Even though leftists have damaged the Supreme Court beyond repair by legislating from the bench and trying to ruin the lives of conservative nominees with sketchy sexual assault allegations from more than 30 years ago, several Senate Democrats issued a bizarre warning to the court this week by challenging them to “heal” division or else face “restructuring” in the future — which is to say, vote liberal or else have conservatives rotated off the court.
“The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law,” reports Fox News. “The [brief] was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an ‘industrial-strength influence campaign’ to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY), who all took issue with recent conservative majority rulings.
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”
Do the senators actually believe that the conservative justices will fold and side with the liberals to keep up with appearances? Perhaps not, though Chief Justice John Roberts has shown himself to cave in to political pressure in the face of Democratic bullying, as demonstrated by his infamous vote in favor of Obamacare.
The brief comes shortly after 2020 hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) openly stated during the Democratic Party presidential debate that he would rotate conservative justices off the Supreme Court if he became president.
“I do not believe in packing the court,” Bernie proposed. “We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America.”
Shortly before her election to U.S. Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) openly stated that Democrats should pack the Supreme Court. “I think that we take back the House, we take back the Senate, we take back the presidency, and we pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America,” she said.
Even liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have denounced the proposition of court-packing. Speaking with NPR, Ginsburg criticized past attempts to pack the Supreme Court, such as when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to do so in the 1930s.
“Nine seems to be a good number,” the justice said. “It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”
America largely agrees with both Ginsburg and Breyer, with a recent Rasmussen poll indicating that Americans would rather see term limits on the Supreme Court before they see court-packing.
Like a SuperPAC, a GoFundMe can be created in your name without your compliance or participation.
Justice Kavanaugh has made it clear that he doesn’t want the money that was raised on his behalf.
Citing judicial ethics concerns, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined more than $600,000 that was donated to aid his family during the firestorm over sexual misconduct allegations that plagued his confirmation. The judge’s decision was announced on Tuesday in a message posted on the online fundraising page that gathered the funds.
“Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose.”
That’s the right thing to do. Now it’s Christine Ford’s turn. Her GoFundMes have raised around a million dollars.
Two GoFundMe accounts have raised more than $842,000 for Ford, and the money is still coming in weeks after she testified and left the spotlight. The total does not include a third account collecting $120,000 for an academic endowment in her name.
As Paul Sperry noted, she doesn’t need the money.
“The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up,” Ford said in a recent statement posted on the GoFundMe page of the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign, which is still bringing in donations. “Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.”
GoFundMe spokeswoman Katherine Cichy told RealClearInvestigations that Ford and her husband can withdraw as much as they want whenever they want for any purpose. Payments would be electronically deposited into the Fords’ bank account within two to five business days of initiating withdrawals.
Transportation and housing don’t cost anywhere in that neighborhood. Unless she’s being protected by the Swiss Guards, neither does security. Legal costs could be quite high, but those were already covered by her people.
Some question the necessity of the financial assistance given that much of the costs associated with Ford’s testimony – including all of her legal fees plus a polygraph examination – were covered by Democratic attorneys assigned to her by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, committee sources say; panel Democrats were allotted half of a $1 million committee fund for transportation, security, investigations and other expenses associated with the tumultuous confirmation process. The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police also provided “heightened security” for Ford.
Kavanaugh rejected his GoFundMe haul, there’s no sign that Ford is doing the same.
Dr. Christine Blasey heads Stanford University’s CIA Undergraduate Internship Program. She is accusing Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct.
The Senate votes on Wednesday on whether or not Kavanaugh should be confirmed to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Blasey is listed as an affiliate at Stanford University in the Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
Last year, the following article appeared in her local newspaper, the Mercury News. It is copied and pasted here:
In the same hometown paper, a Letter to the Editor about Judge Kavanaugh was “PUBLISHED” on Sept. 19th, 2014. It was “UPDATED” four years later on Sept. 18, 2018.
It is linked here:
Christine Blasey’s brother used to work for the international law firm of Baker, Hostetler. The firm created Fusion GPS.
Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies called Red Coats Inc., Admiral Security Services, and Datawatch,
They are operated by Ralph Blasey II. He is the father of Christine and Ralph III.
Christine and Ralph III’s grandfather was Nicholas Deak. Former CIA Director William Casey acknowledged Deak’s decades of service to the CIA. The story is linked here:
The Observer-Reporter, Washington, Pa., dated Nov. 19th, 1985, Page C-3.
85-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has told a foreign TV audience that the Constitution of the United States is “outdated” and inferior to the South African Constitution, raising serious concerns regarding her mental state and suitability for ongoing employment.
Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing liberal activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservatives (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.
But conservatives have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. The simple fact is they don’t respect it at all. They dream of dismantling it.
Justice Ginsburg, 85, is a prime example of this type of liberalism. Speaking to an Egyptian TV interviewer, the Supreme Court justice caused jaws to drop when claimed that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt’s new government.
The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution…” Justice Ginsberg said. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
Never mind the fact that South Africa is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the South African government is currently seizing land from white farmers without compensation. Petty concerns like that do not concern elite liberals.
Daily Signal reports: Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.
For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, filled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission: “A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read.
Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.
Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify.
Americans should be very wary of those who would seek to upend the Constitution from the firm grounding in human nature that has allowed it to endure for more than two centuries and would transform it into an instrument devoted to policies of passing whimsy.
Illegal aliens dying on the border are given autopsies. Unlike the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, officials are performing an autopsy on Prince too.
It’s revealing how officials and the media are demanding to know what killed Prince, yet they never bothered to ask how exactly Scalia died, even though the justice’s demise left American politics with an uncertain future.
“An autopsy is scheduled to be performed Friday on the body of seven-time Grammy winner Prince, but the results of the autopsy will not be made public for days or even weeks,” Fox News reported.
But if officials are willing to perform an autopsy on Prince, there’s no reason why they couldn’t on Scalia.
In fact, Scalia deserved an autopsy even more than Prince: not only was he was found dead at a resort linked to the Bohemian Grove during Valentine weekend, but Scalia was often the lone justice blocking globalist legislation with his deciding vote.
“Unlike elected politicians who are bought-and-paid-for by special interests, judges, especially life-serving Supreme Court justices, not only interpret existing law but often make decisions that become rooted in case law, and those decisions can affect every man, woman, and child in the United States,” journalist Wayne Madsen pointed out.
Why is Prince getting an AUTOPSY but not a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? Answer- one of them was blocking a takeover. pic.twitter.com/LgsobADCJE
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) April 22, 2016
It isn’t a stretch to suggest that foul play was involved in Scalia’s death – and the lack of an autopsy indicates both foul play and a cover-up.
“…Even dead Mexican migrants found in the desert received better treatment than Scalia,” Madsen continued. “One such death last year not only involved an autopsy but the area where the migrant’s body was found was secured as a potential crime scene.”
“[Former Presidio Co. Deputy] Melendez said that sudden or unattended deaths like that of Scalia are always treated as homicides until deemed otherwise from collected evidence, including, at a minimum, an eyes-on inquest. Scalia’s family requested that no autopsy be performed but Texas law requires a legitimate medical inquest, which was not conducted in Scalia’s case.”
If what we are learning about Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America—by minting 15 million new Americans from socialist and Islamic immigrants—is true, it is time to sound the alarm! Obama’s plan incorporates a strategy of embedding entitlement-oriented illegals strategically throughout America, then giving them privileged status and financial influence within their communities—protected to a great extent by special legal status and large amounts of entitlement money.
The desire is to entitle illegals with more community clout than they would otherwise enjoy, if they had actually had to earn it. There is no work ethic involved. Everything is to be handed to these people—unless sounding the alarm bells across America might warn local policy-makers in time for them to strategize some means of fighting this. It is not okay to transform America by the transplantation into our society of aliens who will be immediately entitled, then registered as Democrat voters, to continue the process. If Obama succeeds in doing this, the evil results will prove hard to undo!
OS (Obama State) “A Country Within A Country”
Sarah Noble, of the Independent Sentinel, reported on February 28, 2015, that President Obama has plans to create up to 15 million “new Americans” that will become citizens of a “country within a country.” (See Ms. Noble’s story here)
Illegal-aliens, according to an interview with Susan Payne, conducted by Mark Levin, these “new Americans” are to start coming “out of the shadows” in communities where Obama has secretly placed them. These communities are “receiving communities.” The “new Americans” are “seedlings” in their “fertile ground.”
Legal American citizens are to be cast into the shadows, in addition to helping the “new Americans” emerge from them. Under Obamacare and Obama’s executive actions on immigration, employers pay $3,000 if citizen new-hires are eligible for tax credits to buy health insurance. But illegals are not eligible, so hiring them saves employers $3,000 each. Also, Obama is giving each illegal three years’ worth of tax refunds, even if they did not work in the US during the last three years. Many of Obama’s beneficiaries are convicted criminals and radical Muslims.
These “new Americans” are Obama’s idea of how to fundamentally transform America on the backs of legal citizens, through entitlement money awarded based on Obama’s designation of these people as political refugees. Refugees are entitled to a monetary allowance, along with free housing, food, education, and medicine, and a path to citizenship.
Assimilation Is Not the Goal
President Obama’s goal is not one of assimilation. He wants the “new Americans” to form the nucleus of a new, socialistic American culture, built upon government dependency. It is to be a culture that values Obama-style Big Government. Legal Americans are expected to align with this new culture. The entire character of the country is to be transformed into one of dependency in key areas, with the intention that there will be a dramatic shift from loving freedom to loving entitlement.
As foundational to a new America, these immigrants will be encouraged not to assimilate. The American people are to have no say in this matter. Obama, who rules by fiat, disrespecting the checks and balances of the co-equal branches of our democratic republic, is truly the first American dictator; Obama makes law, with or without the consent of the governed.
Eavesdropping on Tyranny
Susan Payne, a contributor to WCBM in Baltimore, and co-host of the Pat McDonough Radio Show, came by this startling information by eavesdropping on conference calls at an immigration rally. Cecilia Munoz, the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council (who has ties to La Raza), along with 16 members of the White House cabinet, were on the first conference call; and officials representing the Obama White House were on all three calls.
An Illegal HUD Plan
The Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) passed a rule, in July of 2013, to allow Obama’s social engineering. The illegal plan was reversed by a federal court, but these kinds of things do not matter to authoritarians. Obama seems to be going forward with the plan, violating the order of Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the same way he has recently violated the cease-and-desist order of Federal Judge Hamen, in Texas, to stop preparing illegal documents for Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty program. Without an honorable president who will submit to American rule of law, our free republic can easily fall prey to the vicissitudes of a pen-and-phone dictatorial regime!
The Open Border
For almost a year now, Obama has enforced an open border—which runs counter to the guarantee, in the US Constitution, that the commander-in-chief will protect our borders from invasion—and many violent criminals and Islamic terrorists have crossed into America, unimpeded, as a result. All of these people will soon be entitled to receive amnesty; and so will the new immigrants Obama has imported from the Middle East (which means many anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Muslims are also flowing into the country).
Obama has ordered the US Border Patrol and ICE to allow the invaders ingress; and Obama has, further, ordered US border agents to hold their fire, even if fired upon. Last year, at least one border agent was killed by illegals who came over the border at Obama’s invitation. Obama has insisted the border is safe, and has mocked conservatives by joking that, the next thing you know, conservatives would be wanting a moat, filled with crocodiles, to protect America. (Watch reminder footage of Obama’s irreverent mocking here:
President Obama often rules America by use of “executive memos” (as opposed to executive orders) in order to keep the number of new laws he has written under the public radar. He did this on November 21, 2014, when he issued the “Presidential Memorandum—Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees” for the purpose of implementing his scheme to fundamentally transform America through illegal immigration. Part of the mission of the task force is to provide entitlements to the “new Americans” as they come out of the shadows as new first-class citizens who will be privileged, in many ways, above and beyond legal citizens.
Secret Travel Plans
Last summer, President Obama planted “new Americans” in select neighborhoods across the country. Some traveled by plane, and some by bus, but they all had one thing in common: President Obama was not telling where they were settled. Obama’s goal was to get the biggest effect by the strategic placement of each group of illegals. There were actually more adults than there were children, contrary to the information the government gave to an uncritical, sycophantic press. We know this from reports given by border patrol agents, before the president issued his gag order, banning them from speaking on the matter, as well as from taking any pictures with their iPhones.
What we know from reports in the New York Times is that there have been many illegals planted in states with large numbers of electoral votes (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html). Obama’s plan is to turn big states—even conservative ones like Texas—“blue” beyond repair. These states are being seeded with “seedlings” that spring from socialist countries in Central America. This will be bad news, breaking the banks of states that have been responsible in balancing their budgets. It is all part of the fundamental transformation of America—none of it according to the rule of law.
It appears that the US Supreme Court might do well to weigh in on matters, since Obama seems to be ignoring a host of federal court rulings. But will an emboldened Obama—who has been picking up steam in his defiance of almost every check on his authority—even care at this point what nine justices have to say? Perhaps, if we are lucky, our new potentate will take what they have to say under advisement—before he makes his next outlandish move.