about our Constitution:

I. This we do know…

* With a strict constructionist view of the wording in the Constitution, the words are not there to “road map” how to fix possible presidential election fraud.

* The Constitution mentions nothing about the Electoral College re-convening. Historically, the Electoral College has never re-convened for a second time for a presidential certification.

…*  We do know that of the 4 key contested battleground “purple states” that were crucial, all had election irregularities election day, election night, and the following election morning.

…II.  So, what would happen if it became clear there was no election integrity in the four most important contested state cases?  What would happen?

*  Would the Supreme Court do absolutely nothing?  Would the Supreme Court say the Constitution is mute, and therefore they themselves have nothing they can do?  Would they say no federal law exists to right the wrong?  Would the Supreme Court remain impotent?

*  Would the Supreme Court place President Trump back in office and back into the White House?

*  Would Biden remain the president, nothing changes, and Biden serves out the remaining four years?  With Trump supporters seething but doing nothing?

*  Would Biden and his Attorney General Merrick Garland, after the Arizona audit proves fraud, stop “by any means necessary” any audits being conducted in any other states?  A complete stoppage of all future state audits.

*  Would Garland/Biden cite federal supremacy, federal civil rights laws, or federalize the state National Guards to make sure any remaining audits are stopped?

*  Is it possible that Biden and Kamala Harris would both be impeached out of office and Nancy Pelosi become President of the United States?   President Nancy Pelosi!  Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and is therefore third in line to the presidency.  The Constitution and federal law are clear on who is third in line: Speaker of the House.  President Pelosi!

*  Would President Trump admit that there is really nothing MAGA Nation can do, short of violence, and therefore simply just concentrate his efforts on the Republicans taking back the House and the Senate with Trump as their leader in 2022?  This is constitutional and legal but only works if there is not election theft again in 2022. 

III.  Four separate entities and groups are crucial to what might happen next if there is obvious election fraud and a stolen presidential election and the Constitution, federal courts, and federal law are mute on what happens next.

  *  The Supreme Court.  Even though it is obvious that the Supreme Court does not want to deal with the 2020 election, the Court might actually make tough decisions concerning the outcome.  Probably the big fear of the Court is that if they rule constitutionally against Biden, the progressives within the Deep State would just ignore the Court.  And the Court would be spectacularly neutered for all to see. A big fear.

  *  The military. What would the military do?  Especially what if the top brass goes one way, but the rank-in-file soldiers go the other way?  The generals appear to have already sold their soul to Biden.  So, it would surprise no one if the military generals stayed with Biden/Harris.  But what if the real soldiers themselves go the other way?

* The progressives. Considering what the progressives did, and allowed, and cheered for in the violent deadly riots last summer; we have a pretty good idea of how they would react. We saw the violence the progressives are willing to bring. We know how far the progressives would go if Biden were being removed by the Court.

* Trump supporters. Would they gear up for the 2022 off-year elections so that the Republicans under Trump’s leadership take both the House and Senate with filibuster-proof majorities? Would they wait passionately until the 2024 presidential election and support Trump? Or would they become more like the progressives and take matters into their own hands? Would they say enough is enough, and it “gets real,” really fast? Especially if the Supreme Court rules constitutionally for Trump, but the progressives say NO.

Conclusion. We just don’t know. We do not know what comes next. This is the situation America finds itself in when roughly half of the American people believe at the very least the election results to be very, very questionable; and then roughly half of the American people would not allow Biden/Harris to be removed from office no matter what the forensic audits might clearly show. The Constitution is mute. Federal law is silent. State laws are inconsistent. Emotions are very high. Compromise is unlikely at this point.

Frankly, I think the most rational solution is to make sure the mid-term election is an honest election, to make sure any election fraud in 2020 is widely reported, and to let the people vote the crooks who were involved out of office. Then a secure 2024 election would be able to undo some of the damage the Biden administration has done to America. However, I am extremely concerned that the American voters will never be made aware of the fraud that occurred.