Making Up The Rules As You Go Along

On June 7th, CBN News reported the following:

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of immigrants living in the U.S. due to humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally. 

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.  

The designation applies to people who come from countries ravaged by war or disaster. It protects them from deportation and allows them to work legally. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.

Meanwhile, The Washington Times reported the following yesterday:

The Department of Homeland Security will speed up work permits for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who claim they are victims of crime, the department announced Monday, saying the current wait, which can last up to five years, is too long to make people remain in economic limbo.

More than 160,000 people were waiting for the victim visa, officially known as the U visa, as of December.

Under the new rules, U visa applicants can be awarded work permits and deferred action, which is an official amnesty for deportation, once they have filed their petition, had their fingerprints taken and are deemed to have made a good-faith claim. The process is known as a Bona Fide Determination. Until now, they had to wait until their cases were further along in the process.

And we wonder why our borders are being flooded? All you have to do as an illegal immigrant is say that you are a victim of a crime and you will get a visa that allows you to work and live here indefinitely. I suspect that when their cases come up, many illegals will simply vanish into the general population, work legally or illegally, and go on with their lives. Meanwhile, American taxpayer will be paying to educate their children and provide for their medical needs. A nation cannot survive this sort of invasion. It will collapse the safety net. Please research Cloward-Piven if you have not already done so.

Looking Behind The Curtain

When Merrick Garland was appointed Attorney General, it seemed a bit odd. It was an obvious slap in the face to the Republicans who had not brought his nomination to the Supreme Court to the floor of the Senate, but evidently there is more to the story. As you read this, remember that a lot of what have been called conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the reason behind the appointment of Judge Garland. The article provides some insight into what is happening behind the scenes in the Biden administration.

The article quotes a Reuters report:

Democrats overcame Republican opposition on Monday as the U.S. Senate voted to confirm federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, seen as a possible future Supreme Court nominee for President Joe Biden, to an influential appellate court.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s 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)

What we have here is the deep state in action.

The article at the Conservative Treehouse explains:

The vote was 53-47 [link here] Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham voted with Democrats to support KBJ to the circuit court. This Deep State manuever was transparently predictable. {Go Deep}  This was the real reason why Biden elevated Merrick Garland to AG, to get him out of the way for Ketanji Brown Jackson to work her way to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Obama would then have another tool for total control.

Remember the names of the Republicans who voted for this. They need to lose in primary elections as soon as possible.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse concludes:

We all know that Biden is an avatar for Obama’s third-term. Hence the plan by Team Obama (BLM) and James Clyburn (AME) to use a cognitively impaired tool to secure the 2020 club nomination. They then inserted Kamala Harris as the useful radical to manipulate for actual policy objectives.

Once you see the strings on the marionettes you can never return to that time before when you did not see them. It’s all a conspiracy theory until it’s proven accurate, then it’s racist…

The Democrats don’t have to pack the Supreme Court–all they need to do is replace a few traditional liberals with some radicals.

 

 

Can You Be Punished In School For What You Said Outside Of School?

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article about a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court today. The case is particularly interesting to me because it illustrates how social media has impacted the lives of our children. Essentially a student threw a temper tantrum on social media after she failed to make the varsity cheer-leading team. Back in the days of dinosaurs when I was in school, she would have done this in the privacy of her own home, calmed down, and that would have been the end of it. Unfortunately when you post something on social media, people see it and sometimes react. That’s what happened.

The article reports:

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Brandi Levy (B.L.) is a high school student who, after failing to make the varsity cheerleading team, went on social media to post a picture of herself raising her middle finger under the caption “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything.”

The school suspended B.L. from junior varsity cheerleading. It found that she had damaged its image and had violated its policies, to which she had assented, requiring respect for coaches and prohibiting “foul language and inappropriate gestures.”

The suspension produced the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. B.L. prevailed in district court and at the appellate level. The district court concluded that her mini-rant did not disrupt the school’s operation and therefore was protected under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the Supreme Court upheld a student’s right to wear an armband at school in protest of the Vietnam war because the protest was non-disruptive.

The Third Circuit affirmed. It held, however, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker does not apply to off-campus activity. Even disruptive speech by students is protected if it takes place outside of school, the panel majority said. A third judge on the panel, in a concurring opinion, applied Tinker to off-campus speech, and agreed with the district court that B.L’s speech was not disruptive.

I am not condoning her behavior or saying that she was smart to put the rant on social media, but I do agree that she does have the right to free speech.

The article concludes:

As to what should replace the “disruption” standard, Will points to a brief filed by three law professors, one of whom is Eugene Volokh. Their brief argues that while schools may control virtual as well as physical classrooms, they may not control online or other speech outside the “school context.”

Under this approach, schools could punish online, school-related cruelties, but only when they are about “the characteristics of individual people, not about broader policy matters.” Thus, schools would not be powerless to punish online bullying. However, as Will describes the brief, the professors argue that only truly threatening speech can be punished, not speech that threatens only the serenity or the sense of “safety” of the hypersensitive.

The approach of the three law professors, as described by Will, seems preferable to a “disruption” standard, at least in cases of off campus speech. The distinction they draw between speech about individual characteristics and speech about broader policy matters seems both easier for courts to adjudge and more attentive to free speech concerns. Off campus speech about policy matters may be disruptive, but unless it poses a true threat to safety, it should be permitted.

Or so it seems to me.

Never put anything in writing (or on social media) that you wouldn’t want your mother to see on the front page of The New York Times. Following that advice would solve a lot of problems.

Something To Watch Closely

Yesterday Politico posted an article about President Biden’s executive order forming a commission to look into reforming the federal court system.

Please read the following excerpt from the article carefully and note the wording:

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Friday empaneling a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary, making good on a campaign trail promise sparked by his predecessor’s tilting of the federal bench.

Biden first floated the idea of such a commission last fall on the campaign trail following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — whose seat on the high court was quickly filled by Amy Coney Barrett, installing a 6-3 majority of justices nominated by Republican presidents.

Note the expression ’tilting of the federal branch.’ That statement is an example of media bias. Note that President Obama was never accused of tilting the federal bench despite the fact that his appointed justices were well outside the mainstream of the views of most Americans.

The article concludes:

The commission is likely to raise hackles among conservatives as a veiled attempt to reshape the court after Trump and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell prioritized installing federal judges over the past four years.

Its formation comes as Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court’s eldest justice, faces pressure from liberal legal activists to step down during Biden’s term so that his successor would be appointed and confirmed while Democrats hold the White House and Senate.

Earlier this week, Breyer issued a warning to advocates of overhauling the Supreme Court that doing so risks eroding the trust in the institution and that they should think “long and hard” about the ramifications in a speech given virtually to Harvard Law School students.

The White House said the commission will complete its work within 180 days of its first public meeting, which it is required to do under federal law.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Most Americans do not want to see more justices added to the Supreme Court–particularly to make it politically biased. Franklin Roosevelt attempted to do this during his term as President and was rebuffed by his own party. However, the current Democrat party does not necessarily have the scruples that the Democrat party of Roosevelt had.

Becoming A Police State

On Tuesday Forbes posted an article about an upcoming case in the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug. 

In August 2015, 68-year-old Edward Caniglia joked to Kim, his wife of 22 years, that he didn’t use a certain coffee mug after his brother-in-law had used it because he “might catch a case of dishonesty.” That quip quickly spiraled into an hour-long argument. Growing exhausted from the bickering, Edward stormed into his bedroom, grabbed an unloaded handgun, and put it on the kitchen table in front of his wife. With a flair for the dramatic, he then asked: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?”

The argument escalated and eventually Kim decided to spend the night in a motel. When she called home the next day, there was no answer. She called the local police and asked them to do a ‘wellness check’ on her husband. The police did the check and reported that all was well.

The article continues:

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes the arguments against warrantless gun confiscation and arguments for. The Biden administration

The article notes the two arguments:

In jurisdictions that have extended the community caretaking exception to homes, “everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home,” a joint amicus brief by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union revealed.

…But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

We are in danger of becoming a police state.

What Has Happened To Our Supreme Court?

As I am sure you remember, the Democrats have threatened to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against their agenda items (many of which are unconstitutional). That may explain why Chief Justice Roberts has made some very questionable rulings lately.

On March 8, The Federalist posted an article about a recent dissent by Chief Justice Roberts.

The article reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.

The article includes the following Tweet:

When have eight of the Supreme Court Justices agreed on anything?

The article at The Federalist summarizes the case:

Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages.

The students’ attempts to sue the school, however, were shot down by both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after Georgia Gwinnett College changed its “Freedom of Expression” policy to remove barriers on when and where students could speak on campus and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court took up the case after Uzuegbunam and Bradford noted that their rights were still violated no matter what the university modified its policy to reflect and still required a ruling on nominal damages.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.

The student’s First Amendment rights were violated. What other recourse did he have but to sue the school?

The Biden Administration And The Supreme Court

Part of President Trump’s effort to fight illegal immigration was to withhold funds from “Sanctuary Cities.” Needless to say, some of those Sanctuary Cites sued to government. On March 5th, The Epoch Times posted an article detailing what has happened to those lawsuits in the Biden administration.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court has dismissed three pending requests to hear challenges to the Trump administration’s order to withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions—states and cities that refuse to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security efforts to deport people residing in the United States illegally.

“After a request from the Biden administration yesterday, the Supreme Court just dismissed three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) about the Trump administration’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities,” the SCOTUSblog Twitter account noted.

…After taking office, Biden rescinded Trump’s 2017 executive order, in another course reversal by the new administration on various Trump policies that had been challenged in court and were heading to the Supreme Court for consideration.

Given Biden’s decision to revoke Trump’s sanctuary city order, which effectively moots the associated policies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed letters with the Supreme Court in all three related cases, seeking their dismissal and noting an agreement had been made with the parties that were challenging Trump’s action.

The article concludes:

Last month, the Supreme Court canceled oral arguments in two other cases after Biden changed course from Trump. Both were appeals by the Trump administration—one defending funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and the other defending the “remain in Mexico” asylum policy.

The administration also has asked the court to cancel an upcoming argument on a policy introduced under Trump backing work requirements for people who receive healthcare under the Medicaid program for the poor.

The administration last month told the justices the Obamacare healthcare law should be upheld, reversing the position taken under Trump.

Why is the Biden administration telling the Supreme Court what to do?

Unfortunately Sometimes Bullying Is Effective

Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear the case dealing with the Pennsylvania election challenge. The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the decision and the possible reason for it. This is not good news for America.

The article reports:

In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant writ to hear the Pennsylvania election challenge cases [pdf here – begin page 25].  While the majority of media will likely celebrate this decision; and while the court has refused to hear the case(s) based on their position the issues are “moot”; there appears to be an underlying motive  not being discussed.

It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case and grant a writ of certiorari.  In October 2020 the issues with the Pennsylvania court overruling the Pennsylvania legislature was of such importance four justices agreed to block the lower court order. However, four months later the majority claim the arguments within the case are “moot”;  & the election is over.

In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome.  This is very troublesome.

The article continues:

Why would Justice Kavanaugh reverse his position?  In October the state action to supersede the Pennsylvania legislature was a hazard.  In February it is moot.

While it is never a good idea to look into the background of the court for motives, one cannot easily dismiss that Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett may have voted against the writ because they were concerned such a decision would cause the senate to start a process of “packing the court.”   Retaining the current number of justices within the court is more likely if the justices avoid triggering the consequences from the previous threat.

Justices’ Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch remained consistent with their earlier decisions to hear the cases and settle the disputes.  Barrett never weighed in on the October injunction, but Kavanaugh has completely reversed his position with his denial of the writ.

The article includes Justice Thomas’ statement:

Isn’t it interesting that when laws were broken and voting was questionable, no court in America has actually been willing to examine the evidence. Unfortunately, I suspect that this is only one of many bad decisions to come.

The Following Letter Was Written To President Trump By Howie Carr

Posted at the Howie Carr Show website:

Thank you, Mr. President, for everything you’ve done.

It shouldn’t be ending this way, but I and 74 million other Americans just want to thank you for all your efforts on our behalf over the past four years, actually since you came down the escalator at Trump Tower back in the summer of 2015.

In no particular order:

Thank you for restoring the US as the world’s leading producer of energy – after your predecessor sternly lectured us that we “couldn’t drill our way” out of our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern oil providers.

Thank you for the tax cuts for the middle class.

Thank you for destroying genocidal ISIS, which your predecessor called “the junior varsity.”

Thanks for shutting off the endless flow of illegal aliens at the southern border, and the unending supply of MS-13 gangbangers, among other criminals, as well as the welfare-dependent illiterate indigents who were so destabilizing American society before you became president.

Thank you for calling out the endless hypocrisy of the media — what you so aptly described as “Very Fake News.”

Thank you for promoting economic policies that led to the lowest unemployment rates ever for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native-Americans and women, among others.

Thank you for doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than all of your predecessors combined.

Thank you for calling out and exposing the feckless RINO’s of your own party like Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte et al.

Thanks for finally standing up to Red China and its predatory trade practices.

Thanks for calling out Fox News Channel for its duplicitous descent into terminal wokeness.

Thank you for Operation Warp Speed, an amazing achievement for which you will never receive the appropriate credit.

Thanks for pardoning all the persecuted victims of the Russian collusion hoax, among them Gen. Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.

Thank you for eliminating Obamacare’s “individual mandate,” which fined individuals for not buying health insurance they didn’t want or couldn’t afford.

Thank you for taking more questions from (almost always hostile) reporters than all of the last three or four presidents combined.

Thanks for getting the US out of such foreign-policy disasters as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as ending the fiasco for American workers that was NAFTA.

Thanks for such a booming economy that seven million people got off the food-stamp rolls.

Thanks for all those tweets that drove the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) crazy.

Also, a personal note on Twitter: thanks for the three tweets promoting my book, “What Really Happened: How Donald J. Trump Saved America from Hillary Clinton.”

As Donald Trump Jr. told me: “That’s two tweets more than he gave my book!”

Thank you for not turning the IRS into an instrument of persecution against your political foes, the way your predecessor did.

Thanks for not surveilling reporters a la the Obama administration.

Thanks for ending state oppression against people of faith like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Thank you for trying to defund “sanctuary cities” where illegal aliens run amok.

Thanks for the three new justices on the Supreme Court – think how much worse Hillary’s picks would have been, and maybe someday they’ll grow the spines they so obviously lacked last month in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Thank you for defanging North Korea and Little Rocket Man.

Thanks for opening up more of our North Atlantic waters for New England commercial fishermen and lobstermen.

Thanks for defending both the First and Second Amendments, and for railing against Section 230, which the billionaire fascists of Silicon Valley are abusing to shut down free speech.

Thank you for appointing US attorneys who actually wanted to put real criminals in prison, without fear or favor.

Thanks for using the death penalty, when necessary, against the worst of the worst serial killers.

Thank you for the travel ban, which has largely halted the flow of terrorists like the Tsarnaevs, who had been welcomed into the US and put on welfare by previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.

Thanks for the balance in my 401(k).

Thanks for the lowest gasoline prices in decades.

Thanks for the largest number of Americans with gainful employment since the government started keeping records.

Thank you for ordering the elimination of two of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on earth, al-Baghdadi and Gen. Soleimani.

To borrow a line from “The Last Hurrah,” “How do you thank a guy for a million laughs?”

Thanks for all the great nicknames – Crooked Hillary, Li’l Marco, Low Energy Jeb etc.

Thanks for all the amazingly entertaining rallies, if not for bringing back the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” song.

Mr. President, I could go on and on and on, but all of us Deplorables and bitter clingers and credulous Boomer rubes just want you to know how much we appreciate the four years you gave us to prepare and fortify ourselves for the impending disaster ahead.

We’ll be back, Mr. President, and so will you.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Carr

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.