Posts

Democrats Take Down Another Judicial Nominee Simply Because He’s a Christian

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito gravely predicted that “those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

He was right. In Wisconsin, this campaign of religious intolerance has claimed a new casualty in Gordon Giampietro, President Trump’s former nominee to a vacant seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He was revealed to be removed from the list of renominations Trump issued on January 22. Democrats have all but ensured that, for the crime of publicly voicing the teachings of his faith, Giampietro will never sit on the federal bench. . .

A number of Senate Democrats have famously come to the conclusion that Catholics faithful to the teachings of their church are unfit for public service. In September 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) bizarrely complained that “the dogma lives loudly within” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, suggesting that her faith precludes her service on the bench.

In December 2018, presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-CA) shamefully attempted to make membership in the Knights of Columbus, a renowned Catholic charitable organization, a disqualifying offense. One can apparently be a Catholic, but ought not to be too serious about it.

That this nonsense has now claimed Giampietro is a shame. His qualifications are beyond question. An assistant general counsel at a Fortune 500 company, he has more than a decade’s experience as a federal prosecutor after becoming a partner at one of Wisconsin’s most successful law firms. He received the approval of the bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission (on which one of us sat), of Wisconsin Sens. Ron Johnson (R) and Tammy Baldwin (D), and of the American Bar Association, which awarded him an official rating of “qualified.” (Read more from “Democrats Take Down Another Judicial Nominee Simply Because He’s a Christian” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Show All Their Hypocrisy Over the Political Courts

/0 Comments/in , /by

Compare and contrast: 1) Democrats praising Chief Justice Roberts’ pushback against Trump’s claim that judges are political. 2) Democratic senators (and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.,) trying to block a judicial nominee for political reasons.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” read a statement from Roberts on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

And of course, Roberts was showered with praise from the left side of the aisle.

Fast-forward one week later, and every single Senate Democrat has locked arms in a political play against a Trump judicial nominee.

The nominee’s name is Thomas Alvin Farr, and he’s been waiting to find out his fate since July 2017. His opposition claims that putting him on the federal bench would be a blow to minority voting rights. Farr’s political resume includes working for former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms and working on voter ID and redistricting procedures in the Tarheel State.

But I thought that federal judges were purely non-political? Surely once he’s nominated he would be just like the rest of the judges that Justice Roberts referred to — completely free of any baggage from the president who nominated him and simply doing his “level best to do equal right?”

The bottom line is that all judges are fallible human beings in robes who can and do make mistakes and therefore cannot be treated as inerrant priests of human government. We could also acknowledge that the process to appoint and confirm them is indeed political; at least it is somewhat accountable to the people through their elected officials.

So no, federal judges are not above criticism for their words, actions, and decisions. They are not only subject to public assessment and denunciation by elected officials, but they and the courts on which they sit are subject to congressional checks, including impeachment of judges and Article III control over the courts’ jurisdiction, size, and very existence.

We could have that conversation, but this is American politics in the Trump era. Fawning over vapid platitudes and dealing in shrieking intellectual dishonesty are much more in fashion. (For more from the author of “Democrats Show All Their Hypocrisy Over the Political Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NYT: Obama 'Reshaping' Appellate Bench

/5 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

Read more from this story HERE.

Term Limits for Federal Judges?

/8 Comments/in , /by

gavelLife tenure for out-of control federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court will never be abolished unless there is an overwhelming public demand.

I was asked for my view regarding a proposal to provide term limits for federal judges, including members of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is my response:

Flagrant judicial abuse of power has prompted numerous proposed remedies repeated over the years (e.g., require a Supreme Court supermajority, such as 7-2, for any unconstitutionality ruling, which could then be overturned by a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress as is now done with presidential vetoes, strip federal courts of jurisdiction as explicitly provided for in the Constitution, etc.).

In my view, ending lifetime appointments would be best. Lawlessly and arrogantly usurping power, federal judges long ago forfeited any legitimate claim to life tenure. Their lack of integrity has conclusively vitiated the very basis used by the Founding Fathers to justify life tenure in the first place.

However, it is easy to propose remedies. For three reasons, they cannot now be adopted. First, as noted in Getting It Wrong, the Supreme Court is the last best hope of democracy’s losers. They are not going to give that up without a fight. Unpopular and harmful, even dangerous, radical extremist policies that cannot be adopted democratically are repeatedly rammed through by federal judges – usually by stealth and unnoticed like noiseless and invisible thieves and worms, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson. Yes, there are widely reported fiats such as on abortion and, recently, gay marriage. But these are the exception; in any event, most “journalists” focus on whether they like the results rather than on whether such results follow the Constitution or are an abuse of judicial power.

Far more typical has been the gradual and, by now, almost total neutering of the death penalty.

Second, although often unable to impose unpopular policies legitimately, democracy’s losers are strong enough to preserve judicial subversion of representative government. The Constitution, requiring extraordinary majorities, makes it far easier to block than to adopt amendments (except, of course, when the Supreme Court itself easily usurps amending requirements with reckless abandon).

Third, although some polls indicate a decline in public approval, the Supreme Court still has considerable protection for one simple reason: THE MEDIA. The media conceals from the public what the Court really does. The unreported outrages are without limit.

I am convinced that the public would not stand for rampant judicial abuse if the public knew about and understood it. I do not write for experts. My goal has been to inform the lay public. Thus I strive to write in a way that can be easily understood. I avoid jargon and legalese. Unfortunately, with very little support from those on our side who are in the best position to publicize my work, I have achieved little.

The unpleasant truth is this. Reform is now impossible. Unless overwhelming public support can be generated, it will only be an academic exercise in futility to muse about specific proposals.

I will have much more to say about this in what likely will be my final article.

_____________________________________________________________________

Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college political science teacher, views mainstream media suppression of the truth as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles are collected here.

Judges: America’s Mullahs

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.

Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.”

As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’.

Read more from this story HERE.

Alaska’s Judges: Public Servants, or Robed Masters?

/3 Comments/in /by

Judicial retention elections rarely attract much interest from the news media, or from voters. But this year we have reason to pay attention – and take action.

If you live in the 3rd Judicial District – which includes Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak, Prince William Sound and Bristol Bay Communities – you have an opportunity to vote NO on one of the state’s most liberal judges: Superior Court Judge Sen Tan.

Judge San Tan has left his mark on Alaska – and it’s not a pretty one.

Subverted the rights of parents

Judge Tan struck down a common-sense measure that would require a parent to consent before an abortion can be performed on their minor daughter. Thanks to Judge Tan, a girl of any age – even 12 or 13 – can have an abortion in this state without a parent’s consent. The damage caused by Sen Tan’s decision was only partially reversed in 2010 when Alaska voters approved a ballot measure that at least gave parents the right to be informed (not consent) before an abortion is performed on their daughter.

Of course, Judge Tan’s ruling was absurd. A parent’s consent is already required before a minor can get a tattoo, a body piercing, or even an aspirin at school. There are 37 states with laws that require parental involvement before a minor’s abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these laws as fully constitutional in nine separate decisions. Yet Judge Sen Tan arrogantly argued that Alaska’s constitution somehow prevents us from having a policy that the federal constitution and numerous other states allow. Sen Tan’s decision was nothing more than an imposition of his own extremist views, masquerading as constitutional law.

Forced taxpayers to pay for abortions

Judge Sen Tan ruled that taxpayers have to be on the hook to pay for abortions. He overturned the Alaska Legislature’s decision in 1998 to generally stop using state funds for abortions, except in cases of a threat to the mother’s life, or in cases of rape and incest.

Judge Tan ruled that if the state chose to pay for prenatal care for poor women and their unborn babies, then it must also pay for poor women to have abortions. In the lethal logic of Judge Sen Tan, if you’re using public funds to help ensure that healthy babies are born, then you must also use public funds to ensure that some children are never born. Judge Tan’s ruling completely contradicts the long-established reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court, which had previously held that since the government does not make a woman indigent in the first place, the government does not undermine that indigent woman’s “right to abortion” by simply declining to give her money to pay for it.

Judge Sen Tan is the “poster child” of left-wing judicial activism in Alaska. He is the kind of judge who seems incapable of separating his liberal views from the serious art of constitutional interpretation. If you run for elected office, you’re free to vote your personal viewpoints. That’s what we expect politicians to do. But judges are supposed to be impartially interpreting the law, not making the law.

When judges start acting like politicians, there’s only one appropriate response: treat them like politicians. And that means voting them out of office when they abuse their judicial authority and impose their personal beliefs on you.

Biblical Samson may be confirmed by discovery of ancient seal in Israel

/1 Comment/in /by

Photo credit: Raz Lederman, Tel Beth Shemesh Excavations

Tel Aviv University researchers recently uncovered a seal, measuring 15 millimetres (about a half-inch) in diameter, which depicts a human figure next to a lion at the archaeological site of Beth Shemesh, located between the Biblical cities of Zorah and Eshtaol, where Samson was born, flourished, and finally buried, according to the book of Judges. The scene engraved on the seal, the time period, and the location of the discovery all point to a probable reference to the story of Samson, the legendary heroic figure whose adventures famously included a victory in hand-to-paw combat with a lion.

While the seal does not reveal when the stories about Samson were originally written, or clarify whether Samson was a historical or legendary figure, the finding does help to “anchor the story in an archaeological setting,” says Prof. Shlomo Bunimovitz of TAU’s Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations. Prof. Bunimovitz co-directs the Beth Shemesh dig along with Dr. Zvi Lederman.

“If we are right and what we see on the seal is a representation of a man meeting a lion, it shows that the Samson legend already existed around the area of Beth Shemesh during that time period. We can date it quite precisely,” Prof. Bunimovitz adds.

The seal was discovered with other finds on the floor of an excavated house, dated by the archaeologists to the 12th century BCE.

Geographically, politically, and culturally, the legends surrounding Samson are set in this time period, also known as the period of the Judges, prior to the establishment of kingship in ancient Israel. The area of Beth Shemesh was a cultural meeting point where Philistines, Canaanites, and Israelites lived in close proximity, maintaining separate identities and cultures. Samson’s stories skip across these cultural borders, Dr. Lederman says. Although he was from the Israelite tribe of Dan, Samson is frequently depicted stepping out into the world of the Philistines — even searching for a Philistine wife, much to the chagrin of his parents.