Crom Carmichael Discusses How Democrats Continue to Refuse to Follow the Rule of Law

Find what drives you at Beaman Auto!
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss how Democrats and lawyers are conditioned to not follow the rule of law.

(Kayleigh McEnany clip plays)

Leahy: Well Crom, that was John Roberts at Fox News. He and I were talking off, you know during the break about John Roberts and you know, I mean this again Kayleigh McEnany’s absolutely, right? The president has denounced announced denounced white supremacy.

Carmichael: John Roberts was just, that was just stupid on top of stupid.

Leahy: Yeah. There’s no other way to describe it.

Carmichael: You can’t fix stupid. I mean, yeah when somebody has denounced something over and over and over and over again and is never not denounced it.

Leahy: Yeah.

Carmichael: And you know, the question that John Roberts should be asking you to Joe Biden is why won’t you denounced Senator Byrd and get his statue out of the Senate?

Leahy: Yeah, exactly.

Carmichael: And then lists a whole bunch of other things. But anyway, that’s but I’ll be following along Michael on what we were talking about. There’s a great story.

Leahy: What we’re talking about is why the Democrats do not follow the rule of law.

Carmichael: When the law that’s on the books is inconvenient. Then they like to just they like to then make it up. Here’s why the Supreme Court ultimately be forced to rule on what defines a valid ballot in this election. Here’s what’s going on. This is from The Wall Street Journal on October 1st. This week’s Pennsylvania Republicans asked the US Supreme Court. It’s gotten that far now.

To halt a state judicial ruling that says late ballots must be counted even if they lack postmarks and arrived three days after the statutory deadline. In Pennsylvania, state law requires that all valid balance must arrive by 8:00 p.m. on the day of the election. In this case November 3rd. Democrats have ruled without going through the legislative process there. They’re saying no, no, no. They went to a judge the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and a 4-3 decision said no.

Ballots can come in three days later and they don’t even have to be postmarked. So that’s in Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin you have a similar problem. You have a federal judge said balance postmarked by election day could arrive by November 9th. That’s not what the state law says. state law in Wisconsin is the same as Pennsylvania. In Georgia a federal judge, once again, Georgia’s law is the same thing.

For a ballot to be valid it has to be received but no later the close of the polls on Election Day. But if they found some Democrat judge or circuit judge that will extend the voting until in this case November 6th. In Minnesota, a lawsuit filed last week in a district court challenges a consent decree. A consent decree where some Democrats got together and agreed to a consent which is in violation of the state law.

In Michigan you have a very similar thing. in North Carolina and Arizona. Now the way the story ends in all of those states you have Democrats who have some level of power but not enough power to rewrite a statute through the legislative process trying to use that power to change the law without going through the legal process.

This is a little bit like what attorney Jim Roberts was talking about here locally. So this ends by saying the US Supreme Court might be hesitant to intervene. But the Pennsylvania appeal has already reached its chambers. And others could be there before November 3rd. If the justices don’t stop this chaotic last-minute judicial law writing before the elections, they might have to do so afterward at a far greater political cost to themselves in the country. So the question is whether or not the Supreme Court with eight justices, John Roberts will take it up. I will predict that the Supreme Court will not take this up.

Leahy: Really?

Carmichael: No wait, I’m not finished.

Leahy: Okay have to say okay.

Carmichael: They will not take this up unless John Roberts knows that the decision will not be four to four.

Leahy: That’s a very good point

Carmichael: Because he’ll know what he’ll know where he stands. He knows where he’ll stand and he can only he can assume I’m just saying he can assume that there are three justices on the court who are left-leaning. And he can say I don’t know where they’re going to go. And then he’s got four justices on the Supreme Court not counting himself where he can assume that they will follow the law.

Leahy: Yeah.

Carmichael: If they will actually say that the law says what it says. And if he knows that he’s going to say the law says what it says, then he can take it up and it’s five to three. At worst. It could be an eight zero. There are a lot of there are a lot of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court.

Leahy: You know, it’s interesting. Let me just throw this out get your reaction. So the rule of law the should be followed right? But here’s what I’ve noticed. people go to law school especially Democrats go to law school to subvert the rule of law. Have you noticed that?

Carmichael: I don’t know if they go to law school to do that. They come out of law school thinking that they had the tools to do it.

Leahy: Yes.

Carmichael: And probably having been taught in law school that many of our laws are cake and need to be changed by ways other than the will of the people. That would be terrible teaching but it’s very elitist. and and and I know that I know that the are Ivy League colleges and law schools many of the professor’s think that they’re smarter than everybody else.

Leahy: They are far left there by like 98 percent.

Carmichael: Well look, if you don’t believe that the law should be changed according to the process by which laws are to be changed. That may be at the state level at the federal level or at the constitutional level. If you don’t believe in that then you also believe that you will never be you’ll never be on the other end of decisions being made that make your life worse.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Mail Ballot” by Chris Phan. CC BY 2.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts

Comments