VIDEO: “Corrupt” Andrew Gillum vs. FBI Investigation

Andrew Gillum, Socialist candidate for Governor in Florida, is in a massive battle with TV station over airing a Republican commercial about Gillum’s corruption investigation in Tallahassee FL. Check out Tom Trento’s brief comments on how unhinged Comrade Gillum is becoming as the FBI investigation deepens.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Andrew Gillum campaign demands TV stations pull GOP ad attacking his ties to FBI investigation

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

Fellow Alum of Andrew Gillum’s running mate: “[Chris] King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple.”

VIDEOS: Why Socialist Andrew Gillum is “Unfit to Lead” Florida

Why Did Gillum’s Campaign Share a Building with a Taxpayer-Funded Solar Project and His Consulting Firm?

EDITORS NOTE: The modified featured photo is by Steve Halama on Unsplash.

PODCAST: David Harsanyi on America’s Enduring History With the Gun

On today’s show we feature an interview with David Harsanyi, author of the new book “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun.” Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and is a nationally syndicated columnist whose column appears weekly on The Daily Signal.

Also on today’s show:

  • Ken Starr, who served as independent counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency, discusses impeachment, the Mueller investigation, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
  • We feature your letters to the editor. Don’t forget, your letter could be featured on our show; write us at letters@dailysignal.com or call 202-608-6205.
  • And some good news from two of America’s favorite quarterbacks.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunesSoundCloudStitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.

If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show!

PODCAST BY

Liberal Activists Just Made a Website Using Kavanaugh’s Name. That Could Be Illegal.

After enduring weeks of character attacks and a disgraceful media lynching, Brett Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court. But some activists still aren’t letting it go.

In a new assault on Kavanaugh, a liberal advocacy group has created a website called “brettkavanaugh.com.”

Instead of containing accurate, truthful information about the justice’s professional credentials and legal career, the webpage instead is about sexual assault. The first thing the viewer sees is a banner headline saying, “We Believe Survivors.”

This is another hit job on Kavanaugh.

Aside from misleading the public about him, this website may very well break the law by constituting an unlawful theft of Kavanaugh’s property interest in his name.

The webpage was put up by a group called Fix the Court, run by Gabe Roth, a former NBC producer who also worked for a left-leaning political consulting firm. Fix the Court is entirely funded by the New Venture Fund, which, according to the Capital Research Center, is a “major funding organization for left-wing organizations as well as the fiscal sponsor of a number of activist groups like [Fix the Court].”

The New Venture Fund has been “criticized as a ‘dark money organization’ for serving as a way for left-wing groups to anonymously funnel money toward advocacy issues, such as attacking Republicans.”

As the Capital Research Center says, although Fix the Court purports to be nonpartisan, “Gabe Roth is highly critical of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.” This is clearly demonstrated in the way Roth used Kavanaugh’s name in the website domain.

Roth has used Fix the Court to push for term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as live television coverage of oral arguments. He has also pushed for a requirement that justices file detailed financial disclosure reports to be published online. (For the record, Fix the Court doesn’t disclose its donors on its own website.)

Roth has said that he believes the claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford despite their inconsistencies, the lack of corroborating evidence, and outright refutations by some of the alleged witnesses.

Congress has shown concern for the misuse of names in website domains. In 1999, it passed a federal law (15 U.S.C. §8131) that allows an individual to sue any person who “registers a domain name that consists of the name of” that individual without his or her consent “with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain.”

Roth may not fall within this federal statute unless it can be proven he registered Kavanaugh’s domain name in order to sell it for financial gain.

But Roth and Fix the Court may still be liable for what they have done. On its website, Fix the Court lists its office as being located in the District of Columbia. Therefore, D.C. law applies to its operations.

The District of Columbia recognizes the common law tort of misappropriation of another person’s name or likeness. In several decisions, including Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s (1985) and Tripp v. U.S. (2003), the D.C. courts have adopted the Second Restatement of the Law on Torts. Section 652C of the restatement provides that anyone “who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.”

The comments to Section 652 make it clear that the interest protected by this rule “is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity.” Unlike the federal statute, a violation does not require that someone like Roth acquire the name in order to make a profit, although there seems little doubt that Roth and Fix the Court may profit from increased donations due to the attention given to the website.

In fact, the restatement says that the rule “is not limited to commercial appropriation.” It applies when a “defendant makes use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for his own purposes and benefits, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.”

Here, Roth is using the public’s interest in Kavanaugh to benefit his organization by bringing attention, support, and possible donations to Fix the Court and its advocacy against Kavanaugh. That public benefit falls squarely within the rule according to Tripp v. U.S., in which the court pointed out that the types of benefits contemplated under the restatement include “reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or other values of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.”

Roth’s use of Kavanaugh’s name is clearly not just “incidental,” and might well violate the misappropriation rule.

This kind of misappropriation of internet domain names of celebrities, government officials, and even ordinary Americans in order to fool the public into going to such a site and reading derogatory or misleading information about that person is another unpleasant and obnoxious misuse of the internet in the social media age.

No one should have a right to use someone else’s name or likeness in this manner. Roth, Fix the Court, and the New Venture Fund should be embarrassed that they are engaging in such deceitful, underhanded, and potentially unlawful behavior.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with photographs is republished with permission. The feature image is of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/Sipa/Newscom)

The Left Lost on Kavanaugh, So Now They Want to Abolish the Senate

After every political defeat, the left seems to blame anyone but themselves. Instead, they lash out at our political institutions.

Whether it’s seeking to pack the Supreme Court, removing President Donald Trump from office by stretching the intent of the 25th Amendment, or calling on low-level bureaucrats to “resist” the president’s policies, the left has had no shortage of terrible ideas in the past year alone.

Given the level of rage following Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, it was no surprise that the left took aim at the fundamental framework of our constitutional system.

Many progressives are now blaming the Electoral College and the Senate for defeat because they aren’t democratic enough. Worse, they’ve claimed that these institutions were simply designed to protect slavery, which is an incorrect and absurd distortion of the truth.

Ken Norton, a Google executive, tweeted out that we should abolish the Senate after it became clear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed.

“Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans,” read a headline by The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who wrote that the Senate violates the concept that “all men are created equal.”

These weren’t the only attacks on the role of the Senate.

The Electoral College has been under siege since 2016 when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton despite not winning the popular vote.

But the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for a national plebiscite to elect presidents. Instead, they wanted to preserve federalism by creating the best system of majority rule with a necessary protection of the minority.

This new criticism of the Senate falls on similar ground as the attacks on the Electoral College.

The left now portrays the Senate as a dark, Republican conspiracy—another vestige of slavery meant to keep Democrats down and out of power.

The Founders created the Senate for several reasons—no, not to promote slavery or ensure the Democratic Party couldn’t win in 2018. Instead, it was the result of a compromise and the desire to preserve the concept of federalism.

Representatives of small states worried that the interests of larger states would overwhelm them, large states wanted to base representation on population for obvious reasons. The solution, in part, was to create two branches of the legislature—one based on population and one that treats large and small states equally.

The Founders gave these bodies specific powers: the Senate would give advice and consent on executive branch nominees, and the House would control spending.

In this way, our system is mixed, with the House representing “democracy” and the Senate representing the equal power of states within a federal system. The Senate, as the smaller body with longer terms, could also act as the more tempered branch of Congress. This would be set against the more bumptious, tumultuous, and democratic House.

This hasn’t always been the case, but it does show how the Founders were always concerned about placing checks on power. They trusted the people to rule themselves, but feared their power to rule others. They did not want to replace one tyrant with millions of others.

It should be noted that the complaints over the “unfairness” of the Senate’s role confirming Supreme Court justices fails to take into consideration that the court itself—where justices serve for life or on good behavior—is a more or less undemocratic institution.

This was by design. The Founders wanted our government to have democratic elements—like the House—but did not think democracy was a good way to create good government or protect God-given rights, the basis of our constitutional system.

“[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself,”wrote John Adams. “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Beyond the intentions of the Founders, is there truth in the idea that this system is simply unfair to Democrats? There would perhaps be some validity to it if all small states were predominately Republican.

But the truth is that the composition of the Senate also helps states that are very small and very blue, like Connecticut and Rhode Island. Kyle Sammin explained in The Federalist how the Senate actually helps and hurts both parties and that the narrative that it only benefits Republicans is incorrect.

“[T]he focus on small states as Republican strongholds does not survive even the gentlest scrutiny,” Sammin wrote. “The senators from the 10 smallest states are nine Democrats, nine Republicans, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. That’s an 11-9 split in Democrats’ favor.”

The fact is, bulldozing the Senate is an all-around bad idea. Worse, it would be more or less unconstitutional. Article V mandates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The odds of small states sacrificing their power is virtually nil. The only real way to get rid of the Senate is if we essentially overthrew the Constitution—though it seems some on the far left wouldn’t have an issue with that these days.

In more practical terms we should be wary before we let poor losers upend our most valuable and enduring institutions for short-term political gain. That is how republics die and tyranny thrives.

Fortunately, our Founders had the foresight to create obstacles to such temporary madness from even the people themselves—barriers like the Senate.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Vandals Hit NYC GOP Headquarters: ‘Attack Is Merely A Beginning’


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with images with permission. Photo: Ken Cedeno/UPI/Newscom

Stanford University: Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted by Leftist-Fascist

This incident is one of many recent indications of the fact that the increasingly authoritarian Left, having comprehensively lost the public debate, is more and more resorting to violence in order to intimidate those whom it hates into silence. Then, taking a page from their jihadist allies, Leftist thugs turn around and claim victimhood, as we see from the predictable piece in the egregious Stanford Daily, “Change my mind: SCR’s only concern with violence is how to use it,” by Justin Wilck.

In that article, young Wilck claims that the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that the violence was directed against them, and the additional fact that they have never called for violence or approved of violence, are the real violent ones. They did this also when Stanford student Hamzeh Daoud vowed to physically assault supporters of Israel on campus. It’s a total inversion of reality, and it’s ideologically based: these Stanford Leftists are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they think that if a victim of a crime is an ideological enemy, and the perpetrator a comrade, then the true victim must be the perpetrator, and the true evildoer the one who suffered the injury.

Instead of being taught how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and determine the truth and falsehood of an assertion, Stanford students are being taught that adherence to the Leftist ideology and all that matters, and those who dare to dissent can justifiably be physically assaulted as well as libeled.

And so Justin Wilck, in the time-honored fashion of the Stanford Daily, can’t talk about the Stanford College Republicans without including a lie about me: “Did SCR care last November when Robert Spencer published students’ personal information and his followers sent them threatening emails?” I did not, of course, publish any students’ personal information. In reality, I responded point-by-point to attack pieces, most of them loaded with libels about my work and my character, written and signed by Stanford students. If these students hadn’t wanted their names known, they should have written the pieces anonymously. But in a civilized world of genuine rational discourse, which is, of course, quite far from what takes place at Stanford today, those who disagree have discussions based on evidence, and one side doesn’t start whining that “personal information” was published if the other side responds to attacks.

This is, however, the level of discourse that one would expect from Stanford students today. My event there last November was forcibly disrupted by administrators and fascist students, and the Leftists there still crow about their destruction of the possibility of genuine discussion and free discourse. The Left doesn’t want discussion or debate. Leftists want to silence their foes, by violence if necessary. We see that in arenas small and large, from Melinda Hernandez’s assault of John Rice-Cameron here all the way to the Stalinist gulags. In Stanford, the next generation of gulag guards is being trained now.

“Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted at Pro-Kavanaugh Event,” by Kristina Wong, Breitbart, October 10, 2018:

Stanford College Republicans said Tuesday that John David Rice-Cameron, its president and son of former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, was assaulted that day at a event at Stanford University, where he is a sophomore.

“Today, SCR experienced the violent and totalitarian behavior of the unhinged Stanford left. During a ‘Change My Mind’ tabling event regarding the presumption of innocence and the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, SCR’s President was assaulted by Melinda Hernandez. A sophomore at Stanford, Hernandez approached our President, hit him in chest and forcefully pushed him back,” the group posted on Facebook.

“Our President is pressing full charges against Hernandez. Violence is completely unacceptable, and we will not allow anyone to get away with it. Throughout the day, our signs were vandalized and destroyed, and we will be posting more video and photos shortly. Stay tuned,” it said.

The group posted pictures, including of sheriff’s deputies on the scene and a torn up poster.

Later, the group posted video of three students attempting to vandalize the table the Stanford College Republicans had set up.

“In addition to having our President assaulted by the violent and unhinged Melinda Hernandez, SCR members were harassed at yesterday’s ‘Change My Mind’ table throughout the day. Leftists vandalized and destroyed our signs, threw paint and water at our members, and hurled insults and profanities for hours. This is the state of poltical discourse at Stanford University: defined by the violent and childlish [sic] antics of the unhinged left.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video was originally published on Jihad Watch.

Michael Cutler: Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner Says Illegal Immigration Contributes to Chicago Gun Violence

Former INS Agent Michael Cutler joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

FULL VIDEO: Kanye West’s Meeting With President Donald Trump At The White House | NBC News

NBC News published the YouTube video below with this report:

On Thursday, rapper Kanye West met with President Trump in the Oval Office for a discussion on prison reform. While reporters were present, West delivered a long speech on a range of topics, including racism, liberalism, the universe, and more.


ABOUT NBC NEWS

NBC News is a leading source of global news and information. Here you will find clips from NBC Nightly News, Meet The Press, and original digital videos. Subscribe to our channel for news stories, technology, politics, health, entertainment, science, business, and exclusive NBC investigations. Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC. Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews.

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Is CNN: Network Slimes Kanye as ‘a Man Who’s Clearly Not Okay’

MSNBC Hosts Suffer On-Air Meltdown After Kanye Meets With Trump

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an official White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian.

Trump Isn’t Stopping With Kavanaugh. He Just Nominated 13 More Judges.

President Donald Trump announced his 18th wave of judicial nominees Wednesday night, just four days after the Senate confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s nominees include two candidates for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and three for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd Circuit is based in New York City and has jurisdiction over New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The 9th Circuit is based in San Francisco and hears appeals arising from nine Western states as well as the outlying Pacific territories.

Michael Park of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, a litigation boutique with a conservative bent, and Judge Joseph Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York were tapped for the 2nd Circuit, while Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee were selected for the 9th Circuit. Bumatay is a federal prosecutor. Collins and Lee are appellate advocates in private practice.

Trump has struggled to secure confirmations to both courts. The president’s sole confirmation to the 9th Circuit, Judge Mark Bennett, is a largely unknown quantity with questionable conservative bona fides. A second 9th Circuit nominee, Ryan Bounds, lost a narrow floor vote due to racially tinged opinion columns he wrote as an undergraduate at Stanford University.

The Senate has yet to confirm a Trump nominee to the 2nd Circuit.

As the Supreme Court hears less than 80 cases per years, circuit courts issue final judgement in the overwhelming majority of federal cases.

The package also includes eight nominees for trial courts in California, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee.

The Senate may move on further judicial confirmations before the November elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to forward nine nominations to the full Senate for final confirmation on Thursday, and a confirmation hearing for lower court nominees is scheduled for Oct. 17. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will seek terms with Democrats to confirm a package of judges before the chamber adjourns for the midterms.

“There are still tools that I have available, that’s why I canceled the August recess,” McConnell told Politico on Saturday. “And that’s something I’ll discuss with Sen. [Chuck] Schumer before we leave for the election.”

With Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the Senate has installed 69 of Trump’s nominees on the federal courts. Another 30 currently await final floor action. Trump set a record for appeals court confirmations during the first year of a presidency in 2017.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Daley

Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of U.S. President Donald Trump smiling as he makes remarks at a “Face-to-Face With Our Future” event at the EEOB next to the White House in Washington, DC on June 27, 2018. The event was was with young Americans learning and excelling in various professions. Photo by Pat Benic/UPI [Photo via Newscom]

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: US Senate Candidate EXPOSED; “We don’t say that out of these walls.”

Tennessee: US Senate Candidate Phil Bredesen’s staff says he is lying about Kavanaugh vote in Undercover Video. “It’s a political move.”

Bredesen Staff Thinks Tennessee Voters Are “Ignorant”.

In an apparent Vote-Grab, Bredesen says he would vote YES on Kavanaugh but staffers say he wouldn’t, “It’s politics.”

His Lie was “a political move” that staffers call “gross.”

Bredesen wants to appear “Moderate” Rather Than Liberal – Bredesen’s Campaign Staff Report they are “all here” to Run Against Trump, “he hates Trump.”

Staffer confides “we’re trying to make it so it’s not about Democrats…” BUT “between you and me once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Blue Wave: “This isn’t about everything else… this is for the Blue Wave…” “we don’t say that out of these walls.”

On Alliance with Senate Democratic Leader Schumer: “Even though that’s all why we’re all here. We can’t put it out there.”

View the video:

#WalkAway Founder: Democrats are Jumping Ship over Kavanaugh Smear by Stephanie Hamill [VIDEO]

WATCH:

Brandon Straka, the openly gay former Democrat behind the recent movement to #Walkaway from liberalism says he has seen an uptick in the number of people who say they’re ‘walking away’ from the Democratic party.

He says hundreds of people have reached out to him since the Justice Brett Kavanaugh battle started, and he began receiving more video testimonials and messages from people who say they will now vote Republican because of the smear campaign launched against Kavanaugh.

Straka also talks about the first #WalkAway Campaign march he will be hosting in Washington D.C. on Oct 26-28th. For more details about the event, you can visit WalkAwayMarch.com .

“America Uncensored” is a Daily Caller program dedicated to political stories dominating the news cycle. TheDC’s Stephanie Hamill is a straight shooter who isn’t afraid to tell you what she thinks.

Hamill has put the Left on blast for turning a blind eye to the violent MS-13 gang, talked about the Left’s war on white men and highlighted the dangers of socialized medicine in some of her recent monologues. Check out a few of Hamill’s other greatest videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel to avoid missing out.


SUBSCRIBE HERE!


NOW CHECK OUT The Daily Caller’s Most Popular Shows:

Would You Rather Date A Trump Supporter or MS-13 Gang Member?

‘Trophy Culture’ Hijacks New Jersey High School Cheer Squad

Fact Checking White House ‘Truth Seekers’ On North Korea

UK High Court Rules That Declining to Bake ‘Gay Cake’ Isn’t Discrimination

The highest court in the United Kingdom has ruled that a Christian bakery’s refusal to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination.

The U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that the Northern Ireland-based family bakery, Ashers Baking Co., did not discriminate against a gay customer in 2014 by refusing to make the cake.

The cake’s icing was to include the “Sesame Street” characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan “Support Gay Marriage,” according to a report by the BBC.

Daniel and Amy McArthur, the married owners of the Belfast bakery, argued in court that they could not produce products with messages that go against their Christian faith.

Gareth Lee, the customer, sued the bakery on the grounds that its owners discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation and political beliefs.

Lee is a gay rights activist and campaigner.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a public body established by law in Northern Ireland, supported Lee both legally and financially throughout the case. The commission offers “protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex, and sexual orientation.”

Lee had ordered the cake for a civic event in another city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, the BBC reported. Another bakery made the cake.

Brenda Hale, president of the court, said in her ruling that “it is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief.”

“But that is not what happened in this case,” Hale said, speaking for the 12-member high court.

“They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” she said of the McArthurs.

What has been dubbed the “gay cake” case made its way to the U.K. Supreme Court after lower courts found the bakers to have discriminated against Lee. This was the first case from Northern Ireland that the Supreme Court has heard, according to CBS News.

So far the case has cost the bakery around 200,000 pounds (about $264,000). The Christian Institute, a charity and lobbying group, is paying the bakery’s legal expenses.

“I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone,” Daniel McArthur told BBC News.

McArthur has said his bakery took issue with the requested slogan and not Lee’s sexual orientation or political beliefs.

“We didn’t say no because of the customer; we’d served him before, we’d serve him again,” McArthur told the BCC in June at the start of the Supreme Court case.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization that litigates religious liberty cases and has an international affiliate, approved of the court’s ruling.

“The U.K. Supreme Court recognized that artists and other professionals don’t discriminate when they object ‘to the message, not the messenger,’” Kristen Waggoner, vice president of the organization’s U.S. legal division, said in a press release provided to The Daily Signal.

“The court also affirmed the fundamental freedom of Ashers Bakery’s owners to decline to express through one of their cakes ‘a message with which they deeply disagreed,’” Waggoner said.

The case in Northern Ireland has some similarities to the case of Colorado “cake artist” Jack Phillips, which Waggoner argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lee, however, said the case had nothing to do with freedom of speech or conscience, and that the ruling made him feel like a second-class citizen.

“To me, this was never about conscience or a statement. All I wanted to do was to order a cake in a shop,” he said.

“Too many people seem to think that every disagreement is discrimination,” Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of the book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” told The Daily Signal in an email.

“Thankfully the court correctly noted that the objection in this case was to the message, not the customer,” Anderson said, adding:

We live in societies where citizens disagree about the nature and purpose of marriage. No one should be punished simply because they believe and act on the belief that marriage unites husband and wife. That’s the only way to protect pluralism—to peacefully coexist—in the midst of disagreement.

Hale, for her part, said her ruling was not intended to diminish the need for protecting gays and lesbians and those who support same-sex marriage.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


COLUMN BY

Troy Worden

Troy Worden is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of Daniel and Amy McArthur, owners of Ashers Baking Co. (Photo: Victoria Jones/Zuma Press/Newscom)

VIDEO: Choose Wisely — Next Governor of Florida Will Appoint Three Supreme Court Justices

If radical socialist Andrew Gillum is elected governor of Florida on November 6, 2018, he will most likely appoint three Florida Supreme Court Justices who agree with his “progressive” agenda.

The Gillum Agenda includes massive governmental bureaucracy, increased taxes, decreased law enforcement, legalized recreational marijuana, open borders making Florida a sanctuary state! Make no mistake about it, Andrew Gillum’s political philosophy is based upon the core ideological beliefs of Marxists, like Stalin, Lenin and Marx himself!

Floridians, get out and vote intelligently on November 6, 2018!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Anti-Capitalism Group: Andrew Gillum ‘By Far’ Best Candidate ‘In Pushing Our Revolutionary Vision’

Hillary Clinton Backs Harassment of Conservatives, Says “You Can’t be Civil With” Republicans

Pro-Abortion Professor Who Said White Republican Men Should Be Castrated Placed on “Research” Leave

Ocasio-Cortez: The Electoral College is a Shadow of Slavery!

The Democratic Candidate for New York’s 14th Congressional District, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, continued to display her less than superior intelligence on Saturday when she tweeted that the Electoral College was a “shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.”

There are many reasons one could validly employ in arguing that the Electoral College ought not be used in selecting the President. Those arguments include the underrepresentation of urban areas and the apparent inconsistency of a victorious president who fails to win the popular vote.  I understand these arguments and am willing to debate against them.  But claiming that the Electoral College represents some outcrop of slavery is not merely an immensely unsubstantiated charge, its promotion serves only to reveal its proponent’s complete ignorance.

The Electoral College is a method by which the President of the United States is elected that employs electoral votes instead of popular votes.  Those electoral votes are loosely proportional to each state’s population and serve to grant slightly greater weight to those less populous states; states that tend to be more agrarian in nature.

The Electoral College is an outcrop of the tension between those larger, more commercial states and those smaller, more agrarian states at the time of our nation’s founding.  Although those states were largely separated by latitudes back then, today the battle lines are more properly drawn between the urban coastal centers and the nation’s agrarian midsection, erasing whatever shadows Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be divining.

Moreover, the selection of the Electoral College as the system by which the President is chosen springs from the philosophical presumption that the President of the United States answers to the states.  It is because he or she is subservient to the states that the states ought to be given the responsibility of electing the President.  This concept was a foundational precept for the nation’s creation.

But if her wildly erroneous comment about the Electoral College and slavery’s power were insufficient to demonstrate her ignorance, her charge that it “undermines our nation as a democratic republic” does.

The Electoral College is the centerpiece of our republican system of government because it places an extra tier of representation within the democratic process.  Not only is each state a republican system of government, but also by making sure that the states elect the President, we have essentially created a second republic.  This concept of multiple republics under the auspices of a larger one is the essence of federalism and provides an extra layer of protection for the minority.

For Ocasio-Cortez not to recognize these concepts as the Democratic candidate in a general election defies belief.  Quite frankly, the notion that any district within this great Republic would ever cast its vote for her is even more inexplicable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: Almost a Third of Millennials Identify as Socialists

The History Russians and Communists Want Us to Forget

RELATED VIDEO: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls to abolish Electoral College

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important

Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself.

I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the “correct” position on a matter.

In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court?

In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one.

In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges.  Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That’s politics. That’s the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench?

The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen.

In a women’s conference at Princeton University last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said,

“It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process.”

Important to whom?

Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That’s because the Court is in fact not impartial.

And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court?  Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government — a chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall.

In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis’s book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. “You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he said. “A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” (emphasis added)

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It’s time to allow the Court’s opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It’s time to fashion a supermajority legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Escape Artiste on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Are Our Firewall Against the Anti-Gunners

“Today, I rejoice, thanks to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and his ascension to his seat on the United States Supreme Court. We have a firewall in place when it comes to the protection of the Second Amendment. With Judge Kavanaugh joining Judge Neil Gorsuch on the high court, gun owners can rest a tad easier.” —Grant Stinchfield