The nine philosopher-kings enthroned on the Supreme Court were finally gracious enough to let President Trump proceed with his plans to build a wall at the southern border, at least for now. In a 5-4 ruling, the court last month overturned an appellate court’s decision, allowing the Trump Administration to tap into military funds and continue construction while litigation is pending.
Read the full story
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan lauded the Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to use military funds to build additional border wall.
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley Environmental groups and House Democrats urged the Supreme Court not to disturb a lower court order blocking the reallocation of military funds for border wall projects. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put that ruling on hold while litigation continues July 12. Granting that request — called a stay — would give the government an irreversible victory, a coalition of environmentalists led by the Sierra Club warned. “If a stay is granted and wall construction begins, there will be no turning back,” the green groups told the justices in court papers. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam barred the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for border wall construction. The trial court’s injunctions stalled border barrier construction projects in Arizona and New Mexico. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request to stay Gilliam’s ruling while litigation continued by a 2-1 vote July 3. The government filed a stay application with the Supreme Court on July 12. Environmentalists fear ‘irrevocable victory’ Stays are supposed to preserve the status quo among litigants while a lawsuit proceeds through court. If the justices grant the administration’s request, the government can begin construction on several border wall projects the courts…
Read the full story
by Kyle Daley Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Republican corporate lawyer who became the leader of the Court’s liberal wing, died Tuesday night in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He was 99. The Supreme Court’s public information office said Stevens died from complications of a stroke suffered earlier in the day. “A son of the midwest heartland and a veteran of World War II, Justice Stevens devoted his long life to public service, including 35 years on the Supreme Court,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. “He brought to our bench an inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom and independence. His unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation.” “We extend our deepest condolences to his children Elizabeth and Susan, and to his extended family. Steven’s 35 year tenure is the third longest in the Court’s history. When he retired in 2010 at age 90, he was the second oldest justice ever to sit on the high court. – – – Kyle Daley is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher…
Read the full story
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania farm owner who said the government effectively took her property without paying for it. Rose Knick won the victory in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott. In making its ruling, SCOTUS overturned a 1985 precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. The Supreme Court’s opinion is here. Knick was represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, which argued for SCOTUS to overturn the 1985 ruling that allowed federal courts to refuse to hear her challenge to a local ordinance that forced her to allow public access to her private farmland, according to a press release by PLF. PLF said in a story that Knick’s ordeal began in 2013, when government agents forced her to allow public access to a suspected gravesite on her farmland. She sued over the unconstitutional taking. A federal court refused to hear her federal claim, citing the 1985 decision. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, Tennessee owned of a tract of land in Williamson County and intended to develop it into a residential subdivision, according to a case summary by Oyez. The Williamson County Regional Planning Commission denied the…
Read the full story
by Ken Masugi If it’s true that “natural right is dynamite,” as political philosopher Leo Strauss wrote, then Justice Clarence Thomas just went nuclear on the abortion debate. While Thomas’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood has received considerable commentary, his deepening of the judicial and, hence, the political debate over abortion demands further elaboration. His reply to the leading threat to the principles of the Declaration of Independence is his latest attempt in a career of restoring its authority. Thomas had argued, “this [Indiana] law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” The Indiana law had barred abortion for the purposes of sex and race selection, and for fetal disabilities. Thomas critics contend he wrongly introduced elements of the now-(justly) maligned eugenics movement into the abortion debate. But recall that Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade observed (as Professor David Bernstein reminded me), “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.” I would argue instead that Blackmun was trying to obfuscate the issue, whose terrible clarity Thomas was trying to highlight: “From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Supreme Court rejected a request Monday to expedite its consideration of the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 non-citizens who arrived in the U.S. as children. There were no noted dissents from Monday’s decision. As is typical of orders of this nature, the Court did not give reasons for rejecting the government’s request. The Department of Homeland Security first took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Federal trial judges subsequently entered injunctions requiring that Trump maintain the program while litigation continued. Beginning in November 2018, the administration challenged three of those injunctions in the Supreme Court. The justices were poised to decide whether to hear those cases in January, but no action came. The Court’s continued inaction on those petitions is perhaps the greatest mystery of the current Supreme Court term. The administration filed a fourth DACA petition at the high court in May, after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld one of the injunctions against DACA repeal. This time, the Department of Justice asked the Court to put the petition on the fast track…
Read the full story
by Kevin Mooney The name of a Navy veteran may be cleared after he was convicted, fined, and imprisoned for digging ponds in a wooded area near his Montana home, to supply water in case of fire. The Supreme Court has vacated a lower court ruling against Joe Robertson, who was sent to federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks. Any definitive legal victory for Robertson would be posthumous, since he died March 18 at age 80. But his lawyers describe the Supreme Court’s action as a “big win” for Robertson’s widow, Carrie, who plans to carry on the fight. [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more ] President Barack Obama’s Justice Department had prosecuted Robertson for digging in “navigable waters” without a permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling against Robertson in November 2017 and denied him a rehearing in July 2018. The Navy veteran’s initial trial at the district court level resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial. He then was…
Read the full story
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is taking on a new role as the honorary chairman of a nonpartisan group devoted to education about the Constitution, replacing former Vice President Joe Biden. The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia said Tuesday that Gorsuch, named to the high court by President Donald Trump, will serve as a spokesman for civics education and civility in politics. The 51-year-old Gorsuch is the first sitting Supreme Court Justice to be the center’s chairman. Vice President Biden stepped down when he launched his campaign for the presidency in April. Justice Gorsuch said he’s concerned by polls that show most Americans would flunk a citizenship test and many say incivility keeps them away from public affairs. “For a government of and by the people to work, everyone must have some idea how our Constitution works and we must be able to talk to each other about important ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect,” Gorsuch said in a comment provided by the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Rosen, the National Constitution Center’s president and CEO, said the organization was attracted by Gorsuch’s commitment to civics and civility. “We’re genuinely excited about this partnership because Justice Gorsuch is so passionate…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Supreme Court ruled Monday that iPhone users can bring an antitrust lawsuit against Apple alleging the tech giant has monopolized the market for software applications. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the 5-4 decision, joined by the high court’s liberal bloc, which may have far-reaching consequences for Silicon Valley. “The plaintiffs seek to hold retailers to account if the retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers who purchase from those retailers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That is why we have antitrust law.” The iPhone app market is a tightly-controlled system. iPhones are programmed so they cannot download apps outside the Apple-administered App Store, and users who modify their devices to download apps from other sources — called jailbreaking — risk adverse consequences like voiding their warranty. What’s more, Apple has broad discretion over products in its store, and may remove apps for any reason whatever. Other requirements include a mandate to price all apps on a .99 scale, like $1.99 and $2.99. When an application is purchased, Apple collects a 30 percent commission and gives the other 70 percent to the developer. For subscriptions, Apple collects a 15 percent share after the first year. Taken together, the plaintiffs say…
Read the full story
by Edward Ring When government fails, public-sector unions win. When society fragments, public-sector unions consolidate their power. When citizenship itself becomes less meaningful, and the benefits of American citizenship wither, government unions offer an exclusive solidarity. Government unions insulate their members from the challenges facing ordinary private citizens. On every major issue of our time; globalization, immigration, climate change, the integrity of our elections, crime and punishment, regulations, government spending, and fiscal reform, the interests and political bias of public-sector unions is inherently in conflict with the public interest. Today, there may be no greater core threat to the freedom and prosperity of the American people. In the age of talk radio, the Tea Party movement, internet connectivity, and Trump, Americans finally are mobilizing against the uniparty to take back their nation. Yet the threat of public-sector unions typically is a sideshow, when it ought to occupy center stage. They are the greatest menace to American civilization that nobody seems to be talking about. Ask the average American what the difference is between a government union, and a private sector union, and you’re likely to be met with an uncomprehending stare. That’s too bad, because the differences are profound.…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley Republican lawmakers in Michigan and Ohio asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block lower court decisions ordering them to produce new district lines for their congressional and state legislative maps. Separate three-judge panels found the Michigan and Ohio maps were rigged to favor of Republicans, in violation of the Constitution. Both applications were presented to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who reviews emergency applications arising from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan and Ohio. Sotomayor may ask both sides to submit further briefs, refer the matters to the full Court for consideration, or both. The applications come as the Supreme Court is considering related challenges from Maryland and North Carolina, which ask whether and how federal courts should police partisan gerrymandering. Decisions in those cases will bear directly on the Michigan and Ohio disputes, since all four matters present similar issues. In the Ohio case, the lower court ordered the state to produce a new map by June 14. There is a good chance the Maryland and North Carolina disputes will not be decided at that time. Ohio Republicans said that could cause ordinary people to conclude that the lower court is trying to impose a new map on…
Read the full story
by Elizabeth Slattery Conversations about the Supreme Court this spring have been dominated by discussion of conspiracy theories about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, Democratic presidential hopefuls’ plans to “pack the Supreme Court,” and a manufactured “controversy” over Justice Brett Kavanaugh teaching at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School. But on Monday, the justices begin their final argument sitting of the term, with 13 oral arguments scheduled over the next two weeks. Here are two cases to watch this month. 1. Whether the Term ‘FUCT’ Can Be Trademarked In Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices will look at whether a federal law called the Lanham Act that prohibits registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office violates the First Amendment. [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more ] If this sounds familiar, that’s because the Supreme Court heard a similar case, Matal v. Tam, challenging the same law’s prohibition on “offensive” trademarks in 2017. The justices unanimously ruled for the challengers, an Asian-American band called the Slants, with Justice Samuel Alito declaring that the ban on “offensive” trademarks “offend[ed] a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley One credential in particular has been a boon to candidates President Donald Trump considers for judicial appointments: a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas. As of this writing, the president has appointed seven Thomas clerks to the federal appeals courts, while an eighth is expected in the near future. As such, Thomas’s legal approach — sometimes branded unusual or idiosyncratic — can claim adherents among a new generation of judges. “At this point, Justice Thomas is clearly the leading intellectual force on the conservative side of the bench,” said Carrie Severino, a former Thomas clerk who leads the Judicial Crisis Network, an advocacy group that supports Trump’s efforts to recast the judicial branch. “His principled approach to the law is very much in the ascendency and those are the kind of judges that this president has pledged for the courts,” Severino added. Thomas generally hires law clerks who share his originalist judicial philosophy. Among the Supreme Court’s conservatives, he is somewhat unique in that respect: former Justice Antonin Scalia periodically hired liberal “counter clerks” to sharpen his work, while the hiring practices of other conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears slightly more varied. “I’m…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether religious institutions may be disqualified from public historic preservation funding, after a New Jersey court forbade local officials from dispersing $4 million to 12 churches. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion addressing the dispute, calling the lower court’s decision “pure discrimination.” “Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh wrote. “At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious.” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined the Kavanaugh opinion. Morris County, New Jersey awards grants for the maintenance of historically significant structures. Several churches dating back to the colonial period have received public support through that program since 2012. The case at issue Monday arose in April 2016, when the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and a local taxpayer brought a lawsuit claiming the Morris County program violates New Jersey’s constitution. The state constitution provides that no person shall be “obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches.” The New Jersey…
Read the full story
by Fred Lucas The Supreme Court will settle the question on whether the question of citizenship can be included in the 2020 census, bypassing an appeals court hearing. The high court announced Friday it will hear arguments in April, with a likely decision by June. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last year the Census Bureau would add the question. Last month, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled the Census Bureau could not ask about citizenship. The judge ruled the question would lead to undercounting illegal residents and Hispanics. The next week, the Trump administration moved to bypass the appeals courts, and take the issue straight to the Supreme Court, given the urgency to prepare the census. The case would normally be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >> Citizenship would seemingly be more important than knowing the race or gender of someone filling out a census form, said Michael Gonzalez, a senior fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation, since the government’s job is to protect the…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned university students that democracy is endangered by the decline of free and open civic debate. “We have a social framework of decency that we’re very quickly losing,” Kennedy said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which was on hand during the recent event at the UC Hastings College of Law. Without that framework, he explained, free societies cannot endure. Elsewhere in his remarks, the justice bemoaned the “egocentrism that the cyber age has brought us.” “Our young people in the cyber age don’t think the past is important,” Kennedy said. “If it’s not on your screen, it’s not important.” The importance of civil, wide-ranging discourse was a major touchstones of Kennedy’s jurisprudence during his tenure on the Supreme Court. Even in closely-divided cases touching hot social controversies, the justice emphasized the respect due to all parties and extolled the virtue of free expression. Perhaps the most significant of Kennedy’s opinions was the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. There he repeatedly argued that the decision’s detractors had good faith objections to same-sex unions which should be aired in a respectful exchange of views. “Many…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley A forthcoming biography of Chief Justice John Roberts contains the first account of the Supreme Court’s internal politicking over the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision, in which Roberts joined with the Court’s four liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. A review of the much anticipated book — the first major Roberts biography — will appear in the March edition of the Atlantic, which disseminates new details of the chief’s scheming in advance of the book’s release. The book relates that in the weeks following the March 2012 arguments, Roberts voted with the conservative bloc to strike down the individual mandate, finding Congress had exceeded its power under the commerce clause by compelling people to buy insurance. Roberts elected to keep the majority opinion for himself — one of the few formal powers of the chief justice is the duty to assign opinions. As time progressed, Roberts grew uneasy and sought a third way. Initially, he hoped Justice Anthony Kennedy — the vaunted swing justice who had negotiated compromise decisions in seminal cases before — would be amenable to such negotiations. Whatever his reputation, Kennedy was not a moderate but an idiosyncratic ideologue, and he was convinced the ACA was unconstitutional.…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc released a short, little-noticed statement on Jan. 22 that portends far-reaching changes for religious liberty. The statement — which Justice Samuel Alito authored and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined — criticized the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, a landmark ruling that held laws interfering with religious exercise are constitutional provided that they apply to everyone and are neutrally enforced. “In Employment Division v. Smith the Court drastically cut back on the protection provided by the free exercise clause,” Alito wrote. “In this case, however, we have not been asked to revisit that decision.” In the understated parlance of the Supreme Court, it was a clarion call for litigants to bring cases challenging Smith. It was all the more remarkable in that four justices signed onto the statement, an uncommon occurrence for opinions of this nature. The late Justice Antonin Scalia authored the 5-4 Smith ruling. Outrage at the decision prompted passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires courts to subject federal action that infringes on religious practice to the highest degree of scrutiny. More recently, something approaching an anti-Smith consensus has developed on the right. Most…
Read the full story
The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that in March it will hear partisan gerrymandering cases involving North Carolina and Maryland. These partisan gerrymandering cases are the first of their kind to be heard since Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court. The decision to hear these cases will likely have ramifications for a suit filed last November by Common Cause and the North Carolina Democratic Party. The case, Common Cause v. Lewis, alleges partisan gerrymandering in district maps drawn by the Republican majority-held legislature. The case was recently denied a delay and remanded back to North Carolina Superior Court by Federal District Judge Louise Flanagan. Filed in Wake County court, the complaint demands the maps be redrawn for use in 2020 and alleges that the districts violate the state’s constitution in three areas: The Equal Protection Clause, the Free Elections Clause, and the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly clauses. The suit also alleges that the current districts are “intentionally burdening the protected speech and/or expressive conduct of Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, including members of Common Cause and the NCDP, based on their identity, their viewpoints, and the content of their speech.” “Because lawmakers…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments Monday as she recuperates from cancer surgery. It’s not clear when the 85-year-old justice will return to work, though the Supreme Court’s public information office said she will continue to participate in official business from her home in Washington. Despite Ginsburg’s absence, a Court spokeswoman said the justice would participate in Monday’s cases by reading transcripts of the proceedings, then voting as normal. Monday is the first time that Ginsburg has missed arguments since she joined the high court in 1993. Surgeons at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York removed two cancerous nodules from Ginsburg’s lungs on Dec. 21. She was discharged on Dec. 26. The justice’s doctors said the surgery was successful and there are no signs of disease elsewhere in her body. The growths were detected when Ginsburg was hospitalized for a rib fracture in November 2018. On that occasion, the justice fell in her chambers and was admitted to a Washington-area hospital after experiencing discomfort in her chest. In a public appearance just days before December’s procedure, Ginsburg said her health was “fine”, and made no mention of the pending surgery. The justice has been diagnosed…
Read the full story
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery Friday to remove two malignant growths in her left lung, the Supreme Court said. It is the 85-year-old Ginsburg’s third bout with cancer since joining the court in 1993. Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York found “no evidence of any remaining disease” and scans taken before the surgery showed no cancerous growths elsewhere in her body, the court said in a statement. No additional treatment is currently planned, the court said. Ginsburg, who leads the court’s liberal wing, is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days, the court said. The growths were found during tests Ginsburg had after she fractured ribs in a fall in her Supreme Court office on Nov. 7. The court’s oldest justice had surgery for colorectal cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer 10 years later. Among other health problems, she also broke two ribs in a fall in 2012 and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014. She was hospitalized after a bad reaction to medicine in 2009. Ginsburg has never missed Supreme Court arguments in more than 25 years on the bench. The court won’t hear arguments again…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of overturning an exception to the Constitution’s double jeopardy prohibition, which allows state and federal prosecutors to bring successive prosecutions for the same offense. The case is carefully followed in Washington because of its potential ramifications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “The notion that the federal government would step in and prosecute a defendant after a state jury acquitted him of the same offense would have shocked the founding generation,” one of the briefs at the high court reads. Thursday’s case arose in Alabama, when Terence Gamble was arrested during a 2015 traffic stop after police recovered two baggies of marijuana and a 9mm handgun from his car. State prosecutors charged Gamble, a convicted felon, for illegal possession of a firearm. A federal charge for the same crime followed. The so-called separate-sovereigns doctrine allows state and federal courts to prosecute individuals for the same offense, double jeopardy notwithstanding. The question in Thursday’s case was whether that rule should be overturned. That move could hinder the Mueller probe, should President Donald Trump choose to pardon aides and associates who the special counsel has since indicted. Since the president can only issue…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be keeping a low profile in his first months on the U.S. Supreme Court after his bitter confirmation inflamed much of the public and recast the 2018 elections. The new justice’s approach to his first months on the high court is in marked contrast to President Donald Trump’s other appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. The justices have done their best to project normalcy since Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The panel was especially lighthearted during his first day on the bench, as when Justice Sonia Sotomayor turned and pinched Gorsuch while posing a hypothetical about the term “violent felony” within the meaning of a federal sentencing law. Gorsuch reacted with good-natured surprise, eliciting laughter from the courtroom audience. Kavanaugh himself has been an understated presence at oral arguments, clearly engaged but deferential to his colleagues. As a general matter, he has waited for the other justices to ask their questions before posing his own, and his inquiries have been largely confined to technical matters. He did, however, appear to break type in a Nov. 6 death penalty case, signaling concern that Missouri’s death penalty protocol could inflict “gruesome and brutal pain” on an elderly convict. Kavanaugh was…
Read the full story
by Tim Pearce A coalition of agricultural interests is backing the state of Wyoming in a Supreme Court Case over the hunting rights of Crow tribal members from a 150-year-old treaty. Eight agricultural groups filed a motion in support of Wyoming on Tuesday for arresting a tribal member, Clayvin Herrera, after he and several other Native Americans killed elk in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest in 2014. Herrera sued the state, claiming a right to hunt on “unoccupied” federal land secured in a 19th century treaty between the U.S. and the tribe. “We are not seeking to overturn the hunting rights the Crow Tribe reserved in their treaty with the United States,” Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) attorney Cody Wisniewski said in a statement. “Quite the contrary, we are just asking the Court to treat the right as the both the tribe and United States understood it in 1868.” MSLF is representing the agricultural groups Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Colorado Farm Bureau Federation and South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association. Herrera’s case against Wyoming rests on the meaning of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty that set up the…
Read the full story
by Rachel del Guidice Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says his “top priority” for the rest of the year and into the new Congress is filling the judiciary with President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. “The president, I think, has done an excellent job in picking young men and women who believe the job of the judge is to follow the law and we intend to keep confirming as many as we possibly can as long as we are in a position to do it,” McConnell said Wednesday at a press conference. “It’ll still be my top priority in setting the agenda here in the Senate,” McConnell said. McConnell also said that the Senate has been successful in making two Supreme Court appointments and 29 circuit judges, adding that, “we’re not through doing those this year.”While not all Senate races are settled, Republicans are poised to pick up two seats in the Senate. John G. Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that McConnell is correct to set his sights on judicial confirmations.…
Read the full story
by Elizabeth Slattery and Ashley Vaughan The Supreme Court is back in session after a two-week break. The justices will hear arguments in a number of important cases, including ones dealing with coercive class-action settlements, using hovercrafts for moose hunting in Alaska, and Virginia’s ban on uranium mining. Here are three cases to watch closely in the coming weeks. Frank v. Gaos Is it fair for the majority of a class-action settlement to go to third-party recipients with ties to the defendant and the class attorneys? That’s what a district court approved in a suit alleging that Google violated users’ privacy when it disclosed users’ search terms to third parties. Google agreed to settle the case for $8.5 million, with more than $2 million going to the class attorneys, $1 million paying for administrative costs and “incentive payments” for the named plaintiffs, and the vast majority—over $5 million—going to third-party recipients. The federal district court, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on appeal, authorized this settlement because it would be impractical to distribute settlement funds to a class with an estimated 129 million members. These courts followed a doctrine known as cy pres, which…
Read the full story
by Dr. Carol M. Swain Supreme Court justices need secret service protection now more than ever. The Left would like to remove Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas. Their goal is to gain control of the Court using any means necessary. On October 6, the day of the Senate vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Charlie Savage, writing for The New York Times, discussed liberal strategies for gaining control of the Court. Acknowledging that the Supreme Court would be controlled by a conservative majority for the foreseeable future, Savage reported, “Liberals have already started to attack the legitimacy of the majority bloc and discussed ways to eventually undo its power without waiting for one of its members to retire or die.” One idea is to regain control of the of the government in 2020 and have a liberal president increase the number of Supreme Court justices to create a liberal majority. Another scheme is to find a means to “impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh,” as well as Justice Thomas. Currently, there is a petition with over 47,000 signatures to impeach Thomas. In the past, opportunities to fill Supreme Court seats depended on the death…
Read the full story
by Chris White Supreme Court Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration a stay Friday night in a climate lawsuit several young people leveled against the government. The Trump administration repeatedly asked both the SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the trial through a writ of mandamus, a rarely used judicial tool allowing a higher court to overrule a lower court before a verdict is made. Roberts granted mandamus after the 9th Circuit twice turned down the writ. The 21 plaintiffs, all between the ages of 11 and 22, are arguing that federal officials violated their due process rights by allowing the fossil fuel industry to release greenhouse gas emissions, despite knowing for years that such emissions can cause climate change. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the federal government to implement an “enforceable national remedial plan” phasing out carbon emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate and protect the environment. Their case — Juliana v. United States — has survived several attempts by the government to torpedo the case after it was originally filed in 2015. Attorneys for the defendants said they believe the case will eventually move forward. “We are confident once Chief Justice Roberts and the full…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a North Dakota law requiring voters to produce government ID with a current residential street address when casting ballots to take effect. The decision, which came Tuesday and drew a brief dissent, will effect one November’s most critical Senate races. A group of American Indians challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters,” as many live on reservations or otherwise lack ordinary street addresses. A federal judge agreed and prohibited the law. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that order, so the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to restore the injunction. North Dakota argues that the law protects the integrity of the ballot box and improves the administration of elections — the state’s filing at the high court notes there were over 800 different ballots used in the state during the 2016 election cycle, which are assigned on the basis of address. The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order allowed the law to take effect for the general election. As is typical of orders of this nature, neither the vote count nor the reasoning was disclosed. Justice…
Read the full story
A Minnesota public school teacher is now under investigation after calling for the murder of newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The teacher, identified on social media as Samantha Ness, works for Intermediate School District #917’s Alliance Education Center, which “provides services to all students with unique needs,” including children with autism, cognitive disabilities, emotional behavior disorders, and more. “So whose [sic] gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” Ness tweeted over the weekend, but has since deleted her Facebook and Twitter. Screen grabs of her social media accounts, however, show that she started at her teaching position in April, while pictures she posted to Twitter confirmed her identity. https://twitter.com/pahubb43/status/1049143893743296512 Additionally, the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board confirms that Ness is a licensed teacher in the state and a graduate of Minnesota State University, Mankato. Before deleting her Twitter account, Ness went on to write that “Kavanaugh will be dealing with death threats for the rest of his life being on the Supreme Court,” so she doubts her “mid-west ass is a real threat,” according to archives of her account. On Monday, her employer announced that it has “received a complaint regarding an employee” who has…
Read the full story
by Kevin Daley The Senate confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court Saturday afternoon, securing a conservative majority on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal. Kavanaugh’s confirmation concludes an agonizing nomination process, which in stretches pertained as much to visceral feelings about identity, violence and fairness as to the high court. The final vote was 50 to 48. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lone Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, voted “present,” ensuring the other absent lawmaker, GOP Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, would not have to leave his daughter’s wedding in Bozeman to cast a decisive vote for the judge. GOP Rep. Greg Gianforte lent Daines the use of his private plane in the event he would have to return to Washington, should a slim margin require his presence. Among those present in the chamber for the vote was Debra Katz, an attorney who represents Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault dating back to when the two were minors. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the Senate during Saturday’s proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts will privately swear Kavanaugh in as a justice at the Court on Saturday night. There are generally two swearing-in ceremonies…
Read the full story
by Michael Walsh As the smoke starts to clear over the senatorial battlefield, the outlines of the conflict have come into stark relief. What began, like Gettysburg, with the accidental clash of two mighty armies, has become a death struggle between the reactionary forces of cultural-Marxist leftism in their purest, most deracinated form, and the restorative powers of the American Republic-as-founded, including the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and the orderly workings of our constitutional government. It’s a fight only one side can win, and it had better be ours. The Pickett’s Charge of the Left came last week, with an all-out assault (to use the feminist Left’s current mot du jour) on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record, morals, life, and future. Pinning their hopes on the plainly insincere and deceptive testimony of a fabulist—what, in fact, was “credible” about Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony?—the Left augmented her baseless charges against the judge by quickly moving the goalposts from an alleged “attempted rape” to an indictment of the radicals’ favorite bugbear, the Privileged White Male Patriarchy. Marked by their usual crude reductionism of a human being to a bloody fanged Marxist stereotype, the Democrats stripped Kavanaugh of his humanity, hurled unsubstantiated accusationswith…
Read the full story
by Rick Manning The Senate must not to cave into mob rule and instead must support confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. If the Senate votes against Judge Kavanaugh it will be assenting to mob rule to take down President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, not because of veracity of the allegations made against him or whether they could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but because of the politics of the moment. In the past, judges and justices were examined by the Senate on the basis of qualifications. Unfortunately the current process has become purely political, with a ratcheting up of the politics of personal destruction to defeat nominees as seen in the cases of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Because of these unsubstantiated allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has become one of the most divisive in our nation’s history as a fervent mob is demanding that we destroy Kavanaugh and his entire life without any proof, beyond a single person’s statement, to say he committed the actions he is accused of. It is alarming that Senate Democrats have not already rejected the mob rule that is at the heart of the Kavanaugh opposition,…
Read the full story
by CHQ Staff Prior to the middle of September, the Republican establishment was struggling to find a message that would motivate the Trump coalition to turn out for the November midterm election. However, the Democrats have now handed the GOP a national issue that has quickly proven it will motivate voters to shift to Republican Senate candidates: the confirmation of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In the key Senate match-up between incumbent Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp and challenger Republican congressman Kevin Cramer, Heitkamp is down 10 points in the latest NBC North Dakota News – Strategic Research Associates (SRA) poll. According to the poll, Cramer leads Heitkamp 51 percent to 41 percent. Eight percent have yet to make up their mind. According to NBC North Dakota News, sixty percent of voters in North Dakota support Kavanaugh with 27 percent expressing opposition. The poll was conducted during the recent disclosure that Kavanaugh may have engaged in sexual misconduct while in high school and college, but before the Sept. 27 testimony by Kavanaugh and one of his accusers before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the poll, an overwhelmingly 21 percent of North Dakota voters say…
Read the full story
by George Rasley Throughout the ordeal of his confirmation millions of Americans have been praying for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his family. President Trump made the point that prayer was a necessary element of the battle to confirm Judge Kavanaugh in a September 25 tweet: The Democrats are playing a high level CON GAME in their vicious effort to destroy a fine person. It is called the politics of destruction. Behind the scene the Dems are laughing. Pray for Brett Kavanaugh and his family! The Democrats are playing a high level CON GAME in their vicious effort to destroy a fine person. It is called the politics of destruction. Behind the scene the Dems are laughing. Pray for Brett Kavanaugh and his family! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2018 And it was not just the President who has been urging prayer for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Political Commentator and Analyst @RyanAFournier tweeted to his over 500,000 Twitter followers: It takes a lot for a grown man, with a long & successful career in the judicial system, to choke up after every single word while in-front of millions on national TV. We need to continue to pray…
Read the full story
On Tuesday’s Tennessee Star Report with Steve Gill and Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 am to 8:00 am – the men talked with Senator Lamar Alexander about getting the vote finalized after a seventh FBI investigation into Judge Kavanaugh is completed so that they can confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. “Well, Senator McConnell is determined to have the vote this week so we’ll get the FBI look at Judge Kavanaugh over the last 26 years. We’ll see if it says what it said before. We’ll have a day or two to read it, and then we’ll vote. And so yes, I believe a vote will be this week sometime, maybe Friday or Saturday, but it will be this week,” Alexander said. At the beginning of the segment, Alexander commented in dismay regarding the issue of fairness and how the destruction of Kavanaugh’s reputation, which was excellent up until only ten days ago, has effected the nominee. “What people are overlooking is Judge Kavanaugh has been subjected to six background checks over the last 26 years in connection with the various federal positions he has. And those background checks are extensive. The…
Read the full story
by Jeffery Rendall In the 2016 presidential election’s stretch run Hillary Clinton famously asked during an interview, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” American voters knew the answer and shared it with the former first lady and legacy Democrat presidential candidate on Election Day. Clinton did end up a couple points ahead (in terms of popular vote) but was way behind where it counted — in the Electoral College. By posing the ridiculous query Hillary exposed the severe case of denial she and all Democrats brought with them into the voting booth on November 8 of that year. The minority party’s collective fit continues to this day, most recently displayed by the Democrats’ heinous treatment of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process. Party members must go to sleep at night wondering, “What Happened?”, but until Democrats actually face reality their disorder will endure. For his part now-President Donald Trump appears baffled by a similar dilemma, the mystery of why Republicans aren’t way ahead in the polls despite extremely favorable objective factors. All the economic indicators are shooting through the proverbial roof these days, yet Republicans still lag behind where it counts – voter preference surveys. Trump proudly touted…
Read the full story
by Hanna Bogorowski The ACLU took another step against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh Monday after it launched a million dollar advertisement campaign opposing his nomination and likening the judge to convicted sexual predator Bill Cosby. The campaign targets a handful of Republican senators, including Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The ACLU took the nontraditional step of opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination on Saturday, a move the supposedly non-partisan organization called “rare.” “In this instance, the national board held an extraordinary meeting, and has chosen to make an exception” to its policy of not supporting or opposing candidates for political offices or judicial office. The organization took this opposition one step further Monday when it announced it spent over $1 million in television advertisements urging said Republican senators to vote against Kavanaugh. “We’ve seen this before, denials from powerful men,” the ad begins, showing images of famous men accused of sexual assault, including disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and former President Bill Clinton. “America is watching,” it warns. NEW: When we said we're going to use the full force of the ACLU…
Read the full story
by Robert Romano The Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28 advanced to the Senate floor for a vote the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. But, retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) did so conditionally, saying he would only support Kavanaugh on the floor if the FBI is ordered by President Donald Trump to conduct another background check on Kavanaugh in a limited period of time no longer than a week. The Committee then issued a statement saying it “will request that the administration instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation with respect to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.” And then President Donald Trump ordered the additional background investigation, issuing a statement saying, “I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.” Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have already staked out this position at the Sept. 27 hearing.…
Read the full story
by Masood Farivar With Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hanging in the balance, the high court is scheduled to open its new term on Monday with oral arguments on a range of issues before eight ideologically divided justices. This is not the first time the high court has had a vacancy at the start of a new term. In 2016, the court faced a similar situation after Justice Antonin Scalia died earlier in the year and Republicans in the Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee, keeping the seat vacant for nearly a year. If Kavanaugh wins confirmation, he is expected to provide a critical conservative vote that could tip the court’s balance on key issues this year and beyond. Legal experts say the justices may reschedule for re-argument some of the cases that have been set to be heard early in the term. The high court usually accepts less than 100 of the more than 7,000 cases it’s asked to review every year. So far this term, it has taken 44 cases with about half of them set for argument during October and November. Big cases coming Duke University law professor Brandon Garrett says…
Read the full story
by Nick Givas GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said voters have a clear choice between Republican results or Democratic “craziness” in November’s midterms when they go to the polls. “I think this election is really about two contrasting visions for where we’re going to take the country,” Jordan said on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” Friday. “I mean, I’ve never seen the Democrat Party take the extreme positions they are now taking.” “They applaud [Colin] Kaepernick when he disrespects the flag. They embrace [Andrew] Cuomo when he says America was never that great. And they cheer on Maxine Waters when she says go out and harass people who support the president of the United States. That is craziness.” Fox News’ America’s Newsroom tweeted the interview: WATCH: @BillHemmer got reaction from @Jim_Jordan ahead of the vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination at 1:30 PM EST #nine2noon pic.twitter.com/Qa0pCcypNA — America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) September 28, 2018 Jordan said Democrats have assumed radical ideological positions and claimed their platform is in direct contrast to that of President Donald Trump. “That’s the position that the left has now taken in this country. Contrast that with the record under President Trump’s leadership,” he continued. “Taxes cut, regulations…
Read the full story
by Peter Hasson Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh might keep facing political attacks from the left if he is confirmed to the nation’s highest court. Kavanaugh faced an onslaught of attacks from Democrats and liberal activists even before Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford accused him of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school. Kavanaugh denied Ford’s accusation once again in an emotional testimony Thursday. Brian Fallon, former press secretary on Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign, predicted Kavanaugh “will not serve for life” if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Fallon leads Demand Justice, a Democratic dark money group dedicated to opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and previously called for Kavanaugh to be impeached from his current position on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “If Senate GOP ignores Dr. Blasey Ford and tries to muscle an attempted rapist onto the Supreme Court: 1. They will pay dearly this November. 2. Senators up in 2020 (Collins, Gardner et al) will feel intense heat for next two years. 3. Kavanaugh will not serve for life,” Fallon predicted. If Senate GOP ignores Dr. Blasey Ford and tries to muscle an attempted rapist onto the Supreme Court:1. They will pay dearly this November.2. Senators up in…
Read the full story
by Robert Romano Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “The president shall… nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint… judges of the supreme court…” Those are the simple words that outline the process prescribed by the U.S. Constitution for confirming Supreme Court justices. The President nominates a justice, in the current case Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the Senate advises and then either consents or not to the nomination. Not the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is not even in the Constitution. It seems that Senate Democrats were more interested in asking Judge Kavanaugh what he thought the appropriate process for hearing the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was than to ask him about those allegations. To his credit, Kavanaugh did not give the committee Democrats what they wanted, which was a sound bite calling for an FBI investigation into himself. What a preposterous line of questioning. The FBI cannot even bring a charge of sexual assault against Kavanaugh or anyone else. As it is, Kavanaugh has already been subject to six FBI background checks throughout his career, which is really all that would happen here. A statement by the…
Read the full story
NASHVILLE, Tennessee–Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) reaffirmed his strong support for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in an exclusive interview late Friday afternoon at his Senate offices in Nashville with Tennessee Star political editor and host of The Tennessee Star Report, heard weekday mornings from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. on Talkradio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC, Steve Gill. Alexander’s remarks came after the Senate Judiciary Committee’s 11 to 10 party line vote to favorably recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination for a floor vote in the Senate, but minutes before President Trump instructed the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, limited to one week in duration. Trump’s order came after Sen. Jeff Flake’s (R-AZ) last minute demand that such an investigation be conducted. “As we sit here on a Friday when this whole Kavanaugh confirmation process is still in flux, now, apparently, a request for an FBI investigation, it may be voted next week early or late, as you kind of look at it right now, where do you see it going, again, while we know it changes minute by minute,” Gill said. “Well, I don’t want to predict what will happen because, who knows what…
Read the full story
by CHQ Staff Conservatives see the confirmation vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the issue that will allow Republicans to not only hold but even expand their Senate majority this fall, according to a poll by FedUp PAC. A large majority of 91.4% say that campaigning in support of Kavanaugh allows the GOP to highlight how “radical and unscrupulous” the Democrats have become. Another 5.3% fear that Kavanaugh has been seriously tarnished by the uncorroborated accusations, and that Republicans should campaign on local issues without mentioning Kavanaugh. Only 3.3% are undecided. The first round of Kavanaugh hearings demonstrated that the radical Democrats would not vote for any nominee who demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution and the laws as written. Instead they demanded that the Supreme Court become a left-wing legislature, imposing as the “law of the land” rulings for which many elected Democrats dare not vote. The unscrupulous nature of the Democrats was shown by their waiting until just before the committee vote on Kavanaugh, then springing the unlikely and uncorroborated story of Christine Blasey Ford, using it for delay and more delay. When it appeared that the committee was finally moving toward a vote, they pulled yet another wild…
Read the full story
by Hanna Bogorowski During Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Blasey Ford said she could not remember if she directly gave reporters her therapist notes from 2012. The Washington Post‘s article by Emma Brown revealed Sept. 16 the identity of the woman behind the anonymous letter sent to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California alleging Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. In the report, Blasey Ford says she never told anyone of the incident until 2012 during a couples therapy session, and WaPo appeared to claim it had obtained a portion of the therapist’s notes. She alleges Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed and attempted to remove her clothing forcibly. “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband,” the report reads. “The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” “The notes say four boys…
Read the full story
by Henry Rodgers Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour was arrested while protesting against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Thursday afternoon. Sarsour, who has been arrested numerous times, including at Kavanaugh’s Sept. 4 confirmation hearing, was spotted inside the Hart Senate Office Building around 10 a.m. with dozens of protesters, before leading a march with the group outside of the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court. A group of protesters and Sarsour were seen sitting in the middle of the street in front of the Supreme Court hours later. After being asked to move multiple times, police arrested Sarsour and dozens of others of protesters. #CancelKavanaugh: @womensmarch leaders Linda Sarsour & Bob Bland started a chant of “arrest Trump” while being led away. pic.twitter.com/xnHa1GCnHb — Alejandro Alvarez 🫡 (@aletweetsnews) September 27, 2018 Kavanaugh was testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Daily Caller News Foundation asked Sarsour what her plans were before the arrest. She refused to comment. – – – Henry Rodgers is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation. Follow Henry on Twitter. Photo “Linda Sarsour” by Festival of Faiths CC2.0 Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without…
Read the full story
by Chris Buskirk Christine Blasey Ford made scurrilous accusations against Brett Kavanaugh for actions she claims occurred nearly 35 years ago when they were both minors. Both Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, who Ford also claims was present have vehemently and categorically denied her claims. The people who know Kavanaugh, as well as decades of evidence of a life lived with dignity and propriety, support him. Even one of the people Ford claims was a witness denies her claims. Ford says that Leland Keyser was a friend of hers and was at the party in 1982. But Keyser says she has no recollection of the party. Not only that, she denies knowing or ever being in a social situation with Kavanaugh. Keyser’s statement calls into question whether the party occurred at all, which would make Ford’s claims against Kavanaugh entirely false. Predictably, however, Ford has been joined by Stormy Daniels’ execrable mouthpiece, Michael Avenatti. Now a Yale classmate is making claims about some nudity at a dorm party, which have been questioned or denied by people who were allegedly there. So why are some self-described conservatives signing up to help this circus along? What’s Different Now False accusations and smear…
Read the full story
by Steve Osborne The Kavanaugh hearings have devolved into a disgraceful spectacle. As his accuser’s accusation falls apart, another accuser mysteriously appeared over the weekend saying the judge acted inappropriately during his freshman year in college. If you haven’t figured it out by now, let me tell you that this whole charade is an orchestrated attempt by the democrats, hoping to delay a vote on Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS. The Democrats see that there’s a possibility of retaking the majority in the senate. If they can delay the vote on Kavanaugh until after the midterm elections, the judge won’t get the necessary votes to be confirmed. All the while, the judge’s family has to endure unfounded mudslinging all for the sake of unseemly politics. Sadly, we’ve seen this movie before. The Honorable Robert Bork, nominated for SCOTUS by President Reagan, was publicly and unjustly ripped to shreds during his confirmation hearing, and failed to get the necessary votes to confirm his nomination. Justice Clarence Thomas was similarly defamed during his confirmation hearing by a democrat operative named Anita Hill. Thankfully, Justice Thomas, knowing Anita was a setup, read a statement prior to his vote in which he excoriated the…
Read the full story