When you try to prevent the will of the people and the rules of the electoral system because it does not match your will, then you simply don’t believe in a government that is representative of the people. Have we elected people who are against democracy?Continue reading “Lawmakers Against Democracy”
At no other time in US history have we had an election like this one. Not only did Donald Trump, in an effort to keep power, claim that dozens of judges, and hundreds of Republican state legislators in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia conspire with Democrats to steal the election from him but his supporters attacked the very seat of our government and forced lawmakers (including Trump’s own Vice President) to flee for their lives. Trump’s former National Security Advisor even suggested that he declare nationwide martial law.
Despite all that-a time that will make an indelible mark in the history of our country-the biggest lesson coming out of the election is that the system worked.
Despite the periodic rants from the radical left about the need to re-write the Constitution and the character flaws of the ‘Founding Fathers’, their wisdom showed itself in the last three months-possibly in ways never so clearly expressed. Yes, the people who wrote the Constitution were human and had flaws, some of them serious flaws. Yet that does not take away from the careful foundation laid for our country and the wisdom that not only has endured for two and a half centuries but was the foundational document for developing democracies worldwide for over two centuries.Continue reading “The Biggest Lesson from the Election? The System Worked”
In a decision on Saturday, the US District Court serving Wisconsin rejected a lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign. The judge was a Trump appointee.
A number of Trump supporters have echoed his claims of election fraud. But when you read the details of Trump’s legal briefs, you wonder how many of those people have actually read any part of the court filings.
Below is a link to an article from the conservative magazine National Review (which was founded by William F. Buckley), that gives some background and detail around the lawsuit and the ruling in that final case before the Electoral College met today. It’s worth the read.
A busy week in the news, as the Supreme Court declines to review a lawsuit on the election results, another historic peace deal in the Middle East and news on law and order. Summaries of these, in this edition of Quick TakesContinue reading “Weekend Quick Takes”
Much has been in the news about the ‘politics’ of the Supreme Court and its most recent nominee. But the real issue is that anyone views the Supreme Court as political at all. And, the fact is, liberals talk about the politics of the Court because they view it as political and therefore assume everyone thinks in the same terms that they do. That is not the case. More importantly, that should not be the case.Continue reading “Should Courts Be Neutral Arbiters Or Partisan Forums?”
Far left media outlet Yahoo News invited Aurora Snow to pen a column on her opinion of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be the next justice on the Supreme Court
The choice itself is revealing. Aurora Snow, born Rebecca Claire Kensington, is a porn actress and director. In asking her to write on the topic, they obviously felt that was an important constituency to hear from and perspective to share.Continue reading “The Devaluing Of America”
This weekend, Sen. Chris Coons (Democrat from Delaware) said that he was open to adding more Supreme Court justices if Democrats take control of Congress in November’s election.
Coons said he was open to adding enough justices to the Supreme Court to ensure that Democrats could make sure they have the Court majority that they want.
Let’s be clear, what Coons is saying is that he is opposed to democracy. The laws of the land, in this case related to the size of the Supreme Court, shouldn’t be changed just to ensure one party always rules. That’s a dictatorship.
Coons has said that he is favor of changing the rules and laws of the land, if he doesn’t get his way. Not only is that childish, it’s dangerous to democracy.
During the last election, when a member of the media would even mention in passing what Hillary Clinton was wearing, the outcry would be swift and sure: only women are judged by their appearance and its discriminatory to have that be a focus. Fair point.
Yet, it’s so interesting that all that changes when the woman being spoken of is not considered a liberal.
Such is the case in the first day of hearings on Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett is a law school professor and current Federal Judge, and is a judge whose record is one that defers to the legislature, meaning that she interprets laws and believes that laws are to be made my elected representatives, which is different than the philosophy of liberal jurists.
Since all bets are off when a woman doesn’t have the certain required beliefs, liberal columnist Alaina Demopoulo wrote a whole article about Justice Barrett’s dress-a whole article. She contrasted Barrett’s dress with the dresses of the Democratic Senators.
“Barrett’s dress made a statement. So did the Democratic women lawmakers at the hearing. Senators Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Mazie K. Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar all wore bright blue blazers, the color of their party.”
Barrett wore a pink dress.
“It was a pretty dress, maybe even stylish… Her outfit radiates a maternal warmth, an easy comfort. It masks the harm she has the potential to enable once confirmed against women, LGBTQ people, all of those with Obamacare, and victims of voter suppression.”
“The dress labored overtime to quell certain fears.”
You can get all that from a dress?!
But more importantly, how was dress linked to qualifications. What value did that lend to the discussion on whether Barrett has been a good Federal judge or would make a good justice for the Supreme Court? And if it was sexist to talk about Hillary Clinton’s appearance, why isn’t it sexist to focus on Amy Barrett’s appearance?
Well, frankly, we know the answer. Because the standards don’t apply when the woman involved isn’t a liberal. A woman who does not follow the pre-determined stereotype is to be opposed by any and all means. Even if it means doing the exact things you said you opposed….because the ends justify any means, apparently.
Current Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett would seem to be the rare individual who does it all, the embodiment of the successful woman who has somehow managed to juggle multiple priorities and be good at each.
A former law clerk for Supreme Court icon Antonin Scalia, law professor at Notre Dame, US circuit judge and now a Supreme Court nominee, Barrett has climbed to the highest levels of her profession.
On top of a busy and successful legal career, she has a supportive marriage and is mother to seven children (two of whom are adopted). As she said when accepting the nomination, “Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am a judge, I’m better known back home as a room parent, carpool driver, and birthday-party planner.”Continue reading “Equal Opportunity For Women, But Only Certain Women”
In the wake of the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, there is much controversy around the selection of her successor. President Trump has said he will nominate a new justice and the Republican leader of the Senate has said they will vote on the nominee. Democrats are outraged, saying that a President should not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court in an election year. Continue reading “How Do You Know A Politician Is Being Hypocritical? Their Lips Are Moving”