September 27, 2020
Forecast: Amy Barrett is about as good as it gets. So its going to be tough to destroy her, unless you destroy something that can get to her. So my forecast is they will find something about her husband that will try to destroy their marriage and her family, in an effort to drive her away. Don't think so? How low can you go when you are already claiming that adopting 2 children from Haiti was to cover up racism. I pray I am wrong, but this is who we are dealing with today IMO
I am mindful of the Godfather Part II when the Corleone Family brings Frank Pentangeli's brother into the Mafia hearing. "He just had to show his face" Kay said. They would not be so poor an aim as to miss family.
September 26, 2020
And so forth. In my not-so-humble opinion, heads should roll, beginning with a number of people formerly in the FBI, up to the guy currently running that show, and continuing with the people who engineered the President's impeachment. Include formerly-important people such as Robert Mueller, John Brennan and James Clapper.
It was always a witch hunt designed to "get Trump.â€ Collusion was an illusion invented by a suspected Russian spy but zealously embraced by malevolent actors at the FBI and later by scheming prosecutors on Special Counsel Robert Muellerâ€™s team of partisans.
These are the stunning revelations contained in two sets of newly declassified documents that pull back the curtain on the Russia Hoax, the dirtiest political trick in American history.
In testimony that is corroborated by records, FBI Special Agent William J. Barnett has exposed how the bureauâ€™s collusion investigation of Donald Trump was based on nothing more than "supposition on suppositionâ€ and devoid of any credible evidence.
Assigned to lead the bureauâ€™s original investigation into former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Barnett came to realize that the case against Flynn was being engineered or manipulated as way to damage President Trump. Flynn, whose life and livelihood were ruined,became collateral damage.
FBI investigators, who concluded there was no plausible case against Flynn, were ignored. Instead of closing the investigation down, the critical decision to move forward was made "top- down.â€Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who had a contentious past relationship with Flynn, was calling the shots. The retired three-star Army general didnâ€™t stand a chance.
Despite the paucity of evidence against both Flynn and Trump, Agent Barnett reluctantly agreed to join the special counsel team to provide some balance (diversity of thought) to what was clearly a partisan crusade. He naively hoped his perspective might counterbalance the anti-Trump "group think.â€It was a foolâ€™s errand.
For example, Barnett quickly discerned that lawyer Jeannie Rhee "was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.â€ This was no surprise, since Rhee had represented Hillary Clinton in her email scandal, defended the Clinton Foundation in a civil racketeering case, and donated to Clintonâ€™s campaign for president.
As a key member of Muellerâ€™s squad, Rhee was in a position to target the person who had defeated the candidate she had supported and defended.
Given how obvious a conflict of interest that represented, it was shameful for Mueller to even consider hiring her. But he seemed unbothered by Rheeâ€™s multiple disqualifying conflicts.
Indeed, Mueller utilized other lawyers who held the same anti-Trump prejudices. Amazingly, Mueller sheepishly admitted during his congressional testimony that he had no idea of Rheeâ€™s involvement with Clinton when he hired her. Right.
Barnett meticulously documented the bureaucratic malfeasance and malicious politicization of the legal process. In what are known as 302 reports, he memorialized "the â€˜get Trumpâ€™ attitude by some at the SCOâ€ (Special Counsel Office). Whatever the president said or did was reflexively misrepresented by Muellerâ€™s confederates.
"Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country -- as an essential component or mark of a real democracy," the vice presidential nominee said during the NAACP's national convention.
She added that protests were "necessary" as "the people's voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly -- and obviously peacefully."
Harris also praised the "brilliance" and "impact" of "Black Lives Matter," which has received media praise but also come under fire for promoting left-wing stances like opposing the nuclear family. "I actually believe that 'Black Lives Matter' has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system," she said.
I think you get the idea. Obviously Kammie hasn't been in the middle of any of these "peaceful" protests.
The rest of this article is here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-blm-protests-louisville and I hope it's read by thousands of those who intend to vote for Biden and who live in what might be called "protest zones." I think it may change a few minds!
Now, it's possible I missed it, but frankly, I don't recall anybody asking any of the liberals on the court, especially Sotomayor and Kagan, anything about their (probable) lack of religious views -- unless you consider liberalism a religion -- and to what extent that would influence her rulings.
Trumpâ€™s schedule has him meeting with the group less than two hours before he will announce his pick to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last week.
Multiple sources have told Fox News that Trump has settled on Barrett and is expected to announce her nomination at 5 p.m ET.
Barrettâ€™s religious faith is expected to be at the core of what could be a grueling confirmation battle in the Senate. Barrett is Catholic, not an evangelical, but is a favorite of religious conservatives -- who form an important bloc in Trumpâ€™s re-election campaign.
Should Barrett, 48, get confirmed, it would mark a seismic shift in the high court, replacing the courtâ€™s staunchest liberal with a conservative.
Democrats, who have opposed Trump replacing Ginsburg in an election year, are likely to raise concerns about her religious views and to what extent they would influence her rulings. Those concerns emerged in Barrett's confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2017.
Barrett, of course, gave a mild answer, but I wonder what the result would have been had she responded with "Why is it of concern? Tell me: is it against the Constitution? My job is going to be all about the Constitution, you know." I believe she swore her oath on a Bible then and would do so now -- just an example.
She told a 2006 Notre Dame law school graduating class, "Your legal career is but a means to an end, and ... that end is building the kingdom of God. ... If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer."
At the 2017 hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told her bluntly, "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern."
China's plan to rule the seas.
China has a plan to overtake the USA with a fused effort that combines trade with military expansion, as described in a new Pentagon report. It shows how Chinaâ€™s vaunted "One Belt, One Roadâ€ plan to build infrastructure worldwide is used for military advantage along with economic benefits.
Chinaâ€™s navy is now larger than Americaâ€™s, reports our Department of Defense. And Chinaâ€™s fleet of merchant vessels is larger by far.
The Chinese economy has grown to become second only to the U.S.â€”and itâ€™s gaining on us. Some reports say China has already passed us in productivity. Other studies show China conducts significantly more world trade than America.
A Financial Times survey found that"China rules the waves.â€ Forbes reports that the United States has become "ridiculously dependentâ€ on goods from China. The American Enterprise Institute pronounces "Weâ€™re too dependent on China for too many critical goods.â€
But Chinaâ€™s dominance comes not only from making the goods; itâ€™s also delivering them.
A new report by the Center for International and Strategic Studies finds China "[dominates] the entire global maritime supply chain, [controls] the worldâ€™s second-largest shipping fleet . . . and [constructs] over a third of the worldâ€™s vesselsâ€ while also "producing 96% of the worldâ€™s shipping containers . . . and owns seven of the ten busiest ports in the world.â€
China for years has been on what Forbes describes as a "seaport shopping spree . . . buying up the worldâ€™s portsâ€ on every continent save Antarctica. The rationale is explained in the Pentagonâ€™s brand-new paper, "Military and Security Developments Involving the Peopleâ€™s Republic of China.â€ It paints a fascinating picture of how Chinaâ€™s worldwide "One Belt, One Roadâ€ initiative is being used not only to benefit Chinaâ€™s seagoing trade, but also to establish footholds with great military value.
The new Defense Department report explains the dual nature of One Belt, One Road, which seeks to "fuseâ€ trade and military purposes: "cultivating talent and blending military and civilian expertise and knowledge; building military requirements into civilian infrastructure and leveraging civilian construction for military purposes; and leveraging civilian service and logistics capabilities for military purposes.â€
Estimates are that China is spending at least $150-billion each year on acquiring civil-military footholds at major choke points of world trade. Then they can attempt to deny passage by other nations, much as they now seek to do in the South China Sea.
So why would anybody invite China to expand its control into the domestic waters of the United States? Just as other nations have been paid handsomely to let China take over their shipping facilities, some American businesses believe they can save money by letting other countries (including government-subsidized Chinese entities) to transport goods between destinations within the United States.
Current U.S. law, known as the Jones Act, prohibits shipping goods or passengers between American ports (or along our rivers and canals) unless the vessel is built, owned and crewed by Americans. Those pushing to repeal the Jones Act would allow China to expand its power grab to extend into Americaâ€™s borders.
And the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, recently pronounced China as a greater national security threat to the United States than any other nation, including working to influence and interfere in our elections.Anyone remember the Dubai Ports Act, where we were going to let Islamic Dubai run American ports? A public outcry (which shocked, SHOCKED President Bush, the stupid internationalist that he is) forced the government to relent. But now we're talking about letting China do something similar.
We live in an insane world.
Cyrus Vance Jr., that scumbag Manhattan D.A., is trying to bring charges against President Trump over his tax returns.
According to the Epoch Times:
The filing is the latest argument made by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in his fight to enforce a subpoena to gain access to eight years of Trumpâ€™s tax returns and financial documents as part of a criminal grand jury probe.
Vanceâ€™s legal team had previously suggested to the court that the prosecutorâ€™s subpoena is part of an investigation into "possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,â€ which could include bank and insurance fraud, but Mondayâ€™s filing is the first time the district attorney had suggested that his probe may include potential tax crimes.
The Manhattan DA argued that the numerous media reports detail allegations about financial misconduct by Trump and his businesses and that these reports are more than enough to uphold the subpoena.
They said that if misstatements about business properties were communicated from the Trump organization to its business partners, insurers, potential lenders, or tax authorities, then those misstatements could possibly establish a violation of state laws such as a scheme to defraud, falsification of business records, insurance fraud, and criminal tax fraud, according to the filing.
"Even if the grand jury were testing the truth of public allegations alone, such reports, taken together, fully justify the scope of the grand jury subpoena at issue in this case,â€ Vanceâ€™s team argued.If the Democrats want to abuse the law to attack political opponents perhaps we should do likewise; I doubt Mr. Vance would fare well if HIS records were scrutinized (nobody does; it's impossible to follow our Byzantine tax law).
Guys like Vance do this now because they know they are being protected, by the FBI, by their state government, etc. They get away with it. The media never digs into their records. That has to change.
There was a time when both sides stayed away from this sort of thing. No more. But if we are going to have this we must have a balance of power, not asymmetrical warfare (as now.)
The Republicans still haven't figured that out.
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASAâ€™s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
Here is an older story that I hadn't read. It stinks to high heaven.
Apparently a whistleblower at the CDC died a rather mysterious death while jogging. It was ruled a suicide by drowning.
From the article:
Ri-ight! He left home without his keys or wallet or cell phone!
I had heard nothing about this. But given how things are going in America one wonders at how much we can believe from the authorities.
There is a bit of philosophy at the piece's end.
"Yet the even deeper problem is that moderns view "the oldest thingsâ€ as just that, old, and not eternal. Our rampant relativism breeds people who make everything relative to themselves and their time; this engenders a chronological chauvinism â€” attended by nebulous blather about undefined "progressâ€ â€” that assumes "newâ€ is better because the new is of the now. But even the latter is usually an errant assumption, as new ideas are often just forgotten old mistakes."
My, what a happy little accident!
Why aren't we going after the people organizing and funding BLM terrorism?
Amazing; America loves Big Brother! Who would have ever believed we would accept this?
Average American Recorded by Security Cameras 238 Times Each Week, Study Finds
This is more than any other country except Communist China.
Oh no! There's NO election fraud!
Texas Official Arrested on Felony Election Fraud Charges; Could Face 99 Year Sentence
Need I mention he's a Democrat?
The assault on the American mind continues.
From Front Page Mag:
Czechoslovakia. "For those of us that grew up in Soviet bloc countries, the ESMC is like déjÃ vu.We are dumbfounded by a curriculum that consistently elevates Socialism, Marxism, and Communism as the way students are encouraged to become socially responsible. We are familiar with an educational system that proselytizes this specific political dogma that is proven to be unworkable and discriminatory in itself. It grooms and conditions impressionable minds to an ideology in service of a political agenda. Intolerance, bullying, and loss of freedom inevitably follow.â€
We all know that the general election of 2020 will be an unholy Donnybrook. Confusion over mail-in ballots and Maineâ€™s recently imposed ranked voting scheme, and the ruling of the PA Supreme Court regarding 3rd party candidates, will be off the charts.
Thankfully, it has a stopping point on December 8, 2020.
"When it comes to the presidential race, there's one very important post-election deadline that the states must meet: the planned December 14 gathering of the Electoral College. Six days before that date, each state must certify a winner in the presidential race so the appropriate electors can do the official business of choosing the next president.â€Congress Could Postpone the Electoral College to Avoid Election Chaos
As Americans are being masked up, Satan's masks are seemingly being proportionately
"When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism. Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion. Just like other faiths, the Satanic Temple has a code that their members believe in deeply and use to guide their lives. These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that 'one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,' that 'the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,' and that 'oneâ€™s body is inviolable, subject to oneâ€™s own will alone.' Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it. When Justice Ginsburgâ€™s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles."
So the slide from abortion to Satan's temple
is now empirical. Can the slide from Satan's temple to the outward
worship of Satan be far behind? The Bible under no uncertain conditions
prophecies, predicts, nay even promises, that the man of lawlessness,
the son of destruction, otherwise known as the antichrist, is coming.
As people ever continually reject the real Christ more and more over
the centuries, the prospects of having to come to terms with the
While Daniel the prophet predicts the Antichrist will be one of the signatories of a 7 year covenant of peace with Israel - Jesus, Paul, and John prophesy that the he will take over the Jerusalem Temple to demand worship from the entire world - without which they will not be able to buy and sell which will be the final regulation demanded of them in the long road to economic destruction (Daniel 9:24-27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Revelation 13-18). Over the years in my bible college courses, I have asked my students over whether or not Satan believes in the free market. Almost always they say that he does, demonstrating that even many well informed Christians are brainwashed by the world system run by the devil and his cohorts (Ephesians 2:1-3) - particularly when it come to politics as people are often unable to make the connection between theology and the real world. Both Jesus and Paul also prophesy of a time of unprecedented lawlessness in the last days - all of which has been accomplished underneath the radar of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations that have done nothing to stop the practice of sin the last time I checked.
America does not need more legalists, lawyers, rules, and regulations as our modern/
A word from Tim:
Excellent post Mark! Two points 1. If you do not believe in God or the supernatural why would you use a hate-filled religious figure as your mascot? It's like making Adolph Hitler the face of your college football team. These people may SAY they are rationalists, not encumbered by superstition, but they lie b.The Devil sells worship of him by selling self-worship first. He says he is a god and you can be one too.c, Clearly God intended a weak central government with a believing populace. He instituted the Judges, who ruled in time of emergency and did not issue all manner of regulations and controls. Samuel was obviously irritated with Israel and warned them of the folly of anointing a king. Saul was sent by God as punishment, to warn the people of what it means to have to submit to a king. But they wouldn't listen. So God is for limited government and the free markets that go with it. Satan is about power and control. It is he who wants to rule; Jesus never sought power over anyone. Jesus is indeed a King, but you get to choose. These people joining the Satanic Temple will eventually wind up worshipping Satan as now they are serving him.
September 25, 2020
I've left out just enough, I hope, to whet your appetite for the entire article, which is to be found here: https://www.city-journal.org/pouring-on-the-gasoline
Itâ€™s a commonplace that America is more divided than at any time since the 1850s, which ended with the country hurtling toward civil war. The oddity of our Civil War, which resembled conventional warfare in that the two sides fielded uniformed rather than guerilla armies and fought within a distinct territorial divide, is that it distracts us from the fact that civil war is the most typical political phenomenon in human history. Count it as another example of American exceptionalism, perhaps. Except that today the air is thick with talk that we might actually have another one.
Max Weber was merely the most explicit in a long line of political thinkers with his succinct reminder that "The decisive means for politics is violence.â€ It is the unique achievement of constitutional democracy to substitute ballots for bullets, but the experience of a peaceful transition of power from a losing party to a winning party is barely 200 years oldâ€”dating back to 1800, to be precise. Thatâ€™s not even the day before yesterday, in the long human story. And as we saw, it lasted only 60 years until one party, southern Democrats, refused to accept the results of a free election and decided to revert to bullets. I have long tried to explain to students and fellow citizens alike that we take Americaâ€™s political stability since the Civil War too much for granted. In my experience, it has been foreign students who comprehend this complacency, while native students tend to yawn and look at their smartphones.
The prospect of electoral chaos was elevated by the war-gaming exercise of the Transition Integrity Project, in which a disputed election might feature riots, states threatening secession, a stubborn Trump abusing his powers to remain in office, and the military wondering who they should report to at noon next January 20. Needless to say it made for sensational copy in the media, much of which was both overblown and underblown: overblown because of the frothy Seven Days in May specter it suggested, and underblown in that it barely scratched the surface of more realistic permutations of what could go wrong with this election.
As it happens, I know one of the two organizers of TIP, Nils Gilman, the vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute. Gilman is one of the first persons I got to know when I came to UC Berkeley four years ago. He worked in the chancellorâ€™s office, coping with the aftermath of the Milo Yiannopoulos riot of February 2017, which I witnessed. A historian by academic background, he believes in all the wrong things, such as abolishing the electoral college and the Senate, expanding the Supreme Court, and admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states, for starters. He likes some truly wild-eyed schemes for global-level taxation. In other words, he holds what increasingly have become the mainstream views of the Democratic Party today. In other areas, heâ€™s quirky. Gilman says things about our monied elites that sound like Tucker Carlson. He thinks the only thing worse than conservative indifference or hostility to climate-change action would be conservative embrace of solving climate change, because it would involve "avocado politicsâ€â€”"green on the outside, brown on the inside.â€ Weâ€™ve had a lot of vigorous but cordial arguments about these and many other things.
So it came as a shock to me that, on the brink of a possible constitutional crisis and with cities already on fire, Gilman decided to pour on more gasoline. In a now notorious tweet about Michael Anton, author of the famous "Flight 93 Electionâ€ essay of 2016 and sometime writer for City Journal, Gilman wrote: "Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.â€ Who? Robert Brasillach was a collaborationist writer in the Vichy regime in France. He was executed by firing squad after the liberation for his "intellectual crimes.â€
Gilman now insists that despite the clearly written words "deserves the same fate,â€ he did not mean literally that Anton should be executed. But if Sarah Palin can be accused, as she was by the New York Times editorial page (libel suit still pending), of inciting the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords in 2011, though it was clear within hours that the shooter was a mentally ill individual, youâ€™d think that saying something like "deserves the same fateâ€ as an executed Nazi collaborator would rise to the same standard. We also have in the background the literal example of James Hodgkinson, who was politically motivated in his attempt to kill Republican House members in 2017.
Gilman is not alone, however, in language that goes over the line of late. Charlie Sykes, an anti-Trump conservative, this week tweeted, "For no particular reason, this morning Iâ€™ve been thinking about Nicolae CeauÈ™escuâ€™s last public appearance.â€ The Romanian dictatorâ€™s last public appearance, of course, was the execution of him and his wife following a ten-minute trial. This is not just unsubtle; it isnâ€™t even artful.
There is a broader point here that isnâ€™t about pining for a bygone era of "civilityâ€ in politics. There was no such era. Just check the campaign rhetoric of the election of 1800. Liberals today like to label and deplore "othering.â€ This is often overdone, but it sends me back to something my (and Antonâ€™s) teacher Harry Jaffa wrote more than 40 years ago: "Those who see each other as utterly alien cannot be fellow citizens.â€ But thatâ€™s where we are right now, with large numbers of Americans utterly alienated from many of their fellow citizens. The causes and responsibility for this can be debated another day. Jaffa added: "In a republic, the sobriety of the citizens replaces the force of authority as the principal source of order.â€ If we do have a train-wreck election, it will be the sobriety of Americans that saves us. Singling out individuals by name and suggesting, even by strained analogy, that they deserve the equivalent fate of a Nazi propagandist (or a Romanian dictator) does not promote that virtue.
If this was a Trump kid with billions of dollars from China, Russia and Ukraine the Main Scream Media would have 6 weeks of wall to wall coverage. But alas, true collusion and election interference looks just like this.
Senate Report Links Hunter Biden to 'Prostitution or Human Trafficking Ring'
September 23, 2020
We'll likely see a lot more of this, because the President has promised to name his pick on Saturday, and it's only Wednesday. Plenty of time for the Drive-By Media to beclown itself more.
Trump hasnâ€™t even named his pick to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, and already the media is stepping up to fulfill its role as the propaganda adjunct for the Democratic Party and its leftward-most pressure groups.
â€¢ Like this NBC "Newsâ€ story:
"Criticsâ€ say! Which critics? Iâ€™m surprised they donâ€™t say "expertsâ€ just to give it that special CDC glow. I wonder what Anthony Fauci thinks? How long until the CDC declares that Ginsburg-Grief is a serious health threat that can only be cured if Trump appoints Nina Totenberg to the Supreme Court?
Anyway, to continue:
The women on President Donald Trumpâ€™s shortlist to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court do not reflect Ginsburgâ€™s legacy and could undo key civil rights victories she backed during her 27 years on the court, LGBTQ and civil rights advocates warn.
"Just having a woman, any woman, does not cut it,â€ Sunu P. Chandy, legal director of the progressive National Womenâ€™s Law Center, told NBC News. "We need someone with deep civil rights experience and background if we are looking to fill the legacy of her seat on the court.â€
Itâ€™s really easy to be a reporter in the mainstream media when all you do is rewrite the press releases from leftist interest groups.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasnâ€™t an associate justice of the Supreme Court â€” not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag.
You need not take my word on this: Ask her admirers. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a vision for America,â€ Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post. What was her vision? "To make America fairer, to make justice bigger.â€ That is not a job for a judge â€” that is a job for a legislator. The job of making law properly belongs to â€” some people find this part hard to handle â€” lawmakers. Making law is not the job of the judge. The job of the judge is to see that the law is followed and applied in a given case. It does not matter if the law is unfair or if the law is unjust â€” that is not the judgeâ€™s concern. If you have a vision for America, and desire to make the law more fair or more just, then there is a place for you: Congress. That is where the laws are made.
Justice Ginsburgâ€™s using her position to try to impose a feminist vision on federal policy ought to be recognized for what it was: an abuse of power. If you want to rewrite the law along feminist lines, thatâ€™s a perfectly honorable project â€” run for Congress.The real fissure running through the Supreme Court is not between so-called liberals and notional conservatives, but between those who believe that judges are superlegislators empowered to impose their own vision on society and those who believe that judges are constrained by what the law actually says.
Ginsburgâ€™s legacy is not a body of legal opinions but a deformed and disfigured judiciary, one in which the American people have â€” with good reason â€” lost some measure of faith. Setting that right will be the work of a generation. And that work begins with understanding that a judgeâ€™s concern is not justice or fairness or progress but the law, and that people who want to change the law should run for office.
The entire article is here: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt-understand-her-job/ and I recommend it highly!
Find the rest of the story here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sarah-sanders-democrats-viciously-attack-coney-barrett
The same Democrats who "lecture us about empowering women" have wasted little time attacking Judge Amy Coney Barrett, believed to be the frontrunner for President Trump's nomination to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told "Hannity" Tuesday.
"President Trump hasn't even named who he will nominate to the Supreme Court," Sanders told host Sean Hannity, "and they have already started aggressively and viciously attacking Judge Barrett, one of the potential nominees -- a very conservative, strong woman."
"They are attacking her for her Christian faith," Sanders went on."Let's not forget these are the same liberals who lecture us about empowering women when the truth is, they are nothing but liars and hypocrites who are only trying to empower themselves and their radical agenda."
Barrett, 48, a judge with the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is a pro-life Roman Catholic who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after she graduated from Notre Dame Law School.
Barrett, long a favorite of conservatives, was one of a handful of judges considered to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy after he retired from the high court in 2018. Trump ultimately nominated Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed that fall after a brutal confirmation battle.
Sanders urged Republicans "to send a clear and strong message that we will not tolerate the liberal mob.
52 queries taking 0.2269 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.