Newt Gingrich: Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Said He Would Do

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump has been successful in fulfilling many of the promises he campaigned on, but he’s nowhere near finished, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said.

Speaking Monday at The Heritage Foundation for the final installment in his six-part series on understanding Trump and Trumpism, Gingrich described the president as “the new presidential”—delivering on what he said he would.

Gingrich also addressed those on the left who question Trump’s legitimacy as a president.

“By definition, whatever he does is presidential, it’s just a new presidential,” he said. “So the new presidential tweets. That doesn’t mean he has to give up tweeting and start writing in longhand with a quill pen to think he’s presidential.”

Political elites and left-leaning news media refuse to understand Trump because he isn’t a politician, according to Gingrich.

“He is a business leader who became president. He never became a politician in between,” Gingrich said. “He has no interest in learning how to be a politician. He has every interest in getting things done.”

Gingrich cited Trump’s recent executive order, which will halt individuals from seven countries from entering the United States for 90 days, as yet another incident to infuriate the liberal news media.

“He’s been saying it for 10 months. You would think at some point in the 10 months they would have gone, ‘Oh, what if he actually means it?’” Gingrich said.

The news media’s reporting of the executive order, describing it as a “Muslim ban,” was a “total, dangerous lie,” Gingrich said.

“Every newspaper and every television reporter who said it should be ashamed of themselves,” he said.

According to Gingrich, the media’s irresponsible “lie” sent a signal to over a billion Muslims about something that is “totally false.”

“The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia; it’s not touched,” he noted. “The second-largest Muslim country, by the way, is India, it’s not touched. Go down the list.”

While the order was not flawless, Gingrich said, the left would still be outraged, regardless of the timing.

“Do any of you doubt that if he’d done this six weeks from now with prior notice that there would have been demonstrations for days leading up to it?” Gingrich asked.

Trump’s favorability and poll numbers will reflect the media’s biased coverage, Gingrich predicted.

“I guarantee you, for a while, Trump’s poll numbers will be bad. And they’ll be bad because every element of the elite media will lie about him every day.” (For more from the author of “Newt Gingrich: Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Said He Would Do” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California to Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary

/0 Comments/in , /by

California may prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, creating a border-to-border sanctuary in the nation’s largest state as legislative Democrats ramp up their efforts to battle President Donald Trump’s migration policies.

The legislation is scheduled for its first public hearing Tuesday as the Senate rushes to enact measures that Democratic lawmakers say would protect immigrants from the crackdown that the Republican president has promised.

While many of California’s largest cities — including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento — have so-called sanctuary policies that prohibit police from cooperating with immigration authorities, much of the state does not.

The Democratic legislation, written by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, comes up for debate less than a week after Trump signed an order threatening to withdraw some federal grants from jurisdictions that bar officials from communicating with federal authorities about someone’s immigration status.

The Senate Public Safety Committee considers SB54 Tuesday morning. The Judiciary Committee will also consider fast-tracked legislation that would spend state money, in an amount that has not been disclosed, to provide lawyers for people facing deportation. (Read more from “California to Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study: Your Life Really Does Flash Before Your Eyes at Death; ‘A Moment Is Like a Thousand Years’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Your life really does flash before your eyes when you die, a study suggests – with the parts of the brain that store memories last to be affected as other functions fail. . .

Participants said that there was rarely any order to their life memories and that they seemed to come at random, and sometimes simultaneously. . .

Those involved in the study said they lost all sense of time, with memories flying back at them from all periods of their life.

One wrote: “There is not a linear progression, there is lack of time limits… It was like being there for centuries. I was not in time/space so this question also feels impossible to answer.

“A moment, and a thousand years… both and neither. It all happened at once, or some experiences within my near-death experience were going on at the same time as others, though my human mind separates them into different events”. (Read more from “Study: Your Life Really Does Flash Before Your Eyes at Death; ‘A Moment Is Like a Thousand Years'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cocaine Worth $434K Found in Nose Gear of American Airlines Plane

/0 Comments/in , /by

Authorities say 31 pounds of cocaine that was accidentally discovered stashed in the nose of an American Airlines aircraft in Tulsa is worth around $434,000.

Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Justin Green says the plane arrived in Miami from Bogota, Colombia, on Sunday. It was flagged for maintenance and sent later that day to Tulsa International Airport, where American Airlines has a maintenance base.

While working on the nose gear, an airline employee noticed what looked like a clump of insulation or a brick-like object and called the sheriff’s office to inspect the suspicious find. (Read more from “Cocaine Worth $434K Found in Nose Gear of American Airlines Plane” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SMOKING GUN: Google Is Suppressing Center-Right News Sites

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The big story this evening is the fact that President Trump has fired the acting Attorney General, a far Left Obama holdover.

Her dismissal was well-deserved, given the fact that she ordered the Justice Department to ignore the Commander-In-Chief’s entirely legal order, one similar to bans enacted by Presidents Obama and Carter.

But I was fascinated to see the Google News coverage of the event.

Check out the top story this evening:

170130-google-news

So we see which sites Google has chosen to promote.

Are these selections fair and reasonable?

I’m sure you’re shocked, but it would appear not. Let’s look at global Alexa traffic rankings (and, yes, I know they’re not spot-on, but they’re definitely useful proxies for actual traffic).

170130-google-news-bias

Suffice it to say that Google appears to be suppressing center-right news sources and feeding the echo chamber More Of The Same™.

Say, how’d that work out for them this election cycle?

Protip: I suggest bypassing the censors at Google and using BadBlue Real-Time News. You’ll get independent, unbiased and honest coverage from around the planet, updated every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, every day. (For more from the author of “SMOKING GUN: Google Is Suppressing Center-Right News Sites” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Microsoft, Amazon and Expedia Collude with Washington State to Get Another Activist Court to Strike down Trump Refugee Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Darrell Etherington. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Monday that he’s filing suit in federal court against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and select senior Trump administration officials, seeking a declaration that key portions of Trump’s Executive Order on immigration be declared unconstitutional. Alongside the lawsuit, Washington-based tech companies Amazon and Expedia are filing supporting declarations that outline how the order is negatively impacting their business, and their employees.

The Attorney General’s suit will argue that the order violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection to all, and the right of individuals to due process. It also claims that it’s in contravention of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prevents creation of laws that establish an official state religion, or favor one over another.

The declarations provided by Amazon and Expedia seem to focus on the potential economic impact of the executive order, rather than on its constitutional validity or lack thereof. . .

Microsoft is also supporting the Washington Attorney General’s lawsuit against the executive order with a similar declaration to those provided by Amazon and Expedia, Reuters reports. (Read more from “Microsoft, Amazon and Expedia Collude with Washington State to Get Another Activist Court to Strike down Trump Refugee Ban” HERE)

________________________________________

Trump Reportedly Set to Sign Order Overhauling High-Tech Visa Program Used by Microsoft, Amazon

By Ashley Stewart. President Donald Trump on Monday will reportedly sign an executive order to overhaul the federal program that helps Microsoft, Amazon and many Puget Sound-area technology companies bring in highly skilled workers from around the world when they can’t fill job locally.

The overhaul, reported by Bloomberg, would be the latest in a series of Trump orders to restrict the U.S. immigration system. The draft proposal targets H-1B visas – which allows employers to bring in foreign workers to fill specialized U.S. jobs when they can’t find local workers with appropriate skills – and other visa programs, including the L-1 transfer visas.

“Our country’s immigration policies should be designed and implemented to serve, first and foremost, the U.S. national interest,” the draft proposal said, according to Bloomberg. “Visa programs for foreign workers … should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers – our forgotten working people – and the jobs they hold.” (Read more from “Trump Reportedly Set to Sign Order Overhauling High-Tech Visa Program Used by Microsoft, Amazon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Fires Acting AG for Refusing to Defend Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday just hours after she defied him by refusing to have the Justice Department defend his controversial executive order blocking people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

The White House acted swiftly, issuing a statement declaring that Yates, who was appointed by former President Obama, had “betrayed” the U.S. government.

Trump selected Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace Yates until his attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is confirmed by the Senate. That vote could occur this week.

“Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the White House said in a statement. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country.”

The decision to ax Yates capped off a turbulent day in which the Trump administration was forced to confront mounting opposition to its order, which bars all refugees for four months and bans citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. (Read more from “Trump Fires Acting AG for Refusing to Defend Travel Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hysterical Responses to Executive Order Main Issue: The Nature of Islam

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump’s executive order on immigration has caused enormous furor, yet its impetus seems largely to have gone unnoticed: Chaos in the Near East.

Much of the Islamic world in Saharan Africa and the Middle East has gone beyond turmoil into a nether world of political oppression, military violence, and social disarray. The “Arab spring” of 2011 has turned into a region where, to paraphrase a metaphor from C.S. Lewis, there is always searing heat but never an oasis.

Searing Heat

In Libya, since dictator Moammar Ghaddafi was excised from political power in 2011 (and brutally murdered), ISIS has gained a stronghold and the nation itself is currently torn between three competing ruling factions. Fraught with tribal and thus regional tension, Libya’s oil production has dropped from about 1.56 million barrels daily to about 400,000 today. And hundreds of thousands of people are internally displaced.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed presidency of Mohammed Morsi was ended after Islamist political repression and violence wracked the country. Former military chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has restored a measure of stability, but violent Islamists now have control of part of the Sinai Peninsula.

As to Syria, where to begin? Russian planes bombing civilian targets. American-hating Iran fighting American-hating ISIS. An estimated 13.5 million people needing humanitarian aid, 6.3 million people internally displaced, minimally 4.7 million Syrian refugees, and roughly 400,000 killed and hundreds of thousands more injured.

Then there are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, and Turkey. In these countries, there is repression if not outright oppression and Islamic terrorism and/or Islamism in governance. These stifle religious and political liberty and create anxiety in populations already cast down by centuries of tribal hostilities, Muslim sectarianism, misogynistic culture, and political severity.

It is from this cauldron of pain and suffering that the new President’s policy toward seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries has emerged.

Islamic Domination was the Aim of Muhammed

The details of Mr. Trump’s immigration plan are worth debating, but what should be inarguable is that the North African-Middle Eastern Islamic world is fragmenting under the weight of its own self-destructive politics and social structures.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the post-World War I political reapportionments of the greater region were a colossal mistake. Let us also stipulate that the West has made grave errors in everything from supporting Saddam Hussein to the way we deposed him. The list of externally-inflicted problems is a long one.

Throughout the Arab world, tribal and sectarian loyalties have transcended national allegiances. Force (ala Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi, the Assads, et al.) has been the glue holding together disparate groups within countries whose contours, whether ethnic, geographic, or sectarian, are grounded in neither history or logic.

But the one thing that experts, commentators, diplomats, and on-the-ground analysts hate to discuss is the nature of Islam itself.

To be clear: Only a minority of Muslims want violence-based adherence to Sharia law to dominate their own countries, let alone the world. Yet a responsible reading of the Quran implies that Islamic domination — attained at the tip of a sword — was the aim of Muhammed from his religion’s beginning.

This is why the radical Islamic government of Iran cannot be dismissed as a aberration from the true Muslim faith. It is why fanatical followers of that faith have caused insidious political disruption throughout their vast region, culminating in strong-man rule (some of it more enlightened than others) by Sadat to al-Sisi and Sharia-based governments from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

Then there are the terrorists themselves.

A Long War With ISIS

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic,” wrote Graeme Wood in a landmark Atlantic article in 2015. “Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This declaration created tremendous push-back against Wood from a host of quarters. However, seeing ISIS’s continuing durability, it is difficult to disagree with Wood’s essential conclusion:

Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one.

In addition, we have to ask: Where in the Quran are the principles of the equality of all people, representative self-governance, religious liberty, and other First Amendment-type rights ever articulated, let alone implied? I am hard-pressed to find these ideas anywhere in Islam’s essential text or in its leading theologians’ commentaries thereof.

A Revolution of the Islamic Faith?

Over the past two years, Egyptian President al-Sisi has called for a “revolution” within Islam, decrying the notion of the Islamists that the entire global population must convert to Islam, submit to it, or be killed. He draws a distinction between the teachings of his faith and the political ideology the extremists draw from it, and argues that the latter must be expunged.

Whether this is possible is the subject of another essay. As former Muslim Dr. Nabeel Qureshi wrote last year in USA Today, “The Quran itself reveals a trajectory of jihad reflected in the almost 23 years of Muhammad’s prophetic career.” He goes on to note that ISIS

may lure youth through a variety of methods, it radicalizes them primarily by urging them to follow the literal teachings of the Quran and the hadith, interpreted consistently and in light of the violent trajectory of early Islam. As long as the Islamic world focuses on its foundational texts, we will continue to see violent jihadi movements.

How can any religion retain its identity if it rejects its “foundational texts?” And if it does so, what is left to it? This is the question the Islamic world must answer if it is to deal honestly and wisely with its own house. It is the question that Christians, and the west, ignore at our own peril. (For more from the author of “Hysterical Responses to Executive Order Main Issue: The Nature of Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Republican Lawmakers Say About Trump’s Order on Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republicans in Congress had mixed reactions in the immediate wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order Friday stopping individuals from seven countries where Islamist terrorists operate from entering the country for 90 days.

Some GOP lawmakers, such as Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., expressed concerns about who the order targeted and how it was implemented—but without the force of Democrats’ widespread opposition. The order also temporarily halts entry of refugees.

“The president is right to focus attention on the obvious fact that borders matter,” Sasse said in a statement issued Saturday. “At the same time, while not technically a Muslim ban, this order is too broad.”

Rubio and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., released a joint statement Sunday, saying they support vetting those who want to enter the country, but have qualms.

“After reviewing the recent executive orders, it is clear to us that some of what is being said and reported about the scope and implications of these measures is misleading,” Rubio and Scott said. “However, it is also clear that the manner in which these measures were crafted and implemented have greatly contributed to the confusion, anxiety, and uncertainty of the last few days.”

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., is one conservative lawmaker who supports Trump’s action.

“If you follow the facts and the figures, you get a much different story than what the press is talking about,” Brat said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. Brat said the executive order is a “short-run vetting of migrants from seven countries that were chosen by the Obama administration and by intelligence officials because these seven countries are known to fund and train and export terror.”

Countries affected by the temporary travel ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Trump’s executive order also indefinitely pauses the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States, a practice his predecessor, Barack Obama, had accelerated.

In 2015, Obama also imposed restrictions on people who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011, as CNN and others reported.

The Obama administration later added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list to address what it called “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters,” CNN reported.

Brat said that although some object to Trump’s executive order and argue that individuals from these countries have not committed acts of terror, the executive order is well warranted.

Intelligence officials support further review of individuals traveling from the seven countries, the Virginia Republican said.

“Go ask the intelligence officers if there’s been funding streamed to terrorist groups from these countries, if there’s been training and folks coming in and out of those counties, and they’re actually making their way here hoping to spread terror. And the answer will be a 100 percent yes,” Brat said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the executive order is Trump’s way of making good on his campaign promises.

“[Trump] campaigned on this, he ran on this, and now he is getting to implement this,” Jordan said in an interview Monday morning with Bob Frantz, host of the radio show “The Answer” on WHK-AM, a Cleveland radio station.

Jordan, former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said he does not anticipate the order to provoke more violence from terrorists, and that Trump’s move “makes sense.” He said:

This idea that somehow this will make the terrorists mad, my guess is they’re already mad based on what they’ve done to our country, what they’ve done around the world. So let’s focus on common sense. … If you’re going to let [citizens of those nations] in here, you need to make sure that you have thoroughly checked them out and that they are not part of some sort of terrorist organization. I think that makes sense. Let’s make sure we do it right.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., also said Trump is keeping campaign promises, but acknowledged that the order could have been executed more seamlessly.

“President Trump and his administration have been taking steps to fulfill his campaign promises,” Isakson said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal, “and he’s right that we need to strengthen our national security and improve the vetting process for people coming into our country.”

While the intentions were good, Isakson said, the administration should make sure the order doesn’t hurt “law-abiding Americans.”

“I hope that President Trump will consult with the national security team he has assembled with the advice and consent of the Senate, so that security measures are properly implemented and do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Isakson said.

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the executive order is “to ensure the safety of every American” but must be tempered with compassion. He voiced support for Trump’s move to “slow things down.”

“We have always been a compassionate nation, and will continue to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world,” Walker said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal, adding:

The refugee resettlement program is important in keeping with that tradition. But, we also have an obligation to ensure the safety of every American. Top national security officials have admitted that the government is unable to fully vet refugees. We need to slow things down and examine the flaws in the system so that it can be strengthened.

Walker said the Trump administration should, however, quickly clarify any ambiguities.

“The language of the order should not apply to legal, permanent residents of the United States, and if it is being enforced in any other way, the administration should step in swiftly to clarify,” Walker said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement Monday that Trump is using the powers vested in him by Congress and the Constitution.

“The president is acting temporarily and prudently to give his administration and Congress the much-needed time to properly evaluate the refugee program and reform it to ensure that it both helps legitimate refugees and ensures the safety of the American people,” Gohmert said.

Trump’s order is not bias, Gohmert said, but a constitutional vehicle to protect Americans.

“With this president’s action to pause refugee admissions, not based on their religion but on whether there is adequate information to determine if they are a threat, he is constitutionally acting to protect Americans,” Gohmert said.

For other Republican lawmakers, however, the executive order has become a point of contention with the newly inaugurated president.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., released a joint statement Sunday saying the order could become counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.

“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted,” McCain and Graham said. “We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.”

Unlike McCain and Graham, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., said the temporary ban is justified and necessary.

“America welcomes Muslims from 190 countries and temporarily bans all individuals from seven countries,” Buck said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “The president’s executive order is a temporary effort that addresses a serious issue with terrorist hot spots.” (For more from the author of “What Republican Lawmakers Say About Trump’s Order on Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Likely to Name 1 of These 2 Judges to Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump returns to prime time Tuesday for the biggest announcement of his presidency so far. He will reveal at 8 p.m. EST his pick for the Supreme Court, widely reported to be one of two federal appeals court judges—Neil Gorsuch or Thomas Hardiman.

Some reports suggest two other appeals court judges, William Pryor and Diane Sykes, still could be in contention.

However, neither of those judges won unanimous confirmation to their current posts. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch by a voice vote in July 2006 and confirmed Hardiman 95-0 in March 2007.

170130_GorsuchHardiman

Unanimous confirmation for past judgeships, however, isn’t likely to prevent Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., from trying to block the nominee, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network.

“It will be hard to say the nominee is out of the mainstream if Schumer has already voted for him,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “But Trump could renominate Merrick Garland and the Democrats would reflexively block it.”

Some Democrats already have threatened to filibuster Trump’s nominee, whoever he or she is.

President Barack Obama nominated Garland, chief judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the vacancy left after the Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans refused to advance the nomination in an election year.

It’s not likely Trump will have a high court nominee approved by April, when the Supreme Court probably will hear its last set of cases for the year, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice.

“With [Supreme Court Justices] Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, it took about three months,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “I supported stopping the Garland nomination, but the one thing Republicans can’t do is hurry this, or act as if filling the vacancy is urgent. I don’t think the Democrats can filibuster, but they will have to play to their base’s anger over Garland.”

Gorsuch ultimately has a more in-depth history of writing with regard to constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the role of judges, said John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“It will still be a fight, but not be as much of a knock-down, drag-out fight as if [Trump] had chosen Bill Pryor,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “Both would be superb Supreme Court justices, and I hope either gets confirmed.”

Here’s a look at the record of Trump’s potential nominees:

Backgrounds

Gorsuch, 49, was appointed by President George W. Bush as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado.

Before that, Gorsuch was a deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. The Harvard Law School graduate clerked for both current Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Byron White.

Bush appointed Hardiman to the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Pennsylvania. That’s the same court that Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, serves on.

Hardiman, 51, previously was a federal district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a position confirmed by a voice vote of the Senate in October 2003. He received his law degree at Georgetown University.

On Gun Ownership

A Judicial Crisis Network brief noted Gorsuch’s decision in the case of United States v. Games-Perez, where the appeals judge wrote that “there is a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country.” He added: “The Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

For his part, Hardiman rejected a challenge to a law barring felons from owning firearms.

But Hardiman generally has been strong on the Second Amendment.

In the case of Drake v. Filko, Hardiman wrote the dissenting opinion in a ruling upholding a New Jersey law requiring residents have a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a gun. Citing Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment, he wrote: “States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”

On Religious Freedom

Gorsuch ruled in two major religious liberty cases that came before the 10th Circuit challenging the Obamacare mandate that employers pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for employees, siding with Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor in the two cases.

In a lower-profile case, Yellowbear v. Lampert, Gorsuch ruled in favor of an inmate who said prison officials denied his religious freedom by not accommodating his Native American faith.

In one case, Hardiman wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of a mother and her kindergartener son, who was prohibited from using the Bible as part of a show and tell at school. He wrote that the prohibition “plainly constituted” discrimination based on the family’s viewpoint.

On Free Speech

Gorsuch issued a decision against a Colorado campaign finance law, determining that it unconstitutionally permitted major party donors to make two contributions per election cycle, while limiting minor party candidates to receive just one donation per election cycle. There is “something distinct, different, and more problematic afoot,” he wrote, “when the government selectively infringes on a fundamental right.”

Hardiman ruled against a student’s right to wear a bracelet that said “I [heart] boobies” during a breast cancer awareness campaign at his middle school. He described the case as “close,” but said it “would seem to fall into a gray area between speech that is plainly lewd and merely indecorous.”

In the case of NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman ruled that Philadelphia’s ban on noncommercial advertisements at the city’s airport violated free speech rights.

Concerning campaign finance, Hardiman wrote the opinion striking down a Philadelphia law that barred police officers from contributing to the police union’s political action committee. (For more from the author of “Trump Likely to Name 1 of These 2 Judges to Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.