Posts

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Election-Observers Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned an order requiring that election observers be allowed within six feet of ballot-counting operations.

In its decision, the court said state law only requires that observers be allowed “in the room” where ballots are counted and does not mandate a minimum distance, NBC News said.

The 5-2 majority opinion also found that the Philadelphia Board of Elections “did not act contrary to the law in fashioning its regulations governing the positioning of candidate representatives,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. . .

The ruling reverses a Nov. 5 order in which Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon sided with the Trump campaign and agreed to reduce the 25-foot distance from which “candidates, watchers or candidate representatives” could watch the votes being counted. (Read more from “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Election-Observers Case” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump Rails Against Supreme Court for Extending Ballot Deadlines

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump took to Twitter to blast the Supreme Court following its decision this week to allow Pennsylvania and North Carolina to count mail-in ballots after Election Day.

“If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President, the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well,” Trump tweeted just before 3 a.m. Friday. “At least the many new Justices will be Radical Left!” . . .

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld previous decisions to extend absentee ballot deadlines. That will allow ballots to be counted up to three days after Nov. 3 in Pennsylvania and nine days in North Carolina — both key battleground states that Trump won in 2016. . .

The president lashed out against the highest court in the land again Friday morning, responding to a Wednesday story about North Carolina’s extension.

“This decision is CRAZY and so bad for our Country,” he wrote. “Can you imagine what will happen during that nine day period. The Election should END on November 3rd.” (Read more from “President Trump Rails Against Supreme Court for Extending Ballot Deadlines” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Republicans Go on Offense on Religion at Barrett Hearing as Democrats Pivot to Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senate Republicans at the Monday Supreme Court confirmation hearings pushed harder against “religious tests” posed to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, even as Senate Democrats dropped the subject and pivoted toward criticisms of her alleged opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

The Republican strategy, prompted by criticisms of Barrett’s Catholicism in the weeks leading up to the hearings, featured prominently in the opening remarks of many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including those of Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, and Josh Hawley. All three claimed Democrats have been biased against Barrett, as well as other religious nominees, because they hold personal views out of step with the legal consensus on abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty.

Both Sasse and Hawley delivered lengthy speeches on the subject, with Sasse decrying “religious tests” posed by Democrats and Hawley slamming the party as displaying unconstitutional, open hostility to faith.

“This bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack,” Hawley said, referencing previous questions about faith posed by Democrats to Barrett and others.

Democrats, however, denied the bias and steered clear of religion. Instead, they focused on healthcare, arguing that Barrett is an opponent of former President Barack Obama’s signature achievement in office. Sen. Chris Coons said in his remarks that he and other Democrats will not consider Barrett’s faith, but rather her legal record. He said that a court with Barrett would do “irreparable harm” to civic order, pointing specifically to the Obamacare lawsuit. (Read more from “Republicans Go on Offense on Religion at Barrett Hearing as Democrats Pivot to Obamacare” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Amy Coney Barrett Aligns Legal Philosophy With Late Justice Antonin Scalia in Opening Statement; CNN Skips Majority of SCOTUS Hearing

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Fox News. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, in her opening statement on Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized the role of the judicial branch and said it is not the court’s duty to “solve every problem or right every wrong” in American life.

“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society,” Barrett said Monday, the first of a four-day hearing on her nomination to the Supreme Court. “But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.”

She continued: “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”

In her four-page opening statement, Barrett aligned her legal philosophy with that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a member of the court’s conservative wing for whom she previously clerked.

“It was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like,” Barrett told senators. (Read more from “Amy Coney Barrett Aligns Legal Philosophy With Late Justice Antonin Scalia in Opening Statement” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

CNN Skips Much of Historic Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Gets Bashed

By Fox News. The historic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off Monday morning, but anyone who relies on CNN for news might not have any idea.

The liberal CNN raised eyebrows by cutting away from the hearing early on, instead having pundits bash Barrett and then pivoting to mostly coverage of the coronavirus pandemic. . .

The socially distanced hearing is nothing like any Supreme Court hearing in the past, with the nominee wearing a black face mask in the television split-screen as senators give their opening statements. Some senators are beaming in virtually as they aim to remain safe from the coronavirus pandemic. The unprecedented news event was aired by MSNBC and Fox News as CNN largely ignored the early session.

“Aside from missing out on partisan commentaries from Senators that could just as easily be delivered by Brianna Keilar or Anderson Cooper, it’s sadly not surprising that CNN has shown little interest in the hearing,” NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News.

“It’s as if the hearing hasn’t been going on this morning. Just as soon as the statements from Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein concluded, CNN bailed,” Houck added. “And then it was back to their predictable drivel, trying to strike fear into the hearts of viewers on coronavirus and offer newscasts that are in-kind donations to the Biden campaign.” (Read more from “Cnn Skips Much of Historic Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Gets Bashed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shameless Media Peddling Democrat Propaganda on Court-Packing; Senator Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Townhall. . .On Sunday, the Associated Press rolled out Newspeak, adopting a Democrat euphemism for court-packing, which is the Democrats’ plan to subvert the rule of law by transforming the Supreme Court into another legislative body via the addition of new judgeships. The AP published the following passage:

“[Gov. and Sen. candidate Steve Bullock (D-MT)] said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts,” reads the original AP story.

Only after sharp criticism from conservatives on Twitter did the AP remove its Newspeak. This is why Jack Dorsey and his liberal cohorts at Twitter are rolling out temporary speech codes to crack down on free speech and interfere in the election. . .

Free speech is under attack. The truth is under attack. Our constitutional republic is under attack. The media has been infiltrated by far-left activists working for the Democratic Party who are hellbent on indoctrinating the American people and destroying our system of government to advance the far-left agenda. The stakes couldn’t be higher this November.

(Read more from “Shameless Media Peddling Democrat Propaganda on Court-Packing” HERE)

_______________________________________________________

Coons Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’ Sasse Responds That’s ‘Obviously’ Incorrect

By Fox News. Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chris Coons said on Sunday that the Senate moving to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “constitutes court-packing,” and called the nominee’s views “disqualifying.”

Coons, D-Del., made the comments during an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., also spoke with Wallace Sunday.

“I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying,” Coons said of Democrats’ strategy for Barrett’s hearings. “It constitutes court-packing.”

Court-packing’s traditional definition is expanding the Supreme Court by law and then confirming justices to those seats, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling a naturally occurring vacancy. Sasse shot back that Coons’ definition of court-packing was “obviously” incorrect and accused the Democrat of using “Orwellian” language. (Read more from “Coons Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’ Sasse Responds That’s ‘Obviously’ Incorrect” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Justices Say 2015 Same-Sex Marriage Decision Having ‘Ruinous Consequences’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is “found nowhere in the text” of the Constitution and threatens “the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.”

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis’ case, but only because it did not “cleanly present” the “important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell.”

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance.

“[T]his petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell. By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Thomas wrote. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'”

Obergefell was decided in 2015 by a 5-4 court, with then-Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. (Read more from “Supreme Court Justices Say Same-Sex Marriage Decision Having ‘Ruinous Consequences'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Senate Dems Seek Delay in Amy Coney Barrett Hearings After Trump’s COVID Diagnosis

/1 Comment/in , /by

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a joint statement Friday calling on Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to hold off on moving forward with hearings on U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett, citing risks of spreading COVID-19 in light of President Donald Trump and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) testing positive for the virus.

Schumer and Feinstein — who have both been adamantly opposed to President Trump nominating a replacement for recently-deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ahead of the Nov. 3 election — wrote that it is “premature” for Graham “to commit to a hearing schedule when we do not know the full extent of potential exposure stemming from the president’s infection and before the White House puts in place a contact tracing plan to prevent further spread of the disease.”

The Democrats also stated that the “infection” of Lee, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, “makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings.” . . .

According to Schumer and Feinstein, virtual hearings on Barrett’s nomination would not be “an acceptable substitute” given the magnitude of deciding “a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.”

They argued that moving forward would turn “this already illegitimate process” into “a dangerous one.” (Read more from “Senate Dems Seek Delay in Amy Coney Barrett Hearings After Trump’s COVID Diagnosis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Left Explodes When Republicans Nominate Women, Blacks, or Latinos

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s first Capitol Hill meetings were friendly encounters with Republican senators, but running the Supreme Court nomination gauntlet is bound to get tougher: Conservative women and minorities have aroused some of the most furious Democratic opposition.

“We want to pray for her family, as we know these will be interesting, tough weeks,” said Mercedes Schlapp, a senior adviser to President Trump’s reelection campaign, in a Catholics for Trump conference call. “I’ve gotta tell you, I’m really, really, really concerned,” added Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark.

Barrett’s gender and religion have already figured in some negative coverage of her nomination. An Associated Press report described the 48-year-old as having “close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds men are divinely ordained as the ‘head’ of the family and faith,” quoting ex-members as saying it promotes the subjugation of women. Resistance Twitter has been more pointed in its characterization of Barrett’s beliefs. . .

It would not be the first time a Republican attempt to maintain the diversity of the Supreme Court while nominating a conservative to a seat held by a liberal has generated a strong reaction from the Left. Justice Clarence Thomas was bitterly opposed by civil rights groups when President George H.W. Bush chose him to succeed Thurgood Marshall. Thomas described his confirmation hearings as a “high-tech lynching.” The Senate Judiciary Committee, then chaired by Joe Biden, deadlocked on Thomas’s nomination, and he was confirmed by a narrow 52-48 vote despite Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment, which he categorically denied.

“This time the president will nominate a right-wing extremist who happens to have a Hispanic surname rather than a black face,” Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote in a liberal magazine when George W. Bush was elected president. “And if the Democrats have the courage to block this gambit, he will follow up with another ‘stealth candidate’ and count on the Senate to confirm her, as it did [Anthony] Kennedy.” (Read more from “The Left Explodes When Republicans Nominate Women, Blacks, or Latinos” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump’s New SCOTUS Pick Just Received an Unlikely Endorsement

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .[T]he LA Times even had an editorial saying that ACB is qualified but shouldn’t be confirmed. We’re going to enter some silliness here, but ACB got an endorsement from an unlikely source: Noah Feldman. Mr. Feldman is a Harvard Law professor who backed the impeachment of Donald Trump. Feldman spoke highly of Barrett, noting her brilliance as a legal scholar, even though he disagrees with her on almost everything. Even still, she deserves to be on the Court (via Bloomberg):

…here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

[…]

Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

(Read more from “Trump’s New SCOTUS Pick Just Received an Unlikely Endorsement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Anticapitalist Sponsored By Twitter CEO Accuses Amy Coney Barrett Of ‘Colonialism’ For Adopting From Haiti

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ibram X. Kendi, a top proponent of racist critical race theory and author of the bestselling book “How to Be an Antiracist,” attacked President Donald Trump’s likely Supreme Court nominee, federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as a white supremacist on Saturday for adopting two children from Haiti.

“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children,” Kendi wrote on Twitter. “They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

Kendi was responding to a tweet featuring parents with black children that didn’t even depict Coney Barrett. Kendi said it didn’t matter, because reasons.

(Read more from “Anticapitalist Sponsored by Twitter CEO Accuses Amy Coney Barrett of ‘Colonialism’ for Adopting From Haiti” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE