"...The Supreme Court Vacancy
In a tell that they will lose this fight, the Democrats are throwing silly proposals up in the air -- everything from court packing to setting limits on the terms of justices to the Court to demanding any nominee recuse herself from any cases involving this election -- in advance of the hearings...
Babylon Bee, that wonderful satire site, underscores the nonsensical, evidence-free hearings in Kavanaugh.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In anticipation of Trump's upcoming announcement of who he will nominate to the Supreme Court, the Democrats have posted a nationwide job listing for believable accusers to tarnish the reputation of whoever Trump nominates..."We know that whoever Trump nominates will be an evil, mean, bad person," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "That's just the kind of man Trump is. He hangs around evil, mean, bad people and he nominates them too. To prove this and save our democracy, we are hiring several believable witnesses to accuse Trump's nominee of whatever they probably did."Listings have been purchased on ZipRecruiter, Monster, LinkedIn, and Craigslist.
(Actually, they have so many wonderful posts about the filling the vacancy, it’s very hard to pick just one. Check them out.)
As expected, the President named as his nominee U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
This well-researched article by Deion Kathawa is a useful primer on the charges likely to be made against her candidacy and a defense of them. It’s my experience that, too often -- actually, almost always -- reports in the press about judicial actions are written to support or attack a decision without a thorough understanding of the way in which the cases reached the court involved and under what restrictions the judges were operating. Here’s one example from the article
In the 2019 case, Kanter v. Barr, the 7th Circuit upheld the mail-fraud conviction of the owner of an orthopedic footwear company and as a result, his right to keep and bear arms was abrogated. He contended that laws prohibiting people convicted of felonies from having guns violate a person’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. The majority rejected that argument, explaining that the government had shown that such laws are related to the government’s important goal of keeping guns away from people convicted of serious crimes.Judge Barrett dissented (start at p. 27), arguing that at the Founding, legislatures took away the gun rights of people who were believed to be dangerous, not of just anyone who had committed any felony. So, for Barrett, the laws at the heart of Kanter are too broad because they ban nonviolent persons from possessing a firearm without any evidence that they pose a risk. Barrett stressed that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation.”It would be incredible to watch Democrats try to paint Judge Barrett as an extremist on guns given the way they -- for the past three months -- have excused, downplayed, ignored, and even tacitly encouraged violent mobs’ looting businesses, destroying property, and even murdering supporters of the president -- all with revolting impunity.
The Flynn Case Dismissal Motions
...Informed citizens are growing weary of these revelations in the absence of actions taken against the wrongdoers. Let’s hope the recently discovered information will move this along to a meaningful end. Soon...Read all!
No comments:
Post a Comment