Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Franklin’s Rule: How The Barrett Hearing Left The Democrats Holding An Empty Sack, by Jonathan Turley

The Democrats didn’t succeed in the Barrett hearings in doing anything but making themselves look like asses, and Barrett will get confirmed this week. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

Below is my column in the Hill on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the oddly disconnected questions during her confirmation hearing.  While I have written about the revealing moments of the hearing, the Democrats clearly elected not to focus on the nominee but the election. When they did attack the nominee, they fired wildly and missed completely in three areas.

Here is the column:

Benjamin Franklin once said, “it is hard for an empty sack to stand upright.” It took almost 300 years, but Franklin’s observation finally has been proven demonstrably true. The three-day Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for federal appellate judge and Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett can best be described as an empty-sack confirmation that simply would not stand upright.

From the outset, committee Democrats were dealing with a highly qualified nominee who has the intellect, the temperament and the background to be an exceptional justice. And that was the problem.

Democrats decided to use the hearing as a springboard for the coming election. They never intended to put anything in the sack against Barrett. Yet, to frame this effort, they advanced a number of false premises that collapsed on their own weight:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is about to be killed

Barrett was surrounded in the hearing room by photos of ill individuals who could perish without national health care. It made Barrett look like some judicial serial-killer.  However, these were not her victims. Indeed, the entire premise was false.

Senate Democrats were suggesting that the pending case of California v. Texas was just one vote shy of striking down the ACA. It left many of us watching in disbelief. While a district court struck down the whole act, an appellate court wanted to send it back to consider the elements of “severability.” The vast majority of experts believe that the striking down of one provision — the individual mandate provision — should not result in the loss of the entire act. More importantly, a clear majority of the Supreme Court appears to believe that. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both are expected to vote to uphold the rest of the act. Indeed, a Justice Barrett could well vote with them.

Continue reading→

 

Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States, by Jonathan Turley

The Democrats want a Supreme Rubber Stamp. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the call for a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and the packing of the Supreme Court with up to six new members to secure a majority.  Both ideas were expressly denounced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, to achieve these objectives, the Democratic members will have to tear down the very rule established by Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing.

The refusal of Vice President Joe Biden to answer repeated questions about his position on the packing of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling. This is a proposal raised not by the Republicans but his own running mate Kamala Harris and leading Democrats.  It would destroy the Supreme Court and voters should know if Biden would consider such an irresponsible act, particularly when he previously denounced it. The refusal to stand against the proposal is a fundamental failure of leadership. Rather than confront the most extreme elements of his party, Biden has chosen to remain silent on a major issue in this election. Frankly, that is not the Biden that many of us knew from his time in the Senate. He should take a stand against this pernicious idea and defend the institution, as he did in 2019.

Those arguing for proposal are not subtle. University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter declared total license due to the failure to vote on Merrick Garland and now the effort to vote on Amy Coney Barrett: “If they pack the court, the Democrats would be crazy not to do their own court packing.” However, those are vacancies where the Senate used its constitutional power to withhold or hold a vote. I called for a vote on Garland but there was nothing unconstitutional in the withholding of the vote. Indeed, Ginsburg herself insisted that vacancies should be filled even in an election year in 2016. The fact is that, even if the Senate voted and rejected Garland, many of the same voices would still be supporting a court packing scheme. The packing scheme would change the Court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority. It would create a new and fundamentally flawed Court — a sad reflection of our age of rage.

When asked about calls to expand the Court, Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court. She added to NPR last year: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”  The greatest insult is that these individuals are using Ginsburg’s death to change the Court in the very ways that she opposed in her life.

Here is the prior column:

Subtlety has been a stranger to our politics. This is the age of rage, and there is little room for nuance. That is evident in the intense debate over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats have dispensed with any pretense in their calls to block her and pack the bench with more justices. What they want is a Supreme Court with litmus test confirmations where Senate votes are conditioned on pledges.

Continue reading→

Can the Government Force Us to Eat Broccoli?

By Andrew P. Napolitano

The Supreme Court’s decisions upholding Obamacare in 2012 was a travesty, and that decision by itself makes Chief Justice John Roberts one of worst Chief Justices ever. From Andrew Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”
— Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980)

With President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is back in the news. Barrett expressed constitutional misgivings about Obamacare 10 years ago when she was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, and some folks who oppose her nomination have argued that should she be confirmed in the next month, she should not hear the Nov. 10 arguments on Obamacare.

Wait a minute. Didn’t the Supreme Court already uphold Obamacare in 2012? Yes, it did. So why is the constitutionality of this legislation back before the Supreme Court?

Here is the backstory.

The ACA of 2010 marked the complete federal takeover of regulating health care delivery in America. It eliminated personal choices and mandated rules and regulations on almost all aspects of health care and health care insurance. It created a complex structure that, at the back end, directed the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars on health care and, at the front end, received health insurance premiums from or on behalf of every adult in America.

To assure that every adult obtained and paid for health care coverage, the ACA authorized the IRS to assess those who failed to have health insurance about $8,800 a year and use that money to purchase a bare-bones insurance policy for them.

Continue reading→

 

Trump Did Not Flinch!, by Israel Shamir

Israel Shamir celebrates Trump and his nominee for the Supreme Court. From Shamir at unz.com:

Trump didn’t flinch. He chose the good-looking Amy Barrett to replace the departed witch in the Supreme Court. What a difference! A devout Catholic instead of an atheist Jew; a flourishing wife and mother of seven instead of a bossy harridan keen on same-sex marriages and abortions; summer instead of winter. He made this choice even as liberal-feminist America was still bewailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sobbing loudly. Her funeral was impressive, nay, unprecedented. In my native Russia, only Stalin was seen off with such pomp. RBG was as ugly as her deeds (beauty and ugliness count, as Oscar Wilde explained); probably nobody in history exceeded her contribution to destroy the family, to profane marriage, to slaughter children. She took feminism to its radical extreme: after her recent visit to Israel (she didn’t like the country) she said that Israeli women are discriminated like blacks under Jim Crow laws. She felt sorry for Israeli judges who are pensioned off at 70, instead of serving for life, till 87 in her case.

Perhaps RBG was the secret Mama of Washington, the answer to the Papa of Rome, the hidden ruler of the US Empire in some Judeo-Masonic hierarchy, the top reptilian, the head of the Deep State, while the President is just a figurehead. For many years she strenuously clung to life and power, enjoying torrents of infant blood baths. She wanted to survive the Trump presidency, to see the last of him, of that he-man; to pass the power to the next reptilian, formally a Biden appointee, but God stopped her and gave mankind a chance. With RBG in SCOTUS, Trump would not have had a snowflake’s chance in hell to win the election. Every judicial decision would have run against him. He would have been declared an illegal occupier of the White House long before the votes were counted. Now he has a chance.

RBG’s entourage called Trump out: “Don’t you dare appoint a new Supreme Court judge in her stead! A new judge will be appointed by the new president, Mr Biden!” This was the first challenge of Trump. The magrepha of mainstream media, this piercing screaming machine (so powerful that a person in Jerusalem could not hear his neighbour speaking on account of the sound of the magrepha, says the Talmud) was turned up to full volume, shouting “Don’t you dare!” and “It is illegal to appoint a judge in an election year!”. This is the mantra of the Transition Integrity Project: “Trump will lose the election and he will fight to retain his power, but eventually he will surrender and establish his own TV channel, MAGA TV”. The aim of this media campaign is to break down Trump’s will to resist and demoralize his supporters.

Continue reading

Boston University Professor Denounces Barrett As “White Colonizer” For Adopting Two Haitian Children

Leftist professors hit new lows almost every day. Here’s another one. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

WhiteHouse.gov (Twitter)

It appears that Judge Amy Coney Barrett has gone from a “cult member” for being a devout Catholic to a possible “white colonizer” for adopting two Haitian children.  Where most of us saw a loving interracial family at the White House ceremony on Saturday,  Ibram X. Kendi, the new director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, saw a possible case of effective baby snatching by “White colonizers.”

On Saturday, Kendi wrote “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”  The obvious implication is that the Barrett’s may have used their adopted children as mere props as part of a possible effort to hide their racism. It was clearly designed to curtail the praise of the Barrett family by suggesting that the parents might be racists. Indeed, he puts “adopted” in quotation marks to suggest that some of these children are not really adopted but presumably acquired or snatched by “White people.”

After leveling that truly disgusting suggestion against this family, Kendi added “And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.”

Continue reading→

 

Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us, by John W. Whitehead

Unfortunately, the long running trend of Supreme Court decisions has been to expand government power and eviscerate individual rights. Don’t expect Trump’s next pick to reverse or even slow that trend. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court will not save us.

It doesn’t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Although the courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice, what we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.

Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a world of privilege, partial to those with power, money and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)—venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

Continue reading

What the Supreme Court Got Right in Its Indian Tribe Ruling, by Ryan McMaken

No, the Supreme Court didn’t just give half of Oklahoma to an Indian tribe. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Jimcy McGirt was wrongfully convicted in an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. McGirt argued that his trial should have taken place in federal court because he is a member of the Seminole Nation and the crimes in question took place on Indian tribal lands, which are not subject to state law in certain cases.

The court agreed with McGirt and it recognized these tribal lands as potentially constituting much of the eastern half of Oklahoma, including parts of Tulsa. The implications of the ruling are sizable, although not as sizable as the media is making them out to be.

The media is now filled with headlines like “Court Rules That about Half of Oklahoma Is Native American Land” and “Court Rules That Large Swath of Oklahoma Belongs to Indian Reservation.”

Headlines like these are likely to conjure up images of non-Indians being rounded up and kicked off reservation lands, homes expropriated, and worse.

But Thursday’s ruling doesn’t even come close to handing over control of private property in eastern Oklahoma to a tribal council. In fact, the court’s ruling explicitly states up front that the decision is narrowly applied to matters of jurisdiction in criminal law.

Continue reading

America Is a Technocracy, Not a Democracy, by Ryan McMaken

American is run by federal government bureaucracies, not elected officials. From Ryan McMaken at ronpaulinstitute.org:

undefined

Perhaps never before in American history have the unelected technocrats played such an enormous role in shaping public policy in America.

In recent weeks, members of Congress have been missing in action. Late last month, the House of Representatives passed the biggest spending bill in history while most members were absent. Member votes were not recorded and the legislation was passed with a voice vote, which required only a tiny handful of members.

Weeks later, the Senate refuses to even meet, and may finally get around to debating some legislative matters in May. As with the House, a handful of members assembled earlier to approve another enormous stimulus bill. Many Senators stayed home. This is “representative government” in modern America.

But if you thought this lack of congressional action means not much is happening in Washington in terms of policymaking, you would be very wrong. It’s just that the democratically elected institutions have now become a largely irrelevant sideshow. The real policymaking takes place among unelected experts, who decide for themselves—with minimal oversight or control from actual elected officials—what will happen in terms of public policy. The people who really run the country are these experts and bureaucrats at the central banks, at public health agencies, spy agencies, and an expanding network of boards and commissions.

Continue reading→

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment, by Alan Dershowitz

How can contesting congressional subpoenas be an impeachable offense if the president has sufficient legal grounds in so doing that the Supreme Court agrees to review the controversy? From Alan Dershowitz at thehill.com:

The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.

Continue reading

Executive Order 6102 Led to the Fall of America’s Money System, by Bill Bonner

A cautionary note about gold: FDR banned the private ownership of gold and it could happen again. You may not want to put all your eggs in that basket. From Bill Bonner at bonnerandpartners:

Maria’s Note: Maria Bonaventura here, managing editor of the Diary. Bill is on his way back to America to spend Thanksgiving with his family. So today, we share a story every Diary reader should know about how the feds first opened the floodgates of money-printing…


Today, we woke up with a disagreeable headache… and a depressing hypothesis:

The Supreme Court has been derelict in its duty for the last 80 years. For years, the Court has looked the other way as the feds robbed one class of citizen (ordinary, working people) and rewarded another (the elite).

As a result, the American empire faces a catastrophic money crisis… probably accompanied by internal schisms, social breakdowns, and dangerous political scuffles.

Let’s begin by looking again at the connection between time and money.

Continue reading