When Protests Turn Violent, the Truth Gets Torched

/0 Comments/in , /by

The riots are back again. Tuesday night, at least 16 police officers were injured in Charlotte, N.C., as people once again turned to violence and looting in the wake of a police shooting.

These riots, which appear to be the result of agitators perverting peaceful protests, are doing far more than injuring law enforcement officers and trashing the communities for which they ostensibly seek justice; they kill any hope of accomplishing anything but exacerbating an already balkanized society.

Over the course of the few hours following the police-involved shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott, locals swarmed the scene, animated by the prevailing narrative that officers shot an unarmed man who was simply reading a book in his car and waiting for his son — despite reports to the contrary.

Initially, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts said in a tweet that “the community deserves” answers:

But — just as in countless cases like Ferguson, Baltimore, and Milwaukee before — facts take too long to come out and the desire to channel ill-informed rage into destruction wins out over reason.

What started as lawful demonstrations, according to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, quickly devolved into chaos and destruction as the result of violent “agitators”:

More details here from CR’s Chris Pandolfo.

Wednesday morning, CMPD Chief Kerr Putney, reemphasized that Scott was indeed armed, corroborating earlier reports that a gun was recovered at the scene.

And the popular narrative that Scott was “reading a book” has also been called into question, as Putney also claimed that there was no book found at the scene.

Furthermore, police reportedly gave Scott multiple warnings to drop his handgun before the shooting:

But this was yet another situation where facts proved to be inconvenient to a popular narrative — and therefore ignored.

It’s very clear that these weren’t protests. It definitely appears that they started out that way, according to the CMPD, but they eventually escalated, once “agitators” came on the scene. But media still referred to them as protestors, despite their clear wanton destruction and threat to public safety.

At best, these were riots. At worst, they would fit the definition of terrorism committed in the name of cultural Marxism, considering multiple calls came out for the rioters to visit their destruction and havoc on white neighborhoods (because this is apparently how you fight racism, right?).

It’s appropriate that rioters and protestors used the “Hands up, don’t shoot” call Monday night, because it appears that the initial story that fomented the evening’s chaos were about as truthful as the narrative behind Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson over two years ago.

Yet, here we are again. Property was set ablaze, chaos reigned, and American streets were turned into a war zone over an at-best-incomplete narrative.

Once again, one side will use the political hagiography of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Freddie Gray, regardless of the facts of these respective narratives, while those on the other side of the discussion will address those preceptions and feelings with numbers on black-on-black crime and police shootings that show that these actual incidents are numerically insignificant … while the other side will once again call for an end to [the myth of] systematic racism, despite the fact that no other demographic in America has been given such firm control over representation at the local level as black Americans thanks to the Democrat Party’s death grip on America’s inner-cities (or granted the same level of supposedly remedial super-rights in the legal system … cases in point: affirmative action and the recent slew of supposedly “racist” voter ID laws being struck down).

Make no mistake, Americans naturally have a right to protest. More importantly, they have a moral duty to speak up when their conscience perceives injustice and compels them. But the moment that impulse becomes violent, the moment innocent people are forced to fear for their safety and property, it’s no longer a protest.

Yes, rioters destroy private property, and they erode law and order. But more than that, they destroy any chance of actually addressing the point that the actual peaceful protesters are trying to make — and the justice they are trying to seek. Rather than contribute to the kind of mutual dialogue that would address the incredulity of both sides of the debate, these rioters in Charlotte have once again stunted and severely hindered any real hope of community progress.

When demonstrations devolve into desolation, truth goes out the window, and the mob gets to scream nonsensically into an uncaring abyss. Any legitimate truth-seekers in the streets of Charlotte Tuesday night have to suffer from the havoc and vitriol of those who only care about sowing discord, rather than seeking answers.

Chief Kerr Putney says that the “voiceless majority” in the community can rise above the kind of madness his city saw last night; we can only hope that they actually will. (For more from the author of “When Protests Turn Violent, the Truth Gets Torched” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is Hollywood Blowing up DC?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Are you ready for the fall season of prime-time television? Great! All we have to do is bomb the United States Capitol first.

That’s the premise of ABC’s new drama Designated Survivor starring Keifer Sutherland.

The description reads as follows:

As a lower-level cabinet member, Tom Kirkman never imagined something would happen that would catapult him to the oval office. When a devastating attack on the night of the State of the Union address claims the lives of the president and most of the Cabinet, the Housing and Urban Development secretary — who was named the designated survivor in case of such an event — finds himself promoted to leader of the free world. Suddenly thrust into his new position of power, Kirkman struggles to keep the country from dissolving into chaos and must adjust to his new normal, unaware of what fresh horrors may await the United States.

Cue the apocalyptic images of Washington.

The trailer full of dread and suspense:

Are you excited yet?

To be sure, Sutherland is a huge draw. Some have described Designated Survivor as “24 all grown up.”

But, considering Designated Survivor follows other DC-based dark thrillers such as Homeland, House of Cards, and Scandal that frequently combine politics with gruesome murders it seems like Hollywood is trying to tell us something.

The fact that a major broadcast network is launching a TV-series with the destruction of most our nation’s elected officials is not… subtle. (For more from the author of “Why Is Hollywood Blowing up DC?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Skittles, the IRS Commissioner, and This Congressman Have in Common

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an otherwise repetitive three-and-a-half hours, there were several weird moments during the House Judiciary Committee hearing with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Wednesday. The hearing was supposed to be about impeachment articles brought against Koskinen, but Democrats on the committee used the time to attack Donald Trump instead.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. (F, 24%) opened his five-minute questioning slot by chewing on a Skittle, declaring:

“I really love Skittles because, as you see, they come orange, yellow, red, and purple — all the different colors. And they come all together in a bag — together, right? All different colors, kind of like a rainbow. A lot of people on this side of the aisle … we like that,” Gutierrez opined in a none-too-subtle swipe at conservatives.

Other Democrats used their time to ask Koskinen questions about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s tax returns, charitable donations, and how the heavily scrutinized relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin might influence a Trump presidency. On all this, Koskinen demurred, nor did the Democrats acknowledge or question how the many foreign interests tied to the Clinton Foundation might affect a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Meanwhile, Republicans spent their time grilling Commissioner Koskinen on how 422 backup records with Lois Lerner’s emails on them got destroyed under his watch.

Koskinen’s account of events strains credulity: During a midnight shift in an IRS center in Martinsburg, W.V., two employees destroyed 422 backup data of Lerner’s emails after they “identified them as junk,” according to Koskinen.

This was after a standing order had been put in place by Koskinen to collect records with her emails. And, according to Koskinen, similar orders had been put in place six months before he began working for the IRS in December 2013.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have serious questions about why John Koskinen — who was supposed to clean up the Lois Lerner/targeting mess at the IRS — doesn’t know more about how effective his efforts were in 2014 and ‘15. He had been on the job well over a year when the inspector general discovered that two IRS employees (one of whom still works at the IRS, Koskinen admitted Wednesday) had destroyed 422 backup records of Lerner’s emails during graveyard hours.

As someone watching the hearing, I began to wonder two hours in why House Republicans haven’t already issued a subpoena for Koskinen’s emails to see what he was saying about the Lerner emails, and what he might have known about the backup records. Doing so would have enabled Republicans to ask more detailed questions and possibly shed light on whether Koskinen’s excuses are really just that — excuses for incompetency, or even flat-out lies.

Three hours after the hearing started, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah (C, 78%) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte R-Va. (D, 66%) finally asked Koskinen for “any written communication” regarding the standing order he put in place asking IRS employees to retrieve information on the Lerner emails.

Still, they could have made their ask broader so as to include the written communications of senior-level IRS employees — especially ones that work directly under Koskinen. One of the persistent complaints from Republicans against Commissioner Koskinen during this hearing was that he’s the head of the IRS … but seems to have no control over very destructive practices of his staff.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have five legislative days to submit written inquiries to Koskinen, and it would behoove them to demand written communications from any IRS employee who might have known or covered up the destruction of evidence before Congress breaks for a long October recess. Some members of the Freedom Caucus may attempt to force a vote on Koskinen’s impeachment after the November elections, after they tried but failed to do so last week.

As Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. (A, 90%) pointed out during Wednesday’s hearing, Koskinen “would never let an American taxpayer treat an IRS audit” like he has treated the House’s inquiries into the IRS scandal and his incompetent clean-up job. Regardless, Koskinen declared that he’s “proud” of his “overall record at the IRS.”

Whether John Koskinen is a liar, negligent, or just incompetent, he needs to go. (For more from the author of “What Skittles, the IRS Commissioner, and This Congressman Have in Common” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

OBAMA’S PARTNERS IN PEACE: We Will Turn Israel ‘to Dust’

/0 Comments/in , /by

A banner at an Iranian military parade Wednesday threatened to “turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to Dust,” The Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday.

Iran held military parades across the country to commemorate the start of the 1980 war with Iraq. At the Tehran parade, which was shown on state television, a banner on a military truck read, “If the leaders of the Zionist regime make a mistake then the Islamic Republic will turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to dust.”

Iran displayed its latest military equipment at the parades, including the recently acquired Russian S-300 air defense systems. The Iranian navy displayed over 500 vehicles, including submarines and helicopters, at the parade in the port city of Bandar Abbas.

The test launch of an Iranian ballistic missile received global attention in March because the missile had the phrase “Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth” inscribed on it in Hebrew.

Ahmad Karimpour, a senior adviser to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, boasted in May that “If the Supreme Leader’s orders [are] to be executed, with the abilities and the equipment at our disposal, we will raze the Zionist regime in less than eight minutes.” (Read more from “OBAMA’S PARTNERS IN PEACE: We Will Turn Israel ‘to Dust'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Mysterious Polio-Like Illness That Paralyzes People May Be Surging This Year

/0 Comments/in , /by

Through July, 32 new cases of AFM [acute flaccid myelitis] have been confirmed across the United States this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a sharp rise compared with last year, when just seven cases had been confirmed by that month. The numbers have risen steadily since April. In past years, most cases have occurred between August and December, with a peak in October.

Among the many unanswered questions about the condition are what causes it, how best to treat it and how long the paralysis lasts. Although most cases occur in children, AFM occasionally affects adults.

The CDC official who leads the surveillance efforts said that confirmed numbers for August will not be available until the end of this month, but the number of reports she is receiving from doctors around the country continues to rise.

“CDC is looking at these trends very carefully,” Manisha Patel said. “We have sent out several health alerts to states to let them know we are seeing an increase in reporting and to encourage them to communicate with doctors to report these cases in a timely fashion.” (Read more from “A Mysterious Polio-Like Illness That Paralyzes People May Be Surging This Year” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Joe Miller: Alaskans Deserve Debates From U.S. Senate Candidates

/0 Comments/in , , /by

September 21, 2016 —  U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller stated on Wednesday he is eager to debate Senator Lisa Murkowski, and the other contenders for the seat she currently occupies,  about the issues vital to the future of Alaska and the country.

“Alaskans are not satisfied with the current direction of our state and nation,” said Miller. “They deserve the opportunity to see the candidates for U.S. senate make their case, and regarding Senator Murkowski, justify her votes, in televised events available to the public at large.”

Murkowski is the most liberal “Republican” up for re-election, having voted with President Obama 72 percent of the time during the last session of Congress.

Multiple local news affiliates are seeking to host televised debates. To date, as far as the Miller campaign has been able to determine, Senator Murkowski has failed to commit to most, if not all, of those debates.

“As has been the case in years past, Alaskans deserve debates in a format that allows for the free exchange of ideas, where candidates will be given the opportunity to directly question each other and offer rebuttals, so the event is not merely a series of unchallenged soundbites,” said Miller

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Imagine that some splinter Christian sect existed that preached a sneering contempt for women, sex slavery, hatred for Jews, death to non-believers (and homosexuals), child-marriage, religious conquest, segregation and gross religious discrimination, and the legitimacy of lying whenever it suited the church’s purposes. Imagine that it had been practicing all these evils since shortly after its founding, and had left mountains of corpses on three continents — complete with burned libraries, looted cities and ruined civilizations.

Do you think that secular leftists would spend their time and energy making excuses for such a church? Would they fight like wildcats to admit millions of its followers into Western lands? Or would they boycott any country where it predominated as they did racist South Africa? Would they subject its American followers to ruthless surveillance and government harassment, as the Clinton administration did the Branch Davidians? Would they send the FBI to fill its ranks with helpful informers, as the government did to the white-nationalist Christian Identity “churches”?

The question answers itself.

People whose minds work in linear fashion draw from all this the conclusion that leftists concerned with equality, social justice, and personal freedom would strongly oppose orthodox Islam and rethink their attitude toward Islamic immigration if only they knew the facts. Clearly these well-meaning people just haven’t been informed about the teachings of orthodox Islam and the track record of its faithful followers. So it’s our job to share those facts.

So far so good. We have the duty to do just that. Marshal those Quranic suras, those authoritative haditha, and cite abundant examples of atrocities which those canonical texts have directly inspired. Recount the recent sermons of highly placed widely respected Muslim religious authorities who approve recent attacks of terrorism or gross religious violence.

But don’t get your hopes up.

Far too many leftists have built insuperable barriers to that information, and nothing — literally nothing — you say or do could convince them. While knowledge may be power, the human will is stronger. We are richly capable of denying the facts in front of our faces if they go against where our guts want to lead us.

That raises another, more interesting question: Why would leftists who are outraged, say, that the Catholic church won’t ordain women or that Southern Baptists won’t celebrate same-sex weddings, give a pass to a faith that endorses child polygamy and executes homosexuals? What’s in it for them?

As the author of a book on the Seven Deadly Sins, let me step in here and tell you. I’ll taxonomize the motives of pro-Muslim progressives according to each of those classic human motives. Perhaps not every progressive who’s in denial about Islam is in the grip of Deadly Sins. But I’ll wager that most of them are driven by one or more of the following:

Lust

Plenty of progressive men first adopted their views as a mating strategy. And indeed, spouting feminist rhetoric probably did help them in the bedroom. But this easy intimacy filled their lives with a series of thin-skinned, self-righteous women with an unsleeping vigilance for the slightest trace of “patriarchy.” Perhaps, on a deep, subconscious level, such men can’t help admiring bearded foreigners with harems who don’t have to pay this price for pleasure.

Gluttony

This might seem too trivial to make much of a difference, but you’d be shocked at how many progressives form their immigration policies around the crucial issue of access to ethnic restaurants. It’s not just food, of course. People who hunger to see themselves and be seen as sophisticated and cosmopolitan also want access to hookah-pipe cafes, funky foreign clothes and “exotic” neighborhoods where they can dip into alien cultures — but of course, would never live. Other progressives hunger for approval, and look for a cost-free way to gain it, by siding with supposedly “oppressed” groups like Palestinians, or radical Muslims forced out of countries by secular governments.

Wrath

Too many progressives nurse a deep, insatiable hatred for the Christian and Western past, and also for those of us in the present who are loyal to such things as church, nation or Western civilization. These people don’t so much think as feel that if a roadside Pentecostalist church in Oregon is allowed to abstain from gay weddings without swift and certain punishment, within five years the Spanish Inquisition will be burning witches on Wall Street. Or something. As I said, they don’t sweat the details.

Greed

For the past 30 years, no one has been kept off a TV network or failed to get tenure because he was too friendly to exotic, foreign cultures, or too hostile to Western ones. Even Fox News won’t air the most candid critics of Islam. Those critics have to resort to online TV shows (some of which are excellent, by the way, like The Glazov Gang).

Sloth

It’s so much easier to follow the narrative that makes you comfortable, pumped out by elites whom you have decided to trust, than to ferret out facts that are only likely to ruin your day. And anyway, what can you do? What will happen will happen, and trying to push back against overpowering forces of history is exhausting. What’s the point?

Vainglory

Nothing is lower prestige in our culture today than being a narrow-minded bigot — which is how everyone who matters sees people who criticize other cultures. It suggests that you haven’t traveled to foreign countries, attended elite academies, or mixed with the best kind of people. You might as well just put on a Trump hat, drive a red pickup truck to a NASCAR rally, and stand there listening to Nash-Trash while drinking Budweiser (non-ironically). Please.

Envy

If there’s one worldview that’s predicated on frustrating natural human drives and diverting them into strange, unnatural byways, it’s progressivism. You’re expected to prosper while loathing capitalism, raise boys to play with dolls and girls to play with guns, and compete for social status while battling for equality. Muslims don’t have to fake any of that. Their faith is nothing if not candid: It’s about joining the winning team, with God on its side, which will gladly use force and fraud to make sure it comes out on top — in this life and the next one. Its ethics could have been crafted by bands of Vikings or a cabal of adolescent boys. What fun we would have, some progressives may imagine, if they could only swallow Islam. Most can’t. But they can take vicarious pleasure in seeing it in action, and in watching the Christians squirm. Delicious. (For more from the author of “Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway

/0 Comments/in , /by

In his final address to the United Nations as president of the United States, President Obama said “we have to open our hearts” in welcoming refugees all around the world, and that “we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard.” Further, Obama said that “we have to have the empathy to see ourselves” in the plight of refugees, and that in welcoming refugees, “our world will be more secure.”

Oh, really?

Obama’s address at the U.N. comes on the heels of a slew of terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey this past weekend. Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist responsible for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, was originally from Afghanistan. Dahir Adan, who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall on Saturday, was a Somali immigrant and a suspected ISIS recruit. Both terrorists came to the United States as children.

Despite questions about the vetting process for refugees, the Obama administration is seeking to increase the America’s cap of refugees next year to 110,000, from 85,000 this year. As Conservative Review recently reported, the administration has already surpassed its target number for Syrian refugees this year by about 3,000, for a total of 13,000 refugees from Syria. More than 98 percent of these Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslim, while just 0.4 percent of them are Christian.

A new Rasmussen poll conducted after the weekend terrorist attacks shows that almost half of likely American voters do not want to let in any more refugees to the United States and 62 percent “believe that increasing the number of Middle Eastern and African refugees next year poses an increased national security risk to the United States.” Further,

Voters were similarly opposed and concerned about the national security threat of bringing Syrian refugees here this year, but Obama did it anyway, citing humanitarian concerns and the pressures these immigrants were putting on our European allies. The administration even sped the vetting process for these refugees in order to hit the president’s goal of bringing at least 10,000 here in 2016.

If President Obama is so intent on welcoming poorly-vetted refugees from ISIS-controlled regions into the United States, perhaps he should consider welcoming a few into his new home next year when he leaves office. (For more from the author of “Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

N.Y. Times Shafts Top Christian Author

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jonathan Cahn, the two-time New York Times best-selling author, knows what it’s like fighting the odds as a Christian to make the vaunted list – despite having the sales to warrant it.

He made it twice with his first two books, 2012’s “The Harbinger,” which remained on the New York Times’ fiction bestsellers list for more than 100 weeks, and 2014’s “The Mystery of the Shemitah,” which made the list for more than 12 weeks. But the messianic rabbi’s readers won’t be seeing his latest release on the Sept. 26 list.

It’s not for lack of sales for “The Book of Mysteries,” which came out Sept. 8.

Apparently, the book is too mysterious to classify for the guardians of the New York Times list.

Or maybe they’ve just had enough of Cahn’s domination of their charts every other year. (Read more from “N.Y. Times Shafts Top Christian Author” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s at Stake in the Next Supreme Court Term

/0 Comments/in , /by

The next Supreme Court term is beginning Oct. 3—and there’s plenty of contentious issues on the docket for the eight justices to rule on.

“The cases this term may be hard-pressed to match the excitement and media flurry that accompanied highly anticipated rulings in recent years, such as cases involving same-sex marriage, immigration, abortion, and President [Barack] Obama’s signature health care law,” The Heritage Foundation’s Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow, and Tiffany Bates, a legal research associate, wrote.

“But the upcoming term has the potential to become an important year for property rights, the separation of powers, and copyright law.”

At an event at The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, Paul Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States, said, “It is a very interesting time at the court.”

“That doesn’t automatically translate into interesting cases,” he added.

The 2016-17 Supreme Court term begins on Oct. 3. Justices agree to hear about 1 percent, or roughly 70 cases, out of approximately 7,000 petitions for review they receive each year, according to Heritage research. Already the court has agreed to hear arguments for 31 cases and oral arguments are set for 19 cases in October and November.

“It’s certainly right that the court seems to be reluctant to add cases to their docket that they think in advance may well divide them four to four,” Clement said.

Here are three key cases the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.

1. Murr v. Wisconsin

This case is about four siblings who own two adjacent waterfront properties. Their parents built a cabin on the first lot after obtaining the parcels separately in the 1960s. The siblings, decades later, looked into developing or selling the second lot and found that zoning regulations prevented them from doing so and that the state considered both lots to be one property.

“As it turns out under state law not only can they not sell the one parcel, but they are not even allowed now to develop the other parcel, which it seems to me about the most extreme regulatory scheme you can devise,” Carter Phillips, a former assistant to the solicitor general, said at the Heritage event.

Clement and and Phillips have each argued more than 80 before the Supreme Court.

Phillips said this case seems “unbelievably unfair” and that sometimes the government goes too far in its “regulatory scheme.”

The case has not been scheduled for oral argument.

2. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley

Supreme Court cases sometimes come from the “most unlikely government programs,” Clement said, describing another case, this one involving church and state. The case involves Trinity Lutheran Church and a Missouri scrap tire program.

“When you buy new tires in the state of Missouri … you pay a small tax and that goes into a fund. What that fund helps do is take used tires and instead of having them fill up landfills where they create all sorts of problems, those get sort of shredded and treated and then they get used to make playgrounds for children safer,” Clement said.

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, one of the likely highlights for the term, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state-funded grant to install a rubber playground surface for the church’s daycare and preschool. The state denied its application on the basis that it was a religious institution.

Oral argument for the case have not been scheduled, but Clement said this is a “very important case.”

“This is perhaps the best example of a case that the court is taking a really long time to schedule for oral argument,” Clement said. “This case was granted in the same sitting where a number of cases were granted last year and scheduled and argued and decided already.”

Clement predicted there could be a closely divided court on this case.

“It does seem like the most logical inference is this is a case where the court is going to take its time scheduling this in the hopes that they might have nine justices to decide the case,” he said.

3. National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc.

Another case this term concerns the president’s power to fill vacancies in government roles. Under the Constitution, the Senate must provide “advice and consent” before the president can appoint officers.

However, the president can nominate “acting” officers to high-level federal offices before the Senate has acted, although federal law limits the length of time such officers can serve and who can be appointed.

The case National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. challenges “the service of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who was responsible for prosecuting unfair labor practices,” according to Heritage’s research.

Heritage’s Slattery and Bates wrote:

President Obama appointed Solomon as Acting General Counsel in 2010 and also nominated him for the permanent post in 2011. This issue came up in the course of an unfair labor practice charge against SW General, Inc., a company that provides emergency medical services to hospitals; the company asserted that Solomon was serving in violation of the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act].

The case is scheduled for oral argument on Nov. 7. According to Slattery and Bates, “the outcome of this case could have broad and long-reaching effects for the separation of powers and on federal agencies’ actions if their high-level officials were appointed in violation of” the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Additional cases that could come up for review by the Supreme Court, according to Heritage research, could be about the Washington Redskins’ trademark, another Obamacare challenge, and the issue of schools’ bathroom policies for transgender students. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in the Next Supreme Court Term” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.