Trump’s Final Election Lawsuit

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.

Weekend Quick Takes

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 Takes

Continue reading “Weekend Quick Takes”

Should Courts Be Neutral Arbiters Or Partisan Forums?

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?”

The Devaluing Of America

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”

Delaware Senator Says He Favors Changing Rules If Doesn’t Get What He Wants

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.

Key Qualification For Female Justices? Their Dress, Apparently

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.

Equal Opportunity For Women, But Only Certain Women

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”

How Do You Know A Politician Is Being Hypocritical? Their Lips Are Moving

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”

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, RIP

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away yesterday after a long battle with cancer.

Ginsberg was a pioneer in the field of juris prudence, was the second woman appointed to the US Supreme Court and had a distinguished career that helped break several barriers along the way.

But possibly more important, she was an honorable person and public servant. Her close personal friendship with her ideological opposite on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, serves as an example to us all that you can be friends with and care deeply about people with whom you often disagree strongly. More then ever, her quiet personal example in that regard may be her biggest contribution to her country.


SCOTUS Rules That Government Can’t Tell Parents Which Schools They Have To Choose

The Supreme Court ruled last week that government funds can be used to pay tuition and schools run by religious groups.

Some people don’t understand that and claim that the government is funding religious schools. No, the government is funding education, and then not telling you where you have to use the funds. You can use them anywhere that gives a child an education, even if it’s a religiously based school.