Tag Archives: SCOTUS

The re-weaponization of the IRS

Posted on by

Figure 1: 45th President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump.

Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. And from November 9th on the Demorat, Leftist and American Media Maggot side, insanity reigned supreme. To this day. To this second.

We saw the IRS weaponized against Conservatives and, specifically, the TEA Party (so few remember what TEA stood for: “Taxed Enough Already.”) beginning in 2010 when the Obama/Lois Lerner Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status.

This wasn’t just specious bong water. (Hey, doesn’t that sound like the name of some new garage band?) Court documents showed it. In a 27 month span, over 300 Conservative groups were targeted and not one of them — in the Obama Administration, under Lois Lerner as Director of the Exempt Organizations — not one of them was able to acquire tax exempt status. Why? Power and political bias. But wait; there’s more. Another specific person was involved.

Remember when the IRS’s Lois Lerner took the fifth with regard to the issue?

But what does that mean? And why would you not want any of your testimony revealed for any reason whatsoever? How is it that your testimony is any more valuable or worthy of redaction or elimination than that of anyone else? Does that not demand the questions “What are you hiding and why are you hiding it?”

So what happened to various TEA Party groups?

There’s a massive clue. The ACLJ — American Center for Law and Justice, under Jay Sekulow, sued the IRS. Then there was this in 2017 from Reuters.com:

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

(Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

In a pair of lawsuits filed in federal court in 2013, the conservative groups accused the IRS of targeting organizations with such words as “Tea Party” or “patriots” when they applied to the agency for tax-exempt status starting in 2010.

The sides asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday to issue a declarative judgment in one of the cases involving 41 plaintiffs that would say the IRS was wrong to apply the United States tax laws based on an entity’s name, position or association with a particular political movement.

“We hope that today’s settlement makes clear that this abuse of power will not be tolerated,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Thursday.

More importantly:

The IRS admitted it was wrong when it based screenings of the groups’ applications on their names or policy positions, subjected the groups to heightened scrutiny and delays and demanded unnecessary information from the groups, the agreement in the Washington case said.

The IRS “expresses its sincere apology,” it said.

Senior management within the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division “was delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations,” the settlement document said.

A request to halt the other case, a class action suit involving 428 members, was filed in a federal court in Ohio.

Republicans claimed the targeting of conservative groups showed political bias in the IRS under former Democratic President Barack Obama. House Republican investigators found no connection to the Obama administration, according to a 2014 report.

More pointedly:

But the report did blame IRS officials for mistreating conservative organizations who sought tax-exempt status and that IRS officials covered up the misconduct and misled Congress.

The officials included former Commissioner Douglas Shulman, former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, and Lois Lerner, the former head of the unit overseeing applications for tax-exempt status.

Bottom line?

No criminal charges were ever filed against IRS officials.

Why would there? No bias here. Nothing to see. Move along. This isn’t the corruption you’re looking for under the first actual black president of the United States.

The situation led to this, where Commissioner John Koskinen was rightly accused of running the “most corrupt and deceitful IRS in history.”

It took years, but finally:

Jay Sekulow: Victory! IRS admits Tea Party, other conservative groups were targets during Obama era

by Jay Sekulow

It took many years to resolve. But I am delighted to report that we have just obtained a resounding victory in our legal challenge to the IRS’s political targeting of conservative organizations.

In an unprecedented victorious conclusion to our four year-long legal battle against the IRS, the bureaucratic agency has just admitted in federal court that it wrongfully targeted Tea Party and conservative groups during the Obama administration because of their political viewpoints and issued an apology to our clients for doing so. In addition, the IRS is consenting to a court order that would prohibit it from ever engaging in this form of unconstitutional discrimination in the future.

In a proposed Consent Order filed with the Court yesterday, the IRS has apologized for its treatment of our clients — 36 Tea Party and other conservative organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS between 2009 and 2012 — during the tax-exempt determinations process. Crucially, following years of denial by the IRS and blame-shifting by IRS officials, the agency now expressly admits that its treatment of our clients was wrong.

Reuters reported:

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

(Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

In a pair of lawsuits filed in federal court in 2013, the conservative groups accused the IRS of targeting organizations with such words as “Tea Party” or “patriots” when they applied to the agency for tax-exempt status starting in 2010.

The sides asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday to issue a declarative judgment in one of the cases involving 41 plaintiffs that would say the IRS was wrong to apply the United States tax laws based on an entity’s name, position or association with a particular political movement.

Along with digging and suits administered by the ACLJ, there was another element to the weaponization of the IRS, and that was John McCain. It’s no secret that I am not an admirer of McCain, a “Republican” who was one of the most dishonest men in politics. I would have respected McCain had he been candid and clear by changing his (R) to a (D), which he truly was. He actually threatened to do so in 2010 because he wasn’t getting his way. Tantrums.

I’m sure his family at least tolerated him at home, he didn’t set stray kittens on fire (although it’s admittedly difficult to prove a negative), and he was never caught acting like an actual Conservative. That much is true.

But in addition, it was John McCain who in fact helped to weaponize the IRS against TEA Party operations.

Judicial Watch reveals the following via the WashingtonTimes.com:

McCain’s office urged IRS to use audits as weapons to destroy political advocacy groups – UPDATED

A new report from Judicial Watch reveals a concerted effort from Sen. John McCain’s office to urge the IRS under Lois Lerner to strike out against political advocacy groups, including tea party organizations.

Thanks to the results of an extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that has been delayed for many years, Judicial Watch has obtained several key emails from 2013 that chronicle McCain’s and Democrat Sen. Carl Levin’s efforts to reign in the advocacy groups that sprouted immediately following the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court.

Let’s be clear. McCain didn’t get his way with the Supreme Court in re McCain-Feingold.

The point of this post isn’t about the McCain-Feingold bill. It was about McCain’s reaction to the SCOTUS decision. And McCain’s willingness to light the ass of the IRS on fire and set it on TEA Party. Weaponizing the IRS.

Watch McCain’s reaction regarding what he perceives to be his personal loss at SCOTUS. Because, as you know, it’s all about McCain.

McCain-Feingold was invalidated by the Supreme Court. Say what you will about his bill, McCain took it — like everything else in his political life — personally. McCain then somehow concluded it was time to tender a steaming dump on TEA Party groups because he was foiled.

The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include notes from a high-level meeting on April 30, 2013 between powerful members of McCain’s and Levin’s staffs and Lerner, then-director of tax exempt organizations at the IRS under Barack Obama. The notes reveal the suggestions from McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner who urges Lerner to use IRS audits on the advocacy groups to financially ruin them.

Because if McCain couldn’t have his, you couldn’t have yours. With McCain, it was all about McCain.

Less than two weeks after the April 30 meeting, Lerner revealed that her staff had purposely discriminated against conservative tea party groups seeking 501(c)4 tax exempt status because they represented and advocated for conservative political positions. 

McCain doing the work of the Demorats as per normal.

“The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama IRS scandal is not over – as Judicial Watch continues to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans.”

Absolutely correct. But perhaps you thought that solved everything. The IRS would never be weaponized again. Think again. Now that Trump surveillance has been proven, now that there is a crisis at our border, now that the Mueller report failed to result in Trump clapped in handcuffs and his comb-over shaved off, what’s left?

Oh yeah. Taxes taxes taxes Trump taxes taxes taxes. But first, a critical question: what is the federal statute requiring presidents to turn over their tax returns? Answer: there is no such thing.

Trump ran on and won the presidency based upon refusing to disclose his tax returns. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now. Nixon began the “tradition” if you will and Trump may be the one to end it.

Obama failed to release his college transcripts or his passport. Obama’s years at Columbia are an absolute mystery. No one remembers him. Why? Moreover, do I really care? No, I don’t.

Fast forward to today. Trump is still made of Teflon, a material Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots wish never existed. Nothing sticks to Trump. Not even the rhetorical or written napalm meant to incinerate him and everyone around him, including his family.

Two years down the drain and Bob “The Savior” Mueller turns out to be, well, everything but. As I said for the past year-plus, all Mueller had were crimes of process that would never have come to light save the investigation itself. Translation: he created those crimes with an investigation that would otherwise have not occurred. Now all the LDAMM have sworn to stop sending Bobbie any Christmas cards at all. #Lonely.

Michael Avenatti, Trump’s most vocal nemesis, the darling of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC, turns out to be the poster child for — as Tucker Carlson says — a Creepy Porn Lawyer. If anyone got napalmed, it was Mikey. He was the Bernie Madoff of unconscionable lawyers. Yeah. “Avenatti 2020.”

I just couldn’t help but place the video. It’s too good to pass up. Back to taxes.

Bernie Sanders said he would release his taxes and, this past weekend, he did. What we discovered is that Bernie Sanders is precisely what he excoriates: part of the 1%. Translated: he’s a millionaire. Wait. That doesn’t compute. How can Socialist Bernie Sanders be a member of the very group he — I guess, now — pretends to hate?

Further, Sanders said he made money on his book; a very good book you see. You should read it. He crowed about writing it during the Town Hall meeting hosted by Bret Baier and Martha McCallum. He says he won’t apologize for writing a book. He’s promoting entrepreneurship, it seems.

Reminded by the Times reporter that he is now someone of considerable means, Sanders retorted: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

If that isn’t an advocacy for entrepreneurship — what is?

“If anyone thinks I should apologize for writing a bestselling book, I’m sorry, I’m not going to do it,” Sanders said in a fiery Fox News town hall Monday night. He defended his earnings and insisted he does not attack the wealthy.  

Of course Bernie Sanders doesn’t attack the wealthy. Which is 1) bullshit, he has (see below), and 2) more recently because it has been exposed that he himself is a millionaire.

Wait. Doesn’t he despise millionaires and billionaires?

Bernie Sanders said his wealth isn’t even the American Dream.

Then Bret Baier, one of the Fox moderators, asked Mr. Sanders, “When you wrote the book and you made the money, isn’t that the definition of capitalism and the American dream?”

“No,” Mr. Sanders replied.

The bottom line is this: there is no law requiring those running for president to release their taxes. There is no law requiring presidents to release their taxes.

If President Trump declines to release his taxes, absent a law, that is his right.

Because it’s involving Trump, and because Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots have abjectly failed to blow Donald Trump out of the Oval Office on so many levels and via so many ways — it will be proven most of them illegal — it’s now time to focus on taxes. The very item that those who elected him in 2016 couldn’t give one oozing, pustulant crap about.

And don’t now either.

Weaponizing the IRS.

But only against Conservatives or anyone who dares, like Trump, to push against the DC Norm.

Trump is a threat, he has caused fear, he is pushing envelopes, and to this point the LDAMM have been entirely unsuccessful in dismantling his success.

The LDAMM cannot even concede one success Trump has acquired for America because, to do that, they would have to recognize that, on a larger more overarching level, he really is making America greater.

Worse yet: greater than Barack Hussein Obama.

The LDAMM will do everything they possibly can to acknowledge even one Trump success. And if the United States or its citizens have to suffer because of their refusal, well, you can go straight to hell.

Atonement, expiations, the minimization of American power. Self-loathing.

“There’s nothing exceptional about America.”

A loathing of the United States of America.

That’s the goal of Demorats.

Started by Obama.

Desired in 2020.

BZ

 

 Share

Chief Justice Roberts: “no bias in our courts”

Posted on by

Oh please. Of course there is. I fell off the turnip truck, well, seven decades ago.

This issue came front and center when the Northern District of California (kissing cousins to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) in San Francisco ruled, once again, against President Trump on behalf of individuals who have not yet even set foot in this country — giving precedence to potential illegals over actual American taxpaying citizens. From TheWashingtonTimes.com:

Trump vows to battle judges after latest immigration court defeat

by Stephen Dinan

President Trump vowed to retaliate Tuesday against liberal judges on the West Coast who he said appear to have it in for him, commenting hours after an Obama-appointed judge delivered yet another legal spanking to the administration on immigration policy.

“I’m going to put in a major complaint, because you cannot win if you’re us,” Mr. Trump said at the White House, facing reporters just before jetting off for a Thanksgiving holiday in Florida.

An interesting point. Another good point is coming.

He said he’s fed up with his opponents’ ability to file cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a set of notoriously liberal courts that have ruled against Mr. Trump on everything from the travel ban to sanctuary cities to this latest ruling Tuesday morning blocking his asylum crackdown.

Mr. Trump predicted he will eventually prevail on the asylum case when it reaches the Supreme Court, just as he did after a long back-and-forth on the travel ban.

It was well known in law enforcement arenas that, at one point, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had an 85+ percentile overturn rate. One of my department’s cases, based upon a general order I had written regarding pursuits, went through the 9th Circuit and was overturned by SCOTUS in County of Sacramento v Lewis.

“That’s not law. That’s not what this country stands for. Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten,” he said.

Once out, the statement was taken and splattered throughout American Media Maggot territory. “How dare President Trump rail against our sacred courts?!” the Maggots bleated. “Sinner! Apostate! Impious liar!”

Except that it had happened before. Barack Hussein Obama set precedent when he called out the US Supreme Court to their faces in his January 27th, 2010 State of the Union speech, accusing them of “getting it wrong” on free speech regarding the Citizens United case.

When he said that, Ginsburg woke from her sleep, Sotomayor looked up and Alito frowned and shook his head. At least Trump didn’t invite the justices into Congress just to hock a loogie into their collective faces on television.

For even having shaken his head, Associate Justice Samuel Alito was taken to task immediately by said AMM. Alito dared to “shake his head” and “mouth the words ‘not true’.” Apostate! Heretic! Sinner! Impious liar! How dare you make Squinty Face and go against The Anointed One??

TheHill.com continues with our story.

A judge from the Northern District of California, which has cases appealed to the Ninth Circuit, dealt the administration another legal setback this week by blocking the order denying the asylum. Both courts are based in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar late Monday (November 20th) sided with opponents of Trump’s policy prohibiting certain immigrants from claiming asylum, granting their request for a temporary restraining order. 

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote in his 37-page ruling.

Trump on Tuesday dismissed Tigar without naming him, referring to him as “an Obama judge.” Tigar was nominated by the former president in 2012.

The Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, has frustrated Trump repeatedly by ruling against his proposed travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, and a Department of Justice effort to cut off federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities.

Hence, the president’s comments.

Chief Justice John Roberts then decided to weigh in on Trump’s comments. “This is CNN.”

The problem was that, in response, many people happened to believe and say that Chief Justice Roberts was himself quite in error.

But first, let’s start with this story from April of 2017 involving — wait for it — bias on behalf of judges. In this instance, a federal judge with a bias for Barack Hussein Obama.

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama

Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.

Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president’s plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.

But wait, there’s more.

As FoxNews.com reported:

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional. 

The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.

The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

Nah. What bias?

The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.

At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

Orrick, 63, also raised money for the failed presidential bid of then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

In 2015, President Obama vowed to veto legislation that would have cracked down on sanctuary cities.

Judicial Watch also reported that Obama’s Justice Department granted more than $340 million to sanctuary municipalities as of 2016.

But hey. Remember: judges aren’t biased. Chief Justice Roberts says so. And you can take that to the bank.

First, from Joseph diGenova, former USA for the District of Columbia from 1983 to 1988, at FoxNews.com:

Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong

by Joseph diGenova

In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.

The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.

Shame on the chief justice. What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.

With everyone looking for ways to remove the high court from the political thicket, Roberts strode arrogantly right into it. Sad day.

Wait for it.

But President Trump’s criticism of liberal judges in the 9th Circuit who were nominated by President Obama was accurate. These judges previously issued an order blocking the president’s Travel Ban Executive Order that was designed to protect our country from terrorists crossing our borders. As President Trump correctly noted, the Supreme Court later overturned the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Roberts’ comments seemed particularly strange because he had never injected himself into a political debate before.

Stand by:

In fact, Roberts sat quietly through President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address when Obama sharply attacked Supreme Court justices sitting in the audience for their ruling in the Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited political campaign contributions by unions and corporations.

President Obama falsely claimed in this speech that the Citizens United ruling allowed massive political contributions by foreign corporations. It did no such thing.

As the justices sat in the House chamber listening to his speech, President Obama embarrassed the court directly and fiercely. Not a peep from Roberts. Only Justice Samuel Alito quietly mouthed to himself “no, no” as Obama railed against foreign campaign contributions.

Roberts has said nothing about Obama’s remarks in the eight years since.

So why did Roberts attack President Trump on Wednesday? Well, Trump is not a Democrat.

You want bias? There it is. Right there. Timing makes a difference and, as far as I am concerned, there are no longer any “coincidences.”

I’m on a roll. How can I stop the story?

Many believe that Roberts caved to political criticism by President Obama and his Democratic cohorts in a case where Roberts was the decisive vote in a ruling that found ObamaCare was constitutional – a historic victory for Democrats.

Roberts clearly accepted the claim by Democrats in that case that the Supreme Court could not overturn ObamaCare or the high court would forever harm the republic and subvert the legislative process and the will of the people.

It is widely believed that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute to stop the Supreme Court from overturning ObamaCare in that landmark case because of pressure from outside forces directed against him.

Indeed, the wording of various dissents in the ObamaCare case – especially Justice Antonin Scalia’s – made it clear that Roberts’ decision to find that ObamaCare was constitutional was political and nothing more – not a decision based on the Constitution or on the law.

The ObamaCare ruling was a legacy opinion for Roberts because he couldn’t take another wave of criticism like what he received from the liberal media, Obama and the Democrats after his ruling in the Citizens United case. Roberts caved in an obvious nod to the attacks on him. It was palpable and most unfortunate.

Roberts’ ObamaCare opinion had a quality of “oh by the way” and artificiality to it that was apparent to Supreme Court observers.

So Roberts’ pro-Democratic bias that we saw Wednesday is nothing new. It is, in fact, a repetition and a return to normal for him.

Then, of all people, Mark Thiessen from the WaPo.com wrote:

Marc Thiessen: Chief Justice Roberts is wrong. We do have Obama judges and Trump judges.

For someone trying to demonstrate that the judiciary is not political, getting into a political fight with the president sure is a funny way to do it.

After President Trump called a judge who ruled against him an “Obama judge,” Chief Justice John Roberts issued an extraordinary public rebuke of the president, declaring in statement “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” Roberts was not only wrong to speak out, but also his claim that there are no Obama judges or Trump judges was wrong.

If we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, then why did Senate Republicans block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the final year of Obama’s term? And why did Democrats filibuster Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to fill Scalia’s seat?

Facts in evidence.

Even Roberts’s fellow justices know there is a difference. If there were no Obama judges or Trump judges, then why did Anthony Kennedy wait for Trump’s election to announce his retirement?

I submit that Kennedy’s retirement wasn’t “pro-Trump.” It was simply this: he’d had enough of the bullshit on both sides.

And why doesn’t Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just retire now and let Trump nominate her replacement? Because they both want a president who would appoint a successor who shares their judicial philosophy. (And, lo and behold, Trump appointed a former Kennedy clerk, Brett Kavanaugh, to succeed him).

The American people know that Roberts is wrong. In the 2016 election, exit polls showed that 70 percent of voters said Supreme Court appointments were either the most important or an important factor in deciding their vote. And polls show that Republicans expanded their Senate majority in 2018 in large part because conservative voters were angered over the left’s brutal campaign of character assassination against Kavanaugh.

There is an “ideal” of course. But it is — after having served seven decades on this planet — simply pie-in-the-sky. Purple clouds. Unicorns. Tiaras by My Little Pony.

Roberts is correct that we should not have “Trump judges” or “Obama judges.” It would be better for the country if every judge, regardless of which president nominated him or her, strictly interpreted our laws and the Constitution. But the reality is that not all do. While conservative presidents tend to nominate judges who exercise a philosophy of judicial restraint — follow our laws as written — liberal presidents tend to nominate judicial activists who legislate from the bench and shape the law to reach their preferred outcomes. The left believes in a “living Constitution,” which can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean without being formally amended.

Stand by for truth.

Democratic presidents have been much more successful than Republicans in nominating judges who hew to their judicial philosophy. Over the past three decades, nearly half of all Republican Supreme Court nominees have either become “swing votes” (Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy) or defected to the court’s liberal bloc entirely (David Souter). Even Roberts has joined the court’s liberal bloc at key times, abandoning his judicial philosophy that judges should not legislate from the bench to provide the swing vote to uphold ObamaCare.

Grok this concept:

By contrast, not one liberal justice during the past three decades has defected to the conservative bloc or turned into a regular swing vote.

Let me repeat at the risk of being repetitive:

By contrast, not one liberal justice during the past three decades has defected to the conservative bloc or turned into a regular swing vote.

Whoopsie. Damned facts. Thiessen continues:

Trump is right, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is a disgrace. This is the court that ruled that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, that the Second Amendment doesn’t recognize an individual right to bear concealed arms and that bans on assisted suicide are unconstitutional.

Wait for it again.

This is why it is so important that Trump has nominated, and the Senate has confirmed, a record number of district and circuit court judges — and why liberals are aghast at the pace of Trump’s judicial confirmations. As former Hillary Clinton adviser Ronald Klain complained, “Trump’s judicial nominees will be deciding the scope of our civil liberties and the shape of civil rights laws in the year 2050 — and beyond.” Everyone, left and right, knows that Roberts is wrong.

Thiessen wraps with this:

Rolling around in the rhetorical mud with Trump is not just bad form; it also undermines the very judicial independence Roberts is seeking to uphold.

Then there was this in Florida about the elections:

Obama-appointed judges take charge in disputed Florida, Georgia elections

by S.A. Miller & Alex Swoyer

Anyone wondering why Senate Republicans are so intent on approving President Trump’s judicial picks need look no further than Georgia and Florida, where three Obama-appointed jurists have taken charge of ballot counting.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled Thursday that thousands of ballots that failed to strictly follow the rules can still be tallied in Florida — a decision hailed by Democrats as putting the Senate race within their grasp.

In Georgia, two federal judges in separate cases ruled in favor of tallying previously discounted ballots, again winning cheers from Democrats hoping to close the gap in a closely watched race for governor.

And this:

“It tells us that federal court judges are politically driven when rendering decisions,” said Wellesley College political science professor Nancy S. Scherer, author of “Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process.”

She said the same dynamic was at play during the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race, when the U.S. Supreme Court split along party lines in a ruling that decided the election of Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

“In fact, they do this with all of their cases, not just the decisions on election outcomes,” Ms. Scherer said.

That is why the Senate Republican leadership made a priority of reshaping the federal judiciary with a conservative bent during Mr. Trump’s first two years.

Hello? Earth to Reality? Nothing that a Demorat president wouldn’t have done had they been in the Oval Orifice. This is obvious. It’s why presidents get changed out in the Oval Office. People get tired of one or the other.

Then this opinion piece from Robert Charles:

Trump is right about biased judges; Schumer acknowledges ‘highly political’ rulings

Like a basketball player who mistakenly shoots into his own basket and scores points for the opposing team, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has inadvertently backed President Trump’s accurate contention that there are liberal judges appointed by Democrats and conservative judges appointed by Republicans who rule differently on cases.

After President Trump criticized U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco on Tuesday for issuing an order to stop Trump’s new emergency restrictions on asylum claims by immigrants from taking effect – calling Tigar “an Obama judge” – Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts issued a rare public statement rebuking the president.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said Wednesday. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Schumer piled on, criticizing President Trump in a Friday tweet: “I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political …. But I am thankful today that he – almost alone among Republicans – stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.”

Wowzer. See what Schumer did there?

OK, stop and think about that tweet. If Schumer calls Roberts a Republican and believes the chief justice issues “partisan decisions which seem highly political” he is corroborating President Trump. The New York Democratic senator sank one for the president.

Further, from Charles:

President Trump’s observation about the 9th Circuit undercuts respect for rulings from that circuit, but the truth hurts. As the old saying goes, “facts are stubborn things.”

Here, the facts are with President Trump, if you look at the numbers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – where I served as a law clerk many years ago – has swung incontrovertibly to the left over the past 30 years.

Thomas Homan, former Acting Director of ICE, responded to Harris Faulkner:

Suggestion to John Roberts: get off your high horse. The altitude doesn’t suit you. And people can smell the stench of a lie miles away. Yes, certainly we “get” that you have to Support Your Black Robes, all well and good.

But stop with the faux umbrage. It just doesn’t suit you.

BZ

 

 Share

Ruth Bader Ginsburg retiring in January of 2019?

Posted on by

RBG believes in the soldier’s mantra: “get sleep wherever you can.”

First, from the SantaMonicaObserver.com:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Retire from the US Supreme Court in January, 2019

by Stan Greene

Speaking privately, a law clerk says the Justice’s Cancer has come out of remission.

While the Nation is preoccupied with the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, it appears there will soon be another vacancy on the US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a re-occurrence of malignant melanoma, she has told her law clerks. Ginsburg was treated in 1999 for colon cancer and had surgery in 2009 for pancreatic cancer.

She has told key Democratic members of the Senate about her medical condition, including ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein. This explains in part the “take no prisoners” attitude of the Democrats during the Kavanaugh nomination, carefully orchestrating weak 37 year old allegations against Kavanaugh by Women he barely remembers knowing in High School and College.

But wait. Demorats knew this back in September or perhaps even before? By all indications, that would be a fervent “yes.”

Does that not provide a rather clear explanation for certain behaviors? Of course it does. It explains much about the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

And no, BZ did not write this next paragraph, stellar as it is.

Kavanaugh is a player in this drama. He’s in the wrong place at the wrong time . President Donald J Trump will be replacing Notorious RBG, the lovechild of the left, and so will remake the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats simply must win back the Senate in November 2018, progressives feel.

Aha. Now you put this all together. Now you know why the Demorats are cheating in Florida. As Catholics say that “every sperm is sacred,” so do Demorats wail that “every seat is sacred.” Further: why “every stolen vote is sacred.”

As in: the Demorats knew this for quite some time. And planned their various and numerous cheating schemes accordingly.

Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing exceeds like excess.

Then I was made aware of this.

But wait. Was BZ prescient? I said and wrote back in late 2016 and early 2017 that I believed President Trump would get, at minimum, two opportunities to make SCOTUS nominations. I was proven correct via Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

I also submitted that a third vacancy could be placed in President Trump’s lap even before 2020. Now it appears that may be correct as well.

Gird thy loins.

If you thought the Demorats fought over Kavanaugh, you haven’t yet seen a “fight.”

Demorats realize that an RBG vacuum is the ultimate political battleground.

You have yet to witness the real violence and political backstabbing that is to come.

BZ

 

 Share

No, we don’t change the entire judicial process for one person

Posted on by

In 2012, during a counseling session with my wife during a difficult time in our marriage, I revealed that I had been subject to an incident in high school where I was attacked by an individual who had attempted to sexually assault me. I was at a party with another friend, I’m pretty sure, and another boy had pushed me down on the bed and tried to undress me. He’d said he wanted to have sex with me but I said no. We had been drinking. While he was grabbing for my crotch and forcing himself on me, he was kissing me and attempting to put his tongue in my mouth.

It was bad enough that I had been drinking. But I’m a Mormon and having any kind of sex outside of marriage and drinking were two of the biggest things you weren’t supposed to do. Ever. I tried to push away but he put his hand over my mouth and, well, I was really drunk. I couldn’t resist and, worse, when he was trying to turn me over, I thought he was going to suffocate me. Maybe kill me. One of his friends jumped on the bed and the three of us fell to the floor. I managed to get up and go into the bathroom. Then I managed to get out of the house.

I never told anyone up to 2012 because I was frightened. And I was really embarrassed. Here I was, a young boy, a Mormon, at someone else’s house, at a party, where there was drinking. I knew I shouldn’t have been in that situation in the first place. But I was a kid; I was 15. I couldn’t have told anyone. About the drinking. About the boy trying to forcibly have sex with me. I would have been in so much trouble. And it really affected me. It affected my relationships with women to the point that, in 2012, I need counseling to keep my marriage together. This happened in Utah. I ended up going all the way to Florida to escape it. It still weighs on my mind. I had betrayed my values, my church, my family, my friends. And I was almost anally raped. I know it. The whole thing was traumatic in the extreme. This was in 1982. I’m pretty sure.

Since that time, I’ve become a respected doctor. I’ve made something of myself despite what happened. I was able to get married. But now I see that boy, now a man, Sylvan Peratus, has been nominated to the US Supreme Court. He’s nothing but a reminder to me of that night. Now he’s all over the television.

It’s only fitting that the FBI investigate my claim. In fact, I demand it. I’m not exactly sure on the year. Probably 1982. Around there. Or the place. The house. Or the time. I’m not sure how I got to the party. I’m not sure how I got home. I was drunk. But I’m the victim here. I have some people who support me. Except now they’ve recanted. And I see that Peratus has a letter saying that 65 people support him. They’re all lying, obviously.

He represents everything that me, my family, my parents and my friends don’t believe in. My brother works for a law firm that supports work against Leftists, people I don’t like. I myself have worked for causes in order to ensure that Leftists don’t acquire political power of any kind. I worked against everything Obama tried to enact or pass.

Worse yet, Sylvan’s mother Hayley Peratus, while she was a judge, ruled against our family in a house foreclosure case in 1996. I never forgot that.

I wrote my local GOP representative about what happened, who then contacted one of my state’s GOP senators. I wanted to be anonymous. But now, somehow, something leaked and the media found me and so my name is out there. So is my allegation. I’ve retained an attorney and I took a polygraph back in August.

The GOP want me to testify against Peratus. My lawyer, who has worked for Judicial Watch and the ACLJ in the past, says that I simply need to be believed. I was almost anally raped. I know it. An allegation like mine is very serious and, after all, I’m the victim here. Not Peratus.

One Democrat Senator asked me: “If Mr BZ really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward … why did he pay for a polygraph in August, and why did he hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?” Senator Feinstein asked.

This is clearly prejudicial. I’m the victim here. I may testify before the Judiciary Committee. I may not. I’m not sure yet. But they’re trying to pin me down, pin my testimony down, and that’s just not fair. I’m insisting that Peratus testify before I do. If I even testify at all. But no matter what, everyone needs to know what Peratus did to me.

Everyone simply needs to believe me. I say it, so it’s true. I’m the victim here. These dates the Judiciary Committee set in order to pin me down are completely arbitrary. What’s the rush? The November election really doesn’t mean anything. I need to be heard, on my schedule and by my terms. It should be my timetable and at my convenience. I’ve had 36 years to think about it. I just need some more time.

Need I remind you? I’m the victim here.

Would I inherently be believed by the American Media Maggots?

Women are clearly stronger, more resolute, dedicated, truthful, honest and possessed of leadership abilities than men.

Until they’re not, and wish — no, demand — to be protected like delicate, wilting flowers with little will or strength.

Am I sensing something of any number of mixed messages here?

Am I saying that’s what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? Clearly not. Situationally-dependent, women are more delicate and worthy of protection than Evil Men. Women cannot defend themselves. Men can. Uh, wait. Except that the current meme is that women are inherently stronger than men and inherently more believable than men.

Wait; that’s not exactly what’s being said either. What is being said?

“I believe her because I know she’s telling the truth.” That’s a sensible as saying the earth is flat or that the sun rises in the west because I’m convinced it’s accurate. It’s also an apparent embracing of Napoleonic Law where one is guilty until proven innocent.

In other words, being placed into a position where one must prove a negative. Good luck with that. Prove that you didn’t crash into my car in 1982 and drive away.

Yes. That is how silly it’s all gotten. Silly and, more importantly, damaging. Demorats resort — because it’s the only play that seems to work any more — to identity politics once again.

As of this writing, here is what we know.

Christine Blasey Ford has indicated she will testify on Thursday.

There are now three “witnesses” who have refuted Professor Ford’s allegations. Additionally, from Breitbart:

Nolte: Every Witness Named by Kavanaugh’s Accusers Sides with Kavanaugh

by John Nolte

The two women making sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh claim to have witnesses, but so far, all of their witnesses back Kavanaugh’s claim that nothing happened.

It might be difficult to remember this as Democrats and the media throw around phrases like “second accuser” and “attempted sexual assault” and “exposing himself” against the Supreme Court nominee. But the facts are still the facts, and every single witness named so far by both accusers say they witnessed nothing of the sort.

A second accuser has emerged. There is a continuing problem, however. From the DailyCaller.com:

THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS UNABLE TO CORROBORATE SECOND KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S STORY

by Amber Athey

The New York Times reported on Sunday that it was unable to corroborate the claims of a second accuser who says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in college.

Deborah Ramirez alleges that Kavanaugh thrust his penis into her face while she was drunk at a Yale University dormitory party. The New Yorker ran with Ramirez’s allegation on Sunday despite being unable to produce any firsthand witnesses or confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party where the incident was said to have occurred.

The New York Times noted several paragraphs deep in a report that it chose not to report on Ramirez’s allegation because of a lack of corroborating evidence.

But hell, why let the lack of facts stand in the way of slaughtering Judge Kavanaugh.

NYT also noted, “The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.”

In an interview with CBS’ “This Morning” on Monday, Jane Mayer, a co-author on The New Yorker piece, admitted that they had no firsthand witnesses who could confirm Ramirez’s account.

Let me be abundantly clear: even the New York Times wouldn’t touch the story about allegations made by the second accuser. That in and of itself bespeaks volumes. To those who are actually paying attention.

The good news is this, from TheHill.com:

Kavanaugh: ‘I will not be intimidated into withdrawing’

by Jordain Carney

Brett Kavanaugh on Monday said he will “not be intimidated into withdrawing” from his Supreme Court nomination after a second woman came forward with a sexual misconduct allegation against him. 
Kavanaugh sent a letter on Monday to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, respectively — saying the accusations against him are “smears, pure and simple.” 
“They debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service,” Kavanaugh said in the letter to Grassley and Feinstein.
“I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed,” Kavanaugh continued. 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley has been more than accomodating to Professor Ford. But NO, she should not testify second. She should testify first. This is one of the basic precepts of the entire judicial process. One person — male or female, it doesn’t matter — doesn’t get to hijack the entire judicial system.

Here’s what I believe after having worked in law enforcement for 41 years and also as a detective for a large department in Child Abuse and sex assaults (amongst many other assignments).

  • All victims should be afforded the opportunity to make claims and reports.
  • All victims should be afforded the opportunity to be heard but not to be believed absent corroboration in some significant fashion.
  • Women are no more inherently truthful or believable than men.
  • Facts lead an investigation where it needs to go. Not a single allegation taken in isolation. But a series of facts with supporting evidence taken in totality.
  • Due process is primary.

It has been a chaotic panoply of errors, shenanigans, stupidity and a purposefully backstabbing derailment strategy played out in public for political purposes by Demorats. Any pretense at bipartisanship, compromise or good will has resolutely ended on the part of the Demorats. “By any means necessary” is now the slogan of the Demorat Party and they will stop at nothing until they have GOP veins between their teeth and are in total control with restored power in DC. Nothing is too low, no tactic too obscene.

Senator Mitch McConnell is correct with this Tweet on Monday:

Democrats and their allies are trying to destroy a man’s personal and professional life on the basis of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations. This is a smear campaign, pure and simple…aided and abetted by members of the United States Senate.

However, the GOP is still back at “gosh, what will people think of us?”

This is for all the marbles folks.

America is on the brink of truly destructive DC governmental bedlam.

And this ain’t playing.

BZ

 

 Share

Justice Antonin Scalia’s words: American exceptionalism

Posted on by

This is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (who passed away in 2016 at the age of 79), in a Senate Judiciary Hearing from 2011 regarding the role of judges under the US Constitution, and American exceptionalism.

I’m sorry, but listening to the great depth and breadth of this man’s understanding of the US Constitution brings tears to my eyes. As you watch the video note the thrall in which the audience is kept. They are in awe of being present in the same room as this man and the weight of his knowledge of history and his stellar intelligence. Can you imagine having had the honor and privilege of taking a class from Scalia?

We denigrate and dissolve the United States from within at our own peril and place, literally, the rest of the planet in jeopardy if for no other reason than Nature abhors a vacuum.

BZ

 

 Share