Who Is Our Government Supposed To Represent?

A lot of us have questions about who our government is actually representing, but what about the question of who they are supposed to represent? Theoretically, the census determines how many representatives each state has and also impacts the electors in the Electoral College. So who should be included in the census? Various courts have been dealing with that question for a while.

Just the News reported today that a recent Supreme Court ruling states that illegal aliens will not be counted in the 2020 census. That makes perfect sense to me–if they are here illegally, why should they be represented in Congress?

The article reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated two lower court decisions that blocked the government from excluding illegal aliens during the process of allotting congressional seats.

The decision to remand the two cases to lower courts “with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction” follows a ruling by the high court earlier this month that allows the Trump administration to pursue plans to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the high court’s ruling yesterday, just as they had in Trump v. New York earlier this month.

So what is the possible impact of this decision? California had been relying on its illegal alien population to counter the fact that many residents of that state are leaving the state to settle in other states. This is the result of continued poor fiscal policies in California and a refusal to deal with many quality of life problems. Homelessness in California is out of control while taxes on ordinary people are increasing and the cost of living in the state is increasing. Because of this ruling, California may lose a Congressional Representative and an elector in the Electoral College. Other states with large populations of illegal aliens may also lose representatives or electors.

Regardless of how you feel about illegal aliens, amnesty, a path to citizenship, etc., Congress is supposed to represent American citizens. They don’t, but they are supposed to.

Not Sure This Will Hold

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about the Supreme Court decision regarding counting non-citizens in the 2020 census. The decision is somewhat confusing, but here are the highlights.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may remove illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count, which eliminates that population from the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes that officially determine the presidency.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. New York issued Dec. 18 is a victory for the Trump administration.

So far, that is good news.

The article continues:

States and local governments, including so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials, sued to prevent the administration’s plan from moving forward. They argued that President Donald Trump, a Republican, was attempting to interfere with the count and prevent Democratic-leaning areas with large illegal-alien populations from gaining congressional seats.

But the high court found that their challenge was premature because they could not demonstrate any so-called concrete injury they might suffer. The ruling apparently leaves open the possibility of further challenges in the future and acknowledges the Trump administration may have difficulty implementing its policy.

“At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the court stated in the unsigned opinion.

“The President, to be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base. But the President qualified his directive by providing that” information should be gathered “to the extent practicable” and that aliens should be excluded “to the extent feasible,” quoting federal regulations.

“Any prediction how the Executive Branch might eventually implement this general statement of policy is “no more than conjecture” at this time,” the court stated citing Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983).

“To begin with, the policy may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever, let alone in a manner substantially likely to harm any of the plaintiffs here. Pre-apportionment litigation always ‘presents a moving target’ because” the administration “may make (and the President may direct) changes to the census up until the President transmits his statement to the House.”

The Supreme Court opinion allows the Trump administration to try to implement its counting policy for now even though processing of 2020 Census data is expected to wrap up in coming weeks. Existing law requires the president to file a mandatory reapportionment report with Congress next month, which could lead to reduced federal funding in states with large illegal-alien populations.

As expected, the ACLU is already planning to sue.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. This case is a convoluted mess. What is at stake is whether states like California, with large numbers of illegal aliens, will receive representation in Congress and the Electoral College because of their illegal residents.

Some Suggested Solutions To Election Fraud

On Monday Townhall posted an article containing suggestions on how to prevent election fraud. Admittedly, the horse has already left the stable, but we need to figure out what to do to avoid future election fiascos.

The article notes:

The truth is that country-wide popular elections are a modern advent. Our country started out with mostly legislative selection of electors. In our nation’s first presidential election, six of the 10 states appointed electors by direct legislative appointment, without holding popular elections. In the second presidential election, nine of the 15 states did the same. In the third, nine of the 16 states did not hold popular elections.

Today, Americans don’t trust their state legislatures with that responsibility. We practice popular vote elections for electors. But with 150 million or so people voting, problems are bound to occur.

States were entrusted with administration of federal elections, but Congress was entrusted with oversight of the same.

The article reminds us of the responsibilities of the state and federal government as outlined in the Constitution:

The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides Congress with broad authority to regulate congressional elections: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, adds: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

In 1879, the Supreme Court determined that Congress may make election law regulations and may alter them; and, that federal law supersede state law if there is a conflict, “for the power of Congress over the subject is paramount. It may be exercised as and when Congress sees fit to exercise it.” 

Exercising their powers, Congress has passed legislation to regulate the timing of federal elections, voter registration requirements, absentee voting requirements, accessibility provisions for the elderly and handicapped, and prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices.

But federal election laws, compared to Congressional legislation in other areas, are lacking.

The article proposes several solutions to the problem of voter fraud:

Congress must act. Half of the country believes the 2020 election was determined by impure votes. That’s a problem and one to which Congress holds the key to prevent from recurring. Congress must exercise its right, and its responsibility, to “pass laws for the free, pure and safe exercise” of the right to vote.

New laws must limit the time for casting a vote in the elections. New laws must regulate the types of equipment/voting machines that can be used and what kind of safeguards they must have to preserve the integrity of the votes. New laws must regulate “improper use of money” or dark money interjected to influence our elections — this is a power Congress “undoubtedly” possesses according to the Supreme Court. These are but some of the concerns that plagued the 2020 election. The list is extensive and Congress must address voter concerns accordingly.

As far as the four states at the heart of the 2020 election tumult, we can address our national grievances with them by demanding that Congress attach conditions to federal funds sent to, or even deny funding to, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia, until they implement acceptable changes to their election administration. Congressional spending power is a potent tool of persuasion.

Congress is responsible to every eligible American voter, certainly to the 150 million who voted in the 2020 election, to enact laws to preserve the purity of federal elections. This is their job. Their job is not to tweet about free college for all, it’s to protect federal elections. It is our job to make sure our elected representatives do their job.

Congress, do your job!

It’s Not Over Yet

There are some real questions about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Witnesses have signed affidavits about transporting ballots from one state to another, about seeing mail-in ballots being processed that had never been folded, and about seeing Republican observers being barred from observing. There are a lot of questions, and there seem to be very few answers.

The Epoch Times posted an article today about President Trump’s next legal move to challenge the election after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case brought by Texas and nineteen other states.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump’s legal team is planning on filing retooled lawsuits, his lawyer said Saturday.

“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”

Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.

Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.

“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”

Courts have been using the matter of standing to dodge facing the facts, he alleged, adding, “Nobody wants to face the reality that this election was stolen.”

On November 27th, The Spectator posted an article about the anomalies in this presidential election. Please follow the link to the article and read the list. It provides a lot of food for thought.

The article at The Epoch Times notes:

According to certified counts in Georgia and the other five battleground states where election results are contested, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden beat Trump. Trump won all but Nevada in 2016. Biden’s team didn’t respond to a request for comment.

I am sure we are not done with this yet. It is frustrating to be still dealing with an election a month later, but if there was voter fraud (and I believe there was), ignoring it would have serious consequences for our republic.

When Your Priorities Are Unconstitutional

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of the things Joe Biden would prioritize should he take office in January. It is no surprise to find gun control high up on that list.

The article reports:

Joe Biden plans to move quickly against guns, adding the issue to his list of first executive orders, according to his top policy aide.

Stef Feldman, the national policy director of Biden’s presidential campaign, included the Democrat’s gun plan in a list of initial executive actions set to be unleashed after Inauguration Day.

Speaking in a Zoom briefing hosted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, she said that Biden is planning to “make big, bold changes through executive action, not just on policing and climate like we talked about previously, but in healthcare and education on gun violence, on a range of issues.”

She added that “there’s really a lot you can do through guidance and executive action.”

It’s a pretty safe bet that if he does take executive action against guns, a case objecting to the order will find its way to the Supreme Court. This may be one of many reasons the Democrats plan to pack the court with more liberal justices.

The article concludes:

During the campaign, Biden won the endorsement of former candidate Beto O’Rourke, who famously promised to grab everyone’s AR-15.

While he calls his plan one aimed at ending “gun violence,” most of Biden’s ideas amount to limiting what people can buy or have. For example, he wants to end the sale of AR-15-style firearms (the most popular in the nation), regulate those that people already have, and limit the size of magazines those guns use.

Just for the record, the AR-15 is the most popular gun in the nation, but it does not have a history of being the weapon most used to commit a crime. So why are the Democrats so focused on the AR-15? Well, it’s scary looking. If you don’t know anything about guns, it is really scary looking. The fact that it’s scary looking means that it can be used to get the camel’s nose under the tent and begin to take away the gun rights of Americans. If you are familiar with world history, taking guns away from law-abiding citizens never ends well. A Biden administration would not bring freedom and prosperity to America. His ideas on gun control are only one illustration of that.

Headed For The Supreme Court

The Epoch Times is reporting today that Texas filed an election lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges that the states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures.

The article reports:

The lawsuit seeks a determination by the court that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the counting of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the states which have already appointed electors, the lawsuit asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the challenge on the day of the so-called safe-harbor deadline. The cumulative electoral votes in the four states are enough to determine the outcome of the 2020 election.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election,” Paxton said in a statement.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” he added. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

This will be the week that determines who will be sworn in as President next month. This court case is part of the battle for secure and honest elections.

When Did We Give Judges This Kind Of Power?

Yesterday Just the News reported that a federal judge has reinstated DACA. DACA is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that would provide people brought into America illegally as children a path to citizenship. DACA was put in place by an executive order by President Obama. When President Trump tried to undo that executive order, which supposedly he is allowed to do, the courts got involved. It went to the Supreme Court, and they told President Trump he was doing it wrong. So we are essentially back at square one.

The article reports:

The DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) saga continues its long and winding road through all branches of government, as a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Friday that these undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children can once again apply to remain in this country legally.

This goes back to the Obama administration, who said repeatedly that “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen,” and words to that effect.  

But finally he gave up on Congress and in June of 2012, he signed DACA into law as an executive directive and said that it was “a temporary stopgap measure.”

President Trump had planned to end it, and then offered it as part of a grand bargain to get a wall built and to end chain migration. The Democrats did not accept his offer. Finally he attempted to rescind the Obama directive and end the program, but the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against him in June of this year on the basis that he hadn’t properly used the Administrative Procedure Act, not on the merits or the constitutionality of the case.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis fully restored the Obama-era program. He ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin accepting new applications on Monday.

The Trump administration can now go back to court. I do have compassion for the children who were brought here with no say in the matter. However, DACA as it is currently set up is an invitation to fraud. We have MS-13 gang members lying about their age to get into the country. We have no real handle on how many people this will impact. What do you say when you see a person who has waiting years to immigrate to America, doing it the right way and paying the cost and they watch someone who came illegally step in front of them in line? This whole program needs to go back to the drawing board along with our existing immigration policies.

An Interesting Statement About An Interesting Case

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about the recent Supreme Court case regarding restrictions on religious gatherings in New York State.

The article notes:

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday imposing an injunction on an order issued by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York that limited the people who could enter a church or a synagogue—but not a liquor store—in areas of the state that he declared “orange” or “red zones” because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America had filed suit against Cuomo arguing that he was violating their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to issue an injunction preventing enforcement of Cuomo’s order while the case is being litigated.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted for the injunction. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer voted to deny the injunction.

The following statement by Justice Roberts caught my attention:

Chief Justice Roberts argued against he injunction because he said that Cuomo is not enforcing his order at this precise moment.

“Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,” Robert conceded. “And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not.”

So what Justice Roberts is saying is that the law may be unconstitutional, but he doesn’t want to take a stand on that right now. Sir, you took a sworn oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Are you going to do that?

The Sad Decline Of An Organization

The Girl Scouts became political a long time ago. Live Action posted an article in March of last year that lists some of the political events held by the Girl Scouts in recent years.

The article reports:

In June of 2018, the Girl Scouts tweeted a thank you to Teen Vogue regarding a Teen Vogue Summit in which they participated. This summit has featured “reproductive justice” as one of its topics. “We had a blast,” they said. “Talk about feeling empowred.” Along with the tweet was a video which included the pro-abortion mantra, “my body, my choice, my rights.” It’s a clear message from the Girl Scouts. They falsely believe that abortion is a right, rather than a gross attack on human life and human rights.

…In November of 2018, the Girl Scouts again tweeted support for Teen Vogue, thanking them for “extending the sponsorship opportunity” for a Teen Vogue Summit. Teen Vogue Summit events include topics such as “an honest and intimate conversation on healthy, safe, and pleasurable sex, in a new age of inclusivity.” The events have featured former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, and manager of Youth Organizing for Planned Parenthood Sharim Hossain as speakers. In addition, Teen Vogue has recently been outspoken about their support for late-term abortion.

…On December 26, 2018, the Girl Scouts got straight to the point on Instagram. In a #WednesdayWisdom post, they celebrated Girl Scout alum Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, highlighting O’Connor’s “duty to ‘help people at all times.’” They celebrated O’Connor because, as they say, “she was a key swing vote in many important cases, including the upholding of Roe v. Wade.” It doesn’t get more clear than that. The Girl Scouts support Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States through all nine months of pregnancy, overruling multiple state laws enacted by the elected representatives in those states.

Fast forward to an article in The Daily Wire yesterday.

The article reports:

The Girl Scouts of America has deleted a Wednesday social media post that congratulated Justice Amy Coney Barrett for becoming one of only five women in U.S. history to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

In a statement on social media, the Girl Scouts explained that the post was deleted because it was viewed as a political statement, instead of as simply congratulatory.

…“Earlier today, we shared a post highlighting the five women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. It was quickly viewed as a political and partisan statement which was not our intent and we have removed the post,” explained the organization.

“Girl Scouts of the USA is a non-political, nonpartisan organization. We are neither red nor blue, but Girl Scout GREEN. We are here to lift up girls and women,” said Girl Scouts.

The original Girl Scouts post featured a photo of Barrett, along with a photo of the since-retired Sandra Day O’Connor and the three sitting female justices on the Supreme Court, and read simply: “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the fifth woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”

The post was taken down due to pushback from people who opposed the appointment. The article includes a number of Twitter posts from those people. It is sad to see people so blinded by politics that they cannot celebrate the accomplishments of someone who holds different political views.

The Misuse Of The Hearings

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about a statement by Senator Dick Durbin on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

The article reports:

“Take a look at the composition, the Republican composition, on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Durbin said on Sunday:

Let’s start with Texas. Senator Cornyn is in a very tight race for re-election. He’s also in a state where there are 1.7 million people who will lose their health insurance when Amy Coney Barrett votes to eliminate that program, another 12 million who have pre-existing conditions.

Now you just go down the table there. I should have started with the Chairman, Lindsey Graham, in the state of South Carolina. He has 242,000 who will lose their insurance if Amy Coney Barrett eliminates the Affordable Care Act and 2 million who have pre-existing conditions.

Iowa, Joni Ernst, 187,000 will lose their insurance. North Carolina (Sen. Tillis), 500,000 will lose their insurance.

So you want to know the point we’re going to make? We’re making a point that this not only has an impact on the lives of so many innocent Americans, it could impact the members of this committee.

…And what we’re trying to drive home to the American people is this makes a difference in your life as to whether or not you have health insurance, whether or not, with a preexisting condition you can afford health insurance.

And we believe that, once the Republican voters across this country wake up to the reality of the strategy, many of them are going to say to their senators, listen, this is not what we bargained for. We may be conservative, but we’re not crazy. Our family needs health insurance protection,” Durbin said.

I mean, it’s understandable people are skeptical of the Republican message and are fearful of what’s going to happen if this Supreme Court nominee goes through and threatens their very health insurance.

There are a few problems with these statements. First of all, if the Supreme Court is making laws, then the legislative branch has neglected its responsibilities. Secondly, a confirmation hearing is not the appropriate place to grandstand and play politics. Senators have a job to do. They need to do it without a lot of political posturing. Thirdly, the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court justice should not be about specific issues–it needs to be about the qualifications of the nominee.

Just for the record, there is a replacement for ObamaCare. It includes taking care of people with pre-existing conditions.

Just a note about the Affordable Care Act that the Democrats seem so intent on defending. In 2017 Forbes reported:

The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards.

Why in the world would we want to continue that?

 

Does Anyone Remember Robert Bork?

On September 29, 2020, The Federalist posted an article remembering some of the activities surrounding the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.

The article reports:

Mary Ellen Bork, the widow to the late federal Judge Robert Bork, wrote a response to an article in the Wall Street Journal reminding readers of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s role in her husband’s failed confirmation to the Supreme Court.

“Most people don’t remember the hearings on Robert Bork for nomination to the Supreme Court, but I do,” she wrote. “The week of hearings in 1987 showed me Joe Biden’s partisanship and pragmatism.”

…The original article in the Wall Street Journal states, “This began the modern era of hyper-politicized judicial nominations, though for the Supreme Court it has largely been a one-way partisan street.”

According to the widow, the “Democrats flagrantly lied about Bob’s record of opinions,” just days after Biden dropped out of the presidential race due to plagiarism.

“In the course of one week Sen. Biden orchestrated a vicious lying assault and was caught passing off someone else’s words as his own,” she said. “Thirty-three years later he is still a man without a compass, guided now by prevailing progressive winds.”

Be prepared for a rerun of the Democrat’s activities surrounding that nomination.

Breitbart is reporting the following today:

Senator Chris Coons (D-DL) said on this week’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday” that Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s positions were “disqualifying” for the post she was seeking.

Coons said, “Well, I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long-settled precedent are not just extreme, they are disqualifying.”

He continued, “She has taught at a well-regarded law school. She clerked for Justice Scalia, but she has views that make her not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. President Trump has said he would only nominate someone who would overturn the Affordable Care Act, taking away health care protection for more than 100 million Americans in the middle of a pandemic. Both President Trump and members of the majority on this committee have said they would only vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.”

I would like to refer back to an article at rightwinggranny posted on September 27.

I stated the following:

There are a few things that should be noted about the upcoming confirmation hearings. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017, and confirmed on October 31, 2017, by a 55 to 43 vote. Three Democrats voted with the Republicans–Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly. That was less than three years ago. She has been vetted.

This is going to be very ugly, and there will be a lot of lies told by those who oppose this nomination. The lady is extremely qualified and should be confirmed. However, the Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening. That is a shame, but that is where we are.

Since When?

The following exchange took place on October 9th. It is posted at The Epoch Times.

Reporter: “I’ve got to ask you about packing the courts, and I know that you said yesterday you aren’t going to answer the question until after the election. But this is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.”

Biden: “Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don’t want me continuing to talk about what they’re doing to the court right now.”

Reporter: “Well, don’t the voters deserve to know?”

Biden: “No, they don’t.”

Wow.

The article concludes:

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote in a Twitter post on Sept. 19, “If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”

Court packing would mean expanding the number of justices in the Supreme Court, which is currently nine. The term came into use after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed to increase the justices from nine to 15.

Both Biden and his vice-president pick, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), refused to clarify their stance, though they were pressed repeatedly to answer the question.

Biden also refused to release a list of his potential SCOTUS nominees before the election as Trump did in 2016 and before this election.

Biden said on Oct. 8 that he’ll reveal his position on “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court after the election is over.

“You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” Biden told reporters during a campaign event in Phoenix.

Voters need to understand that the Bidien-Harris ticket if elected will not be playing by the same rules Washington has played by for the past two hundred plus years. They are talking about packing the Supreme Court, ending gun rights for Americans, ending the Senate filibuster, and adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states (to give them a permanent majority in the Senate). Just for the record, adding Washington, D.C. as a state requires a constitutional amendment. America as we know it would not survive their election.

Why Not To Elect Joe Biden

Dan Bongino shared an article on his website yesterday that lists 15 reasons not to vote for Joe Biden. Here is the list:

1) Joe Biden is 77 years old, seems to have difficulty working a full day, and has rather famously and significantly deteriorated mentally.

2) Joe Biden has been in politics since 1972. Do you think someone who has been in office that long without accomplishing much is going to sweep in and change everything for the better?

3) Biden has promised to halt all construction on a border wall, cancel the bilateral agreement with Mexico that stops many illegals from making it here, end deportations for anyone other than felons, and push through a massive amnesty for illegal aliens.

4) Joe Biden plans to ban the sale of new AR-15s and then demand that owners of AR-15s sell them to the government or sign up on a gun registry.

5) Biden has publicly said he no longer supports the Hyde Rule, which prevents federal money from being used for abortion.

6) Biden has noted that he is open to locking the country down again over Coronavirus.

7) Biden has said numerous times that he intends to ban fracking.

8) Biden is extremely liberal.

9) Joe Biden, who has a reputation for putting his hands all over women, was credibly accused of sexual assault by his former aide, Tara Reade.

10) Biden publicly admitted that he had advised Obama not to go through with the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

11) Electing Joe Biden after months of rioting by liberals in liberal cities will send a message that Americans are okay with that kind of behavior.

12) Both Biden and his VP, Kamala Harris, refuse to say whether they will attempt to add more justices to the Supreme Court.

13) Joe Biden has signaled that he’s open to getting rid of the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which is extremely dangerous and has the potential to destabilize our Republic.

14) Kamala Harris was arguably the single most liberal member of the Senate and Joe Biden, who seems too feeble to finish his term, made her his vice-presidential running mate.

15) Barack Obama and Joe Biden presided over the slowest post-war economic recovery in American history. Is that the guy you want shepherding the economy after the economic damage caused by Corona and the lockdowns?

Obviously there are more reasons not to elect Joe Biden, but that is one person’s list.

This Is Not A Surprise

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article reporting that some of the Democrats have called for a delay in the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

The article reports:

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to challenge the planned Oct. 12 date for Barrett’s hearing. Feinstein argued that there is not enough time to rush the vetting process for Barrett.

“The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role,” Feinstein wrote. “We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration. The Senate and the American public deserve a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short.”

Feinstein asserted that the current process to nominate Barrett “is a sharp departure from past practice” and “undercuts the Senate’s ability to fulfill its advice and consent role and deprives the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record for themselves.”

The longtime California Democrat asked about whether the FBI can “thoroughly vet” Barrett’s background, review documents related to the judge, review her entire record, and provide “adequate time” for questioning her.

I would like to remind Senator Feinstein that Judge Barrett was thoroughly vetted when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017, and confirmed on October 31, 2017. I would also like to note that three Democrats voted with the Republicans to confirm Judge Barrett–Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly.

If Senator Feinstein is so concerned about a thorough vetting, why not simply do a vetting from Mary 2017 to the present. I am sure that could be done quickly. However, since Senator Feinstein’s objection probably has very little to do with vetting, I suspect that would not solve the problem. Get out the popcorn. Although this is extremely sad, it may be very entertaining.

It Begins On October 12th

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today reporting the planned schedule for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.

The article reports:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on Sunday laid out the timeline of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation process.

“More than half of the Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within 16 days or less, so we’ll start on Oct. 12,” the South Carolina Republican said on Fox News.

“We’ll have a day of introduction. We’ll have two days of questioning, Tuesday and Wednesday, and on [Oct. 15] we’ll begin the markup.”

“We’ll hold it over for a week, and we’ll report her nomination out of the committee on Oct. 22,” Graham continued. “Then it will be up to Sen. [Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of committee.”

There are a few things that should be noted about the upcoming confirmation hearings. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017, and confirmed on October 31, 2017, by a 55 to 43 vote. Three Democrats voted with the Republicans–Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly. That was less than three years ago. She has been vetted. Senator Donnelly is no longer in the Senate, but Senator Manchin and Senator Kaine are still Senators. Senator Manchin has stated that he will vote against the nomination. Senator Kaine is also expected to vote against the nomination although I could not find a specific statement from him to that effect. It seems to me that the Senators would welcome the opportunity to fill the Supreme Court seat with someone who has recently been vetted and has done an outstanding job on the Seventh Circuit Court. However, I would be totally wrong to assume that. Stay tuned for the circus and pray for this lady and her family.

A Wonderful Choice

One America News is reporting today that President Trump has nominated 48-year-old Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. If she is confirmed, she will be the youngest justice on the court.

The article reports:

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” he (President Trump) said. “She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”

Judge Barrett thanked the President and his administration for their kindness and the honor of being nominated.

“If the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability,” she stated. “I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.”

If she is appointed to the Supreme Court, she noted she will “be mindful of who came before me.”

“I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court,” added Barrett.

I hope that she will be more mindful of Justice Antonin Scalia than of Justice Ginsburg.

The article notes some highlights of Judge Barrett’s career:

Judge Barrett’s legal career began when she graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

She went on to clerk for late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, where she earned a reputation among her associates for “destroying flimsy legal arguments.”

Barrett then went on to practice and teach law in Indiana for the next 15 years.

The nominee has been a federal judge at an appellate court in Chicago for the past three years, where her reputation as a conservative has grown. The Catholic judge has become a well-known, staunch opponent of abortion.

She has hinted she would want to leave the basic right of abortion in place, but also allow states to make some abortions difficult to acquire.

“I don’t think the core case that women have a right to an abortion will change, but I think the question of whether people can get very late term abortions, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, will change,” she said.

Also prominent in Barrett’s list of policies was her stance on healthcare. In 2017, she denounced Justice John Robert’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Experts have predicted she will pose a threat to Obamacare moving forward.

Regarding guns, Judge Barrett previously struck down a federal law that barred felons from owning guns. She is expected to be a firm advocate for the Second Amendment.

Hopefully we can have a civilized confirmation process. The Democrats didn’t do themselves any favors in the way they treated the confirmation hearings of Justice Kavanaugh, and they lost Congressional seats because of it. Hopefully they will be more courteous and more inclined to follow a more reasonable confirmation process this time.

Like Two-Year Olds Throwing Temper Tantrums

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the Democrat’s reaction to the President’s plan to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the coming six weeks.

The article includes a screenshot of a tweet by Gavin Newsom’s Chief of Staff Ann O’Leary:

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that laying your body on the floor of the Senate might be considered radical.

The article details some of the threats the Democrats have made:

Democrats are determined to prevent the Republican President and Republican Senate to nominate and confirm the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The 87-year-old Ginsburg passed away at home on Friday.

Democrats are threatening impeachment of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr.

And Democrats are even threatening to block access to the Republican senators from entering the US Senate Chamber in the US Capitol Building.

So what is this actually about? It’s about two things. The first is the fact that in recent years the Supreme Court has become an oligarchy making laws and impacting American lives in ways our Founding Fathers never intended. The Supreme Court in recent years has made things legal on a federal level that Americans never had a chance to vote for or hold their elected officials accountable for. The reason Congress is tasked with the responsibility for making laws is that the voters can hold them accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court Justices serve for life and are not accountable to the voters. The second is the fear of the political left that a conservative court will overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a few misconceptions in this. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion in America. Ending Roe v. Wade will simply allow every state to set its own rules regarding abortion. There have been a number of judicial scholars who have stated that the Roe v. Wade decision was flawed. The political left is well aware of this and wants to protect the decision.

Planned Parenthood (through its political action spin-offs) has invested a lot of money into Congressional campaigns to protect the abortion industry (which is a million dollar industry). This investment has allowed abortions and the practice of selling aborted baby parts to continue without interference from Congress. I have often wondered how history will view this practice.

 

The Chaos Is Due To A Misalignment Between Our Current Government And The Constitution

Yesterday, a blog called FreeThePeople posted an article about the drama that has followed the death of Ruth Baden Ginsburg.

The article notes:

It’s fine to mourn and lionize someone you regard as a hero. That’s an appropriate response to tragedy, and this is not the place for me to debate the relative merits of the deceased. But the existential terror that has gripped the left with the passing of Justice Ginsburg reveals the inherent fragility of our system of government. As the book Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb discusses, robust systems are ones which can suffer considerable damage without falling apart.

The article continues:

This is the way the American system was supposed to work. The founders established three coequal branches of government, complete with a system of checks and balances including the state legislatures and the people themselves. The president is not an autocrat who can do whatever he wants on a whim, nor is any other individual member of the body politic. Unfortunately, over the years that vision of decentralization has collapsed into something that more closely resembles the European monarchies the founders sought to escape. Congress, the branch of government responsible for writing laws, has abdicated much of its responsibility and delegated its powers to the president, to executive branch regulatory agencies, and to the courts.

It has now become habitual for the president to govern via executive order, as exemplified by Barack Obama’s notorious “pen and a phone” comment, but beginning with progressive presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For all the howls of fascism about Trump’s wielding of executive authority, the concentration of presidential power has always come from those on the political left, whose ideological faith in central planning lends itself to autocracy.

The article explains how the reaction to the death of Justice Ginsburg reveals how far we have wandered from the original intentions of our Founding Fathers:

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which is supposed to merely interpret the laws written by Congress and executed by the president, striking down those which violate the Constitution, has risen to the dangerous position of dictating the law of the land to the American people. Let’s not forget that it was the Court, not Congress, that created out of whole cloth the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police from civil liability. It is this doctrine that has resulted in countless abuses of power by police, which in turn have driven widespread protests, riots, and general civil unrest throughout much of 2020.

Now, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, Democrats are terrified that a Trump appointee would criminalize abortion, strip away LGBT rights, and basically undo all of the court’s major decisions from the last half century. Whether these concerns are justified is another question entirely, but the fact that people expect such far-reaching consequences from the death of a single individual proves how profoundly broken our system has become.

In its concluding paragraphs, the article notes:

The irony is that the very people now frightened of a third Trump appointee are the same ones who are always begging for a larger, more powerful central government. When Harry Reid eliminated the traditional filibuster for judicial nominees, making it easier for the party in power to ram through their choices unopposed, he was warned that Democrats would not hold a Senate majority forever. When Barack Obama sought to circumvent Congress and govern by executive order, those of us who objected knew that someday someone like Trump would enjoy the benefits of that same power. Shortsightedness, arrogance, or a deliberate unwillingness to consider the future has led us to where we are today. Like Dr. Frankenstein before them, leftists created a monster without considering that it could, and inevitably would, turn on them.

Appointing a justice who believes in the Constitution might put America back on the path to being the nation our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Nevada Says No To Church And Yes To Casinos And The Supreme Court Agrees

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about a Supreme Court decision that was released last night. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley had petitioned the Court to have the same standards of occupancy that casinos have under Nevada pandemic rules. Governor Steve Sisolak has put in place pandemic rules that limit houses of worship to 50 people regardless of size, compared to casinos and restaurants that have higher limits set at fifty percent of capacity.

The article reports:

No supporting opinion was released by the Court, just the decision: “The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied.”

Three of the four dissenting justices wrote opinions, with the one by Justice Neil Gorsuch being short and sharp:

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

“This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

All three dissents, by Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, can be read at the Supreme Court website.

The article quotes Senator Tom Cotton’s reaction to the ruling:

“Freedom of religion is our first freedom. Yet SCOTUS has ruled that casinos can host hundreds of gamblers, while churches cannot welcome their full congregations. Justice Roberts once again got it wrong, shamefully closing church doors to their flocks.”

I don’t know where we go to get our First Amendment rights back. I hope enough people are paying attention so that we will get them back.

What Happens If Joe Biden Is Elected President?

The Washington Examiner posted an article today listing ten things the Democrats would do if they manage to take control of the White House and the Senate in November.

This is the list:

1. Gun control

2. Amnesty for illegal immigrants

3. Taxpayer funding of abortion

4. Tax increases

5. Ending the secret ballot for unionization

6. D.C. statehood

7. Court-packing

8. The public option — and maybe Medicare for All

9. Oil company crackdowns

10. The Green New Deal

This platform would destroy America as we know it. It would end constitutional gun rights, negatively impact the income of average Americans, end the freedom of workers to refuse to join a union, end American energy independence, ruin our healthcare system, and end any possibility that the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution rather than rewrite it. This is not a platform that would create or ensure the continuing success of America.

The Need To Pay Attention

In a speech in Dublin, Ireland, on July 10, 1790, John Philpot Curran stated, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” The quote has been changed slightly and attributed to other people, but that is the original quote. That quote is particularly applicable right now as there are those (some in our government) who are blatantly attacking one of the pillars of our representative republic.

On July 6th, I posted an article about the Supreme Court decision regarding the requirement that electors in the Electoral College vote for their state’s popular vote winner. That decision was a win for the Constitution. However, that decision is not the last we will hear on the subject.

Yesterday The New York Sun posted an editorial noting the next attack on the Electoral College. Understand that the Electoral College is what stands between the representative republic we now have and mob rule. If you believe that New York, California, and a few other populous states are well run, then abolishing the Electoral College would allow those states to run the entire country. That is a scary thought.

The editorial notes:

Now that the Supreme Court has vouchsafed the power of a state to require its presidential electors to vote in line with their state’s popular vote, a new question glimmers in the constitutional mist: Could a state require its electors to vote against the wishes of the state’s own voters? That might seem a ridiculous question. Feature, though, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

It’s a workaround designed to commit the states to use the Electoral College to deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s the first thing that came to mind when the Supreme Court today unanimously concluded that states have the power to punish faithless electors. Most justices credited the language in Article 2, which grants states the power to appoint electors.

The key phrase is that each state shall appoint its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, reckons this gives the states the power to attach conditions to the electors it appoints, such as the requirement that they vote for the candidate their home-state voters prefer. It can punish them if they don’t.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though, is a scheme under which states agree to instruct their electors to ignore what their own state’s voters want and, instead, vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when it has been ratified by states whose combined electoral vote count is 270, i.e., enough to choose a president.

The editorial concludes:

Upholding The Constitution

The New York Post is reporting today that the Supreme Court has ruled that Presidential electors must cast their votes for the person who won the majority of the votes in their state.

The article reports:

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

The states’ Electors almost always do so anyway.

The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for those who want to change the Electoral College, and who believed a win would lead to presidential elections based on the popular or total number of votes.

But it was a win for state election officials who feared that giving more power to electors to make their own choice would cause chaos — and even lead to attempted bribery.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

The justices had scheduled arguments for the spring so they could resolve the issue before the election, rather than amid a potential political crisis after the country votes.

This was a unanimous decision. When was the last time all the justices on the Supreme Court agreed on anything?

This decision makes sense if you understand the purpose of the Electoral College. The Electoral College was put in place by our Founding Fathers so that a group of densely populated states would not be able to elect a President without the support of less populated states. Without the Electoral College, New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut would elect our President. Smaller states would never see a candidate, nor would their votes count. That is what the Electoral College was put in place to prevent.

The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The court ruled that that families have a right to seek the best educational opportunities for their children, by preventing states from blocking the participation of religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The decision was the usual 5-4 split–only this time the five were in favor of not discriminating against religious schools.

The article reports:

Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza removed the largest state constitutional obstacle by holding that so-called Blaine Amendments cannot be used to deny choice to parents.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states no longer may prevent parents from choosing religious schools if they are participating in a school choice program.

“A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court in Espinoza.

This decision struck a blow to the notoriously anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment in Montana’s Constitution that sanctioned explicit discrimination against religious schools in funding. Montana’s discrimination hurt families who have a wide variety of values and preferences when it comes to their children’s education.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, Blaine Amendments have an “ignoble” history. The amendments are named after Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 sought a federal constitutional prohibition of aid to “sectarian” schools.

The article concludes:

In Mitchell v. Helms, Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments: “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza took us one step closer to achieving that goal.

Now is the time for states to cast aside these 19th-century rules rooted in prejudice that unfairly punish religious families, students, and schools. The Constitution requires states to provide a level playing field for religious and secular education.

The legal impediment to school choice programs is now gone, and it’s up to state legislatures to move forward advancing education choice.

The court made it clear that policymakers across the country now have the power to enact robust school choice programs. They should do just that.

If the education establishment wants American children in public schools, they have a responsibility to make public schools better. Until then, parents who want their children educated will seek out voucher programs that will allow them to send their children to schools that teach the basics–not get bogged down by the social justice trend of the day.

This Decision Does Not Protect Women

Yesterday The National Review posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Louisiana’s law regarding doctors at abortion clinics. The law in question required doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges. Because women can die from legal abortions, hospital admitting privileges are important. The Supreme Court struck down this requirement, putting the lives of women at risk. Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding vote on the issue, disappointing many Americans who expected him to be a conservative voice on the Court.

The article reports:

The conservative legal establishment has long been particularly enamored of this ideal: the umpire calmly calling balls and strikes. It is a very important virtue. But it is not the first virtue. An umpire who can be cowed by the crowd will not call the same strike zone for both teams. Without courage, good ideas about the law are just empty words on a page. Without courage, even the clearest-written rights are empty promises, the plainest limitations on power are easily overwhelmed, and the entire project of rule by written law becomes just another hollow formality.

Two of today’s Supreme Court decisions, on abortion and separation of powers, are further evidence of this. Chief Justice John Roberts has yet again shown the absence of courage that has so often undermined his Court. Roberts’s repeated demonstrations of lack of courage are rapidly becoming a threat to the Court itself, and to the conservative legal project.

First up, we have June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, which by a 5–4 vote struck down a Louisiana abortion-clinic regulation challenged by the clinics. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch would have upheld the Louisiana law, but Chief Justice Roberts sided with the Court’s four liberals, claiming that his hands were tied by precedent.

In the 2016 case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled 5–3 against a Texas abortion law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. States routinely impose such requirements on the practice of medicine, especially invasive or surgical procedures. As Justice Gorsuch observed, the Louisiana law “tracks longstanding state laws governing physicians who perform relatively low-risk procedures like colonoscopies, Lasik eye surgeries, and steroid injections at ambulatory surgical centers.” The Court in both Whole Woman’s Health and June Medical ruled that “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right” to an abortion. Yet what the Court defines as an “unnecessary” requirement would be uncontroversially legal for any other medical procedure under the sun, and the “constitutional right” itself is, of course, nowhere even vaguely mentioned in the actual Constitution.

Chief Justice Roberts has been a disappointment almost from the beginning. His ruling on Obamacare was questionable at best. Please follow the link to the article to read further details regarding the contradictions between the decision on the Louisiana law and the previous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts

How Long Will The Flynn Saga Continue?

The American Spectator posted an article today about the ongoing case of General Flynn.

The article includes a very good lawyer joke:

Sigmund Freud dies and goes to Heaven, where he’s met at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter.

“Dr. Freud, thank goodness you’ve come! We have a crisis and need your professional help!”

“How so?” asks Freud.

“It’s God. He’s having delusions of grandeur.”

“What are His symptoms?” asks Freud.

“He thinks He’s a federal judge!”
 — Old trial lawyer joke

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan seems to have forgotten that he is not god in handling the Flynn case. Judge Sullivan had been ordered by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to dismiss the case.

The article explains what happened next:

In filings before the circuit court, Sullivan explained that he plans to “question the bona fides of the government’s [dismissal] motion,” “inquire about the government’s motions and representations,” “illuminat[e] the full circumstances surrounding the proposed dismissal,” and probe “whether the presumption of government regularity for prosecutorial decisions is overcome” in “the unusual facts of this case.”

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition and ordered Sullivan to grant the motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.

Noting that, although Rule 48 requires “leave of court” before dismissing charges, under well-founded legal precedent “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion”  and that “the principal object” of the “leave of court” requirement is “to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment … when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”

The article concludes:

And, when Sidney Powell took over Flynn’s representation, Sullivan accused her of some kind of purportedly unethical and previously unknown crypto-plagiarism because she had not, in his estimation, properly attributed the source of the legal precedents cited in her pleadings. I’ll give it to Sullivan. That was a first in my book since every legal filing I’ve ever seen used case citations indistinguishable in format from those used by Powell.

So, what’s the chance that Sullivan will seek a rehearing en banc? Seven of the 12 circuit court judges were appointed by Democrat presidents. Combine those favorable odds with Sullivan’s demonstrated hostility to Flynn, his grandiose concept of his judicial powers, his undoubted humiliation at being subjected to a writ of mandamus for committing, in the words of the panel, “clear legal error,” and the answer begins to come into focus.

Given those factors, why wouldn’t Judge Sullivan seek a rehearing before the full circuit court? And, even if he should fail in that regard, why wouldn’t he then take his cause to the U.S. Supreme Court? It’s a no-lose situation for him. Given the political composition of the D.C. Circuit, he may win. But, even if he doesn’t, by pursuing the litigation he will continue to provide ammunition to the anti-Trump forces that pervade the D.C. swamp and, at the very least, gain a permanent open invitation to all the right Georgetown cocktail parties.

I hope I’m wrong. But five decades of closely observing pampered, egocentric federal judges tells me that I’m not.

I hope he is wrong; I fear he is not.