Putin: ‘Do not hold Russia-US relations hostage to your political infighting!’ [Video]

/in , , , /by

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in an interview recorded in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16.


TRANSCRIPT

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: President Putin, thank you for speaking with us.

I am going to get to some specifics about the summit in a moment, but let’s begin with the big picture. President Trump said in his news conference that our relationship has never been worse, but that changed a few hours ago. How has the relationship, big picture, between the US and Russia changed today?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You know, we should be grateful primarily to our aides, our staff who have been interacting with each other not only recently to prepare this meeting, but for months before that.
I am referring to the work of our agencies in the spheres of special concern for the United States and Russia, primarily counter terrorism.

President Trump and I pointed out today that terrorism is a bigger threat than it may seem at first glance. If the worse comes to the worst, God forbid, and terrorists lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction, the consequences will be terrible.

Our military and special services are building relations in this sphere of crucial importance for our countries. A case in point is our cooperation in Syria, even though we do not fully agree on the global goal and ways to achieve it.
However, we maintain cooperation between our militaries and special services. Their work concerns the fight against terrorism in the broad meaning of the word.

Then, the New START treaty will expire in 2021. What should we do about this? I assured President Trump that Russia is ready to extend this treaty, but we definitely need to discuss details.

We have questions we need to ask our American partners. We believe that the United States does not fully comply with this treaty, but this should be discussed at the expert level. We also talked about Iran’s nuclear programme.

We talked about what we can do to improve the situation in North Korea. I have said this before, but I will repeat that I believe President Trump has done a great deal to promote the settlement of this conflict.

However, we will need international guarantees to attain complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Russia is ready to contribute towards this to the extent that will be required.

Therefore, it can be said that we can see eye to eye on these and several other issues of concern to us. This allows us to say that much has changed for the better during our meeting today.

Chris Wallace: But do you see the summit as a turning point, an end of the effort by the West in recent years to isolate Russia?

Vladimir Putin: And you can see that these efforts did not work out, and they could not have worked out, considering Russia’s size and importance in the world, including in the sphere of global security, as well as in the economy if we consider at least the energy component of the global economy.

I believe that our understanding of the things that unite us and the things we should work on together is prompting us to admit that we must stop fighting each other and should instead join forces to deal with common problems in the fight against shared concerns, so as to overcome these concerns. Therefore, I believe that this is the beginning. It is a start. I believe we have given a good start to this today.

Chris Wallace: Mr President, one of the issues that is standing in the way of more progress, as you know, are the allegations of Russian interference in the US election. You have repeatedly said, and you said again today, that this was not the action of the Russian state, that if there was anything, it was patriotic Russian individuals. I have here the indictment that was presented on Friday from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller that says that twelve members of Russian military intelligence, the GRU, and they talk specifically about units 26165 and 74455, they say – you smile, let me finish – they say that these units were specifically involved in hacking into Democratic Party computers, stealing information, and spreading it to the world to try to disrupt the American election. May I give this to you to look at, sir?

Vladimir Putin: Let me start my answer to your question from a different angle. Look, everyone is talking about Russia’s alleged interference in your election campaign. I said this in 2016, but I would like to repeat this today, and I would like the American audience to hear my reply.

First, Russia as a state has never interfered in the internal affairs of the United States, let alone elections.

Chris Wallace: But sir, this is the indictment, I have twelve names here. It talks about specific units of the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Is the GRU not part of the Russian state?

Vladimir Putin: I will answer your question, have patience and you will hear a comprehensive answer. As for interference in the internal affairs of the United States. Do you really think that it was possible to influence US elections from Russia, to influence the choice of millions of Americans? This is ridiculous.

Chris Wallace: I am not asking whether they influenced, I am asking whether they tried.

Vladimir Putin: I will answer you now, if you bear with me, you will hear my answer. This was the first thing.

Second, I said this in 2016, and I want to repeat it again now. What was the problem? It concerned the hacking of a Democratic candidate’s email. Did this attack involve manipulation with facts? This is very important. I want the Americans to hear this. Did anyone manipulate with the facts or plant fake information? No.

The hackers involved – don’t worry, I will get back to your question – read that candidate’s emails and learned about manipulations within the Democratic Party in favour of one of the candidates. That is all.

As far as I remember, the leaders of the party’s executive bodies resigned. It means that they admitted this fact. I believe this is the crucial thing. You must stop manipulating public opinion and apologise to the voters for what was done, rather than keep looking for those who allegedly did this.

Now back to these issues. I said at the news conference, and I can repeat this now. Mr Mueller…

Chris Wallace: You are indicating that they stole real money, not counterfeit money. So are you saying that this ok, the fact that they took from the DNC, from John Podesta, it was their real e-mail, so it is ok to hack, and spread this information out and interfere with the election?

Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. There is nothing false in the information at my disposal. Everything it says is true, and the leadership of the Democratic Party has admitted it. This is the first thing.

Second, if you do not like my answer, please say so, and I will say no more. But if you want the American people to know my opinion, then have patience.

As for the specific accusations, Mr Mueller has brought charges against a Russian company, a small business working primarily in the catering industry. I have spoken about this before.

This company has hired American attorneys to protect its name in an American court. This court has not yet found any trace of interference by this company.

Do you know about this or not? Let the millions of Americans know about this as well. Now for the [Russian] citizens mentioned here. We have a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, a valid treaty that was signed in 1999. It has been applied quite effectively. I cited an example of its effective application. Why cannot Mr Mueller and his colleagues…

Chris Wallace: I’m not trying to interrupt or be disrespectful.

Vladimir Putin: You are doing this.

Why cannot Mr Mueller send an official request to us within the framework of this treaty? Under this treaty, Russian investigators could question all the individuals that our American colleagues suspect of something. I have said this before. Why has none of this been done to this day? This is surprising. Nobody has sent an official request to us…

Chris Wallace: But the indictment just came. Let me just say. I don’t want to interrupt but I want to ask one question and move on to other subjects. Why do you think Robert Mueller issued this indictment three days before you and President Trump met here at the summit?

Vladimir Putin: This does not concern me. These are your internal political games. Do not hold Russia-US relations hostage to your political infighting.

By the way, it is obvious to me that this case has been used for internal political fighting, and this is nothing to be proud of for US democracy. Using law enforcement agencies for political infighting is inadmissible.
I have said what I think regarding this fact. Please, send us an official request…

Chris Wallace: Do you think that Mr Mueller is trying to sabotage the relationship?

Vladimir Putin: I do not want to assess his work. It is not for me to do this. Let the Congress which appointed him do this. By the way, the court is not sure that Mr Mueller has been appointed as special counsel in full compliance with American legislation.

According to the court, he was appointed to his current position in violation of the law. But it is no concern of mine. You deal with it yourself. As for suspicions and charges, a procedure is stipulated in the above treaty which you can use to send requests.

Chris Wallace: May I move on, sir?

Vladimir Putin: Of course.

Chris Wallace: I heard the news conference today. My opinion was a bit curious because President Trump spent more time criticising the Democrats and asking about the Democratic server that he did in criticising Russia and asking about the GRU. There are many theories in the United States about why President Trump is so reluctant to criticise you, and I’d like to ask you about a couple of them. One is that you have something on him, kompromat. The other is that as a skilled politician and a former KGB officer you know how to play him, you use phrases like “fake news” and “deep state.” And my question is: do you find President Trump easy to deal with?

Vladimir Putin: First, about why we talked as cultured people should. Why does this come as a surprise? Did we need to meet, go to Helsinki, Mr Trump across the ocean and I from Moscow to abuse and throw mud at each other? This is not how things are done in the global diplomatic practice.

There is no need to meet if you only want to quarrel and worsen relations. We met to find ways to improve our relations, not to destroy them completely. This is the first part of my answer.

The second part concerns the compromising materials you asked about. No, we have no compromising materials and cannot have any. I do not want President Trump to take offence, and I do not want to sound impolite, but we had no interest in him until he announced his decision to run for president.

He is a wealthy man, but there are many wealthy people in the United States. He was in the construction business and organised beauty pageants. Nobody ever thought he would be elected president. He never indicated that he had any political ambitions. So the idea of compromising materials is nonsense.

As you know, I said at the news conference that 550 American business leaders visited St Petersburg [International Economic Forum], and every one of them is more important than Mr Trump used to be. Do you think that we put pressure on each of them, that our secret services shadow them, spy on them and tap their conversations?

First, we do not do this, unlike you. Do not judge others by yourself. Second, we do not have the funds, resources or personnel to spy on everyone. This is just not in our plans. It is simply impossible, and we certainly did nothing of this kind with regard to Mr Trump.

Chris Wallace: I’d like to ask you a couple of specific questions about NATO. If NATO were to move to add either Ukraine or Georgia to the Alliance, how will you respond?

Vladimir Putin: The situation in NATO is as follows. I know about the decision-making mechanism used in the bloc. Of course, its decisions are taken by consensus, but before taking them, individual NATO members can be contacted on a bilateral basis, as it was done with regard to Poland and Romania, which now host elements of the US strategic missile defence system.

This poses a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, the advancement of NATO infrastructure towards our borders poses a threat, and our reaction to it will be extremely negative.

Chris Wallace: Secondly, there are two major NATO exercises later this year: Anaconda and Trident Juncture. Did you and President Trump discuss those and did he give any indication as he did with Chairman Kim of North Korea when he agreed to stop participating in war games. Did he give any indication that the US might not participate in these two NATO operations?

Vladimir Putin: No, we did not discuss this, although it is an issue of concern for us. The NATO infrastructure is expanding, and the number of NATO servicemen in the regions where there should not be any has increased by 10,000 people.

Under the Founding Act on relations between Russia and NATO, there must be no servicemen there. It is certainly a destabilising factor. We must take it into account in our relations. But President Trump and I did not talk about this today.

Chris Wallace: I want to ask you about Russia’s involvement in Syria. According to independent monitors, since the civil war began in 2011, more than a half a million people have been killed, and Russia has bombed civilians in Aleppo and Ghouta. No qualm about killing innocents?

Vladimir Putin: A war is in progress and this is the most horrible thing that can happen to humankind. Of course, victims are inevitable. And people always ask, who is to blame? As I see it, it is the terrorist groups, which have destabilised the country, that are to blame. I mean ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the like. They are the true culprits.

This is exactly what the US military reply, when they deliver strikes at civilian facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other country. On the whole, although this may seem debatable to someone, but on the whole this is true.

As far as Syria is concerned, US aircraft delivered very serious strikes at the city of Raqqa. Earlier today, President [Trump] and I talked about the need to undertake efforts for humanitarian operations. I think we managed to make some headway in this direction. I am looking forward to the implementation of the plans we discussed today.

Chris Wallace: But the UN commission that is investigating Syria says and I quote their words: there was deliberate targeting of civilians by Russian pilots flying Su-24 and 34 military aircraft.

Vladimir Putin: Everything is to be verified and assessed.

But I would like you to return to what I have just said about Raqqa. The aircraft that were attacking this city were piloted by American…

Chris Wallace: We cannot talk about Aleppo and Ghouta?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we can talk about Aleppo and Ghouta, but then let us talk about Raqqa too. Don’t snatch some things out of their context and forget about other things. All right?

Chris Wallace: I do not think that there has been bloodshed in Raqqa. That there were hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in Aleppo and in Ghouta, and in the entire civil war – half a million people. By some estimates, 20,000 children have been killed by the Assad regime and his supporters in Moscow. Are they terrorists?

Vladimir Putin: You are completely wrong; I wish you were familiar with the real situation in Syria. A lot of civilians died in Raqqa. Raqqa has been wiped off the face of the earth. Now it is a solid mass of ruins resembling Stalingrad during World War II, and, of course, there is nothing good in all this.

To reiterate: it is the people guided by their terrorist beliefs and using civilians as hostages who are to blame.

Chris Wallace: At the G7 Summit, President Trump reportedly told the other leaders that Crimea might as well be Russian because everybody there speaks Russian. Did he give you any indication that at some point, not today, but at some point he might recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea, or lift sanctions, or move to bring Russia back into the G7, now the G8, all of which happened as a result of the annexation of Crimea?

Vladimir Putin: Let me make a correction: when Crimea joined Russia it was not an annexation, since the only form of democratic expression is the expression of the will of the people living within a specific territory.

People in Crimea came to the referendum and voted for independence and joining the Russian Federation. If this is an annexation, what is democracy? This is my first point.

My second point is that we are aware of President Trump’s position that Crimea is part of the Ukrainian state, as he has repeated today, while I articulated our position which is close to what I have just told you. Having said that, I think we should leave our discussion of Crimea at that.

Chris Wallace: All right, we are running out of time anyway. Let’s move on.

Last year Defence Secretary Mattis said that Russia is the greatest threat to the United States. And he has since made it clear, an even greater threat than terrorism. In March you introduced a new generation of Russian missiles, including what you called an invincible missile. You said that it could evade, defeat all of our missile defences, and you even released a video that showed that super missile flying over the United States and hitting Florida very near where President Trump’s estate is at Mar-a-Lago. Aren’t you escalating the arms race, and aren’t you being deliberately provocative?

Vladimir Putin: As for the video, it did not indicate that the missile targets US territory. You have to watch it more carefully. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Second, all our strike systems target…

Chris Wallace: It shows Florida.

Vladimir Putin: No, it did not say Florida. This is not true. Watch it one more time, and pay more attention. It did not say Florida. All it made clear was that the missile was headed to the other side of the globe.

Chris Wallace: No, but you can see it on the map.

Vladimir Putin: No, you could not see this on the map. Just pay more attention when you watch instead of scaring your people with threats that do not exist. Yes, watch it carefully. Do you want me to give you this video as a gift?

As for the strike systems, let me remind you that they did not emerge out of nowhere. They emerged as a response to the unilateral withdrawal by the United States from the ABM Treaty. We warned our American colleagues right from the outset that we were not ready to build a missile defence system, since we did not believe in its effectiveness, and it was too costly. Instead we said that we would do everything to penetrate this shield.

As I have said on numerous occasions, but let me repeat it for the American audience, the response was the following: “The missile defence system we, the Americans, are building is not created against you, and you can do as you please. We will proceed from the premise that it is not against us.” In 2003 or 2004 I made a public statement about one of these systems. Our American partners did not respond in any way.

But now we have done it and showed what we have. That being said, this is a matter of negotiation, and we hope, and I hope very much that we will be able to come to solutions in terms of strategic stability that would be acceptable to both sides, including regarding short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Chris Wallace: I have limited time, I would like to ask you about the alleged INF violation, but I want to move on and ask you three final questions about Vladimir Putin. When you were first elected in the year 2000, you were portrayed as a democratic reformer, you talked about the value of European culture and you did not even rule out becoming a part of NATO. What happened?

Vladimir Putin: First, nothing has changed about me. I am the same as I was then. I became President of Russia when I was a grown man, and a person’s predisposition and fundamental beliefs do not change at that age.

But we have to react to what is happening around us. First, the two waves of NATO’s eastward expansion. When Soviet troops pulled out of Germany, we were told that there is one thing Russians can be absolutely certain of: that NATO will never expand beyond Germany’s borders.

There were two waves of expansion, contrary to our objections of principle. They did not give a damn about our objections. We asked you not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, but the United States pulled out of it unilaterally.

You disregarded our calls not to do so and our proposals to work together. There are other examples of this kind.

Take the developments in Yugoslavia. You know that President Yeltsin was categorically against launching military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council, which is the only legal way of using the army. But nobody listened to us.

There were other factors that complicated our relationship. For example, the extraterritorial application of American criminal law, sanctions, and so on. Was it us that introduced the sanctions? No, it was you.

You asked me about Crimea and Ukraine. It was not us who organised a military coup there and used military force to change the government in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, and it was not us who handed out pies to the rebels. We are aware of the complicated processes underway there, but this is not the way to resolve them. And where is this happening? Right at our doorstep.

So, nothing has happened to me. I would like to know what has happened to you.

Chris Wallace: You say nothing happened to you, but I need to ask you domestically, not internationally, domestically inside Russia. Why is that so many of the people that oppose Vladimir Putin end up dead or closed to it: former Russian spy and double agent Sergei Skripal, the victim of a nerve agent attack in England, Boris Nemtsov, a political opponent gunned down near the Kremlin, investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, murdered in an apartment building. Why is that so many people that were political enemies of Vladimir Putin are attacked?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, we all have many political opponents. President Trump has many political opponents too. Take any person involved in state…

Chris Wallace: But they do not end up dead.

Vladimir Putin: Sometimes they do. Haven’t Presidents been killed in the United States? Have you forgotten about that? Where was Kennedy killed, in the US or in Russia? And what happened to King? As a matter of fact, what happens during clashes between the police and civil society activists, for example, from ethnic African-American organisations? Does this happen in Russia or in the US? This is all taking place in the US. You have many challenges within your country.

It is a sad truth that Russia has not been spared criminal activity. In fact, the Russian state is still in the making, and unfortunately there are many manifestations of this kind. We are fighting this, and hold perpetrators to account.

You have mentioned the Skripals. We want to see the documents on this case, to get a glimpse of any materials. No one has said anything specific, just as with the accusations against Russia of meddling in the political processes in the US. We have not seen a single document.

We now learn that two more people have suffered from the toxic agent referred to as Novichok, but I had never even heard their names. Who are these people, how were they hurt and why?

Chris Wallace: Supposedly they picked up the bottle that was used to attack Skripal. Can I ask you one last question, sir?

Vladimir Putin: No, let’s stay on the subject. What bottle? Who picked it up? Where? What was its chemical composition? Or can it be that these people suffered from something else? Can it be that you have to look inside Great Britain to find the cause?

No one wants to get to the bottom of this issue. These are absolutely groundless accusations. Why all this? Why make our relations worse? We want to build a proper relationship with Great Britain as well.

Chris Wallace: Finally, I know one of the reasons that you wanted to do this interview was so that people in the United States and the West could get a better understanding of the real man. You are often portrayed as a strongman, an autocrat, a person who is a symbol of Russia’s strength. Are those fair characterisations of you, sir?

Vladimir Putin: I do not claim to be a symbol of Russia. But from the point of view of current law, the national flag, the anthem, and the presidency itself are to a certain extent the symbols of the country – and not only those of Russia but also of any other country.

I hope that my work also reflects what Russia is engaged in, what it is concerned about, and what it is ready to do to normalise our relations with all countries, including, of course, with such a great country as the United States of America.

RELATED VIDEO: Russia describes ‘invincible missile’ – BBC News.

EDITORS NOTE: This transcript first appeared in Kremlin.ru.

Congressman Who Introduced ‘Abolish ICE’ Bill Won’t Comment on Crime by Illegal Immigrants

/in , , , /by

The Wisconsin congressman who introduced the “abolish ICE” bill admitted he would vote against it during an appearance Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” while also declining to comment on crime committed by illegal immigrants.

The bill from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., co-sponsored by nine other Democrats, was designed to dismantle U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Congress created the agency in 2003 to amp up security at the border and prevent illegal immigrants entering the country.

dcnf-logo

President Donald Trump has said he opposes abolishing ICE, tweeting that it will “mean more crime in our country.”

“What would you do about illegals who get busted for DUI [if] there’s no ICE?” Carlson asked Pocan. “Do they get to stay? What happens, specifically, in that case?”

Pocan refused to answer, seemingly having no prospective solution in mind, and instead pivoted to the issue of family separations. He said that reunifying children separated from their illegal immigrant parents at the border should be the priority.

A majority of voters, 54 percent, support the federal government continuing to fund ICE, while 21 percent of voters are undecided, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll on July 11. Those who support abolishing ICE, 25 percent, identify as Democrats.

COLUMN BY

EDITORS NOTE: The House passed a nonbinding resolution Wednesday backing ICE and denouncing calls by some Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists to abolish it, NBC News and other media outlets reported.

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.

The featured image is of Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh. They Fear the Constitution.

/in , , , , /by

Sure, some of the anger aimed at President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is partisan bluster meant to placate the activist base.

Still, most Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking.

For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool—forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, and so on—that’s a big problem.

Some, such as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, indulged in the histrionic rhetoric we’ve come to expect in the Trump era, claiming that Kavanaugh would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” But almost none of the objections coming from leading Democrats have been even ostensibly about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a jurist or, for that matter, his interpretation of the Constitution.

“Specifically,” prospective presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued, “as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Surely, the former attorney general of California comprehends that “health care” is not a constitutional right but rather a policy concern whose contours are still being debated by lawmakers—and probably will be for decades.

What Harris probably meant is that Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the practice of forcing Americans to buy products in the private marketplace against their will. Kavanaugh, incidentally, upheld Obamacare as an appellate judge for jurisdictional reasons even though it displeased him on policy grounds. (He wrote that the law is without “principled limit.”) He did this because he has far more reverence for the law than Harris does.

Leading presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., whose collectivist doctrine clashes directly with the Constitution’s goal of restraining the state and empowering the individual, worries about “workers’ rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection, and gun safety.” He should.

Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a critic of Chevron deference, the practice that allows administrative agencies to ignore their legal charge and have free rein to interpret statutory authority in virtually any way they please. Few things undermine the socialist agenda more than limiting our regulatory agencies’ ability to lord over the economic decisions of Americans.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, another potential presidential hopeful, said Kavanaugh “can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers, or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.”

To “safeguard” the rights of women means keeping abortion legal on the federal level, without any genuine restrictions. For Gillibrand and others, invented rights are sacramental, whereas other precedents, such as stopping the “flow of corporate money”—which is to say, the right of free expression codified by the Citizens United decision—should be conveniently discarded.

There is absolutely no guiding principle to any of this other than political preference.

It seems to me that with another originalist justice, we inch closer to a time when the majority of the left will simply dismiss the court as an antiquated impediment to progress. We already see this happening—not only from progressives but from supposed moderates. It’s why flip-flopping partisans such as Ezra Klein are now lamenting the “anti-democratic” position of the court.

By “anti-democratic,” he doesn’t mean the court legalized abortion or same-sex marriage without the consent of states; he means it has recently stopped the federal government from compelling individuals to act in ways he and many others approve of.

Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics and progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to President Barack Obama, who promised in 2008 to nominate justices sharing “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

The left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their personal worldview.

Of course, there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. And all justices aren’t political on all issues. Nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And that’s why the left is about to go nuts again.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

Dear Readers

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is among the Democrats who have spoken out against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom)

Drugs, Gangbangers, Convicts Enter U.S. Via Mexico as Media Focuses on Shelter Accommodations

/in , , , , /by

Border with Mexico.

While the mainstream media and much of the nation are preoccupied with sob stories about the shelter accommodations of illegal immigrants, the U.S.-Mexico border remains a cesspool of crime where federal agents have confiscated more than 360,000 pounds of drugs, arrested thousands of individuals with criminal convictions and busted hundreds of violent gangbangers so far this year. The latest statistics issued by the Border Patrol are downright disturbing and illustrate the urgency of properly securing the famously porous southwest border.

Through the end of May 2018, the frontline Department of Homeland (DHS) agency reveals that it seized 360,241 pounds of marijuana, 7,205 pounds of methamphetamine, 5,321 pounds of cocaine, 315 pounds of heroin and 309 pounds of fentanyl. The agency also encountered 18,568 criminal aliens convicted of a crime or wanted by law enforcement and 509 gang members, mostly from the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes.

The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs. The criminal aliens listed in the 2018 Border Patrol figures include those convicted of felonies such as assault, battery and domestic violence as well as burglary, possession of illegal weapons and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In the last few days alone, as media coverage focuses almost exclusively on the separation of illegal alien families, Border Patrol sectors tasked with guarding the 2,000-mile southern border report large quantities of smuggled drugs and other illicit activity from Mexico.

Just a few days ago a Honduran man, convicted of raping a child, was caught trying to re-enter the U.S. through the Eagle Pass station in Texas. The man is a registered sex offender in Houston who got deported after serving a five-year sentence. Press release after press release issued by the Border Patrol in the past week alone offer alarming details of the crime that has gripped the Mexican border region. Drug smuggling appears to be the most popular activity with most southern border sectors reporting multiple busts in the last few weeks.

More than 123 pounds of methamphetamine were seized in one day in Arizona’s Port of San Luis last week and a day later the Laredo sector in Texas seized nearly 26 pounds of methamphetamine. Less than 24 hours earlier, the Laredo sector seized $4.2 million worth of crystal meth at the Gateway to the Americas International Bridge.

In the same week, federal agents in Hidalgo Texas confiscated nearly $3 million worth of methamphetamine and agents in nearby Pharr discovered commercial trailer moving more than half a million dollars in heroin from Mexico.

This week, officers in New Mexico seized more than $1.1 million in narcotics smuggled in a wrecked vehicle and violent gangbangers were captured by Border Patrol in Arizona, California and Texas. One of the men, a Mexican national arrested in El Centro California, was convicted of child molestation. Another Mexican national apprehended near San Ysidro California  was convicted of murder and served more than three decades in prison, the government states in its press release. Two of the illegal immigrants—one arrested in Three Points Arizona and the other in McAllen Texas—are members of the MS-13.

Circling back to the media frenzy involving the supposed separation of illegal immigrant families, Judicial Watch spent a few days on the U.S.-Mexico border last week and spoke to Border Patrol and U.S. Customs officers who say the vast majority of kids arriving from Mexico are either totally unaccompanied or with adults that are not their parents.

In a June 18 White House press briefing, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said illegal immigrants are separated if there’s no documentation to confirm the claimed relationship between an adult and a child or if the parent is a national security, public or safety risk, including when there are criminal charges at issue. “We also separate a parent and child if the adult is suspected of human trafficking,”

Nielsen said. “There have been cases where minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention.  And I’d stop here to say, in the last five months, we have a 314 percent increase in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently claiming to be a family unit.”

MSNBC Host Suggests Supreme Court Justices Should Rule Based on Poll Numbers

/in , /by

We should ignore old laws and demand that nine, unelected officials decide what new meaning they have based on recent poll numbers.

This was the argument put forward by “MSNBC Live” correspondent Katy Tur when she questioned a guest about the judicial philosophy of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has been described as a “textualist” who adheres to the original meaning of the Constitution.

“Based on where Americans stand on the issues—Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years—do you think it’s appropriate to continue to take such a strict originalist view of the Constitution given it’s 2018 and not 1776?” Tur asked J.D. Vance, a conservative commentator and author of “Hillbilly Elegy.”

Vance answered that Americans haven’t become progressive on everything, and besides, the Supreme Court is not exactly the place that changes based on policy preferences should take place.

The Supreme Court, as an institution, is not intended to move the country’s laws “in a progressive or a conservative direction,” Vance said.

Vance is correct.

Let’s set aside the fact that constitutional interpretations do not date to 1776, the year America declared independence from Great Britain. The Framers crafted the Constitution in 1787, and amendments were added throughout our country’s history, starting with the Bill of Rights in 1789.

That factual mistake aside, Tur’s real error is her contention that old laws can simply be morphed and changed over time based on poll numbers and the whims of judges.

Adherence to precedent, even badly reasoned, is something that divides some originalist justices, but none would say that an old law can simply be changed to fit with the policy preferences of the time.

But that raises the question: Who gets to determine what window of time can pass before a law is arbitrarily changed? If “1776” is so problematic, then why not 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided?

Surely, American attitudes have changed since that time.

With this philosophy, what prevents a judge from simply choosing, at any time, to change laws to conform to what he believes is correct policy at that moment?

Tur’s statement (that judges need to update laws to keep up with the times) sheds light on why there’s been such a strong push to reorient our courts to ruling based on the intent of the laws, as they were originally created.

The Supreme Court, particularly during the 1960s and 70s—as even former President Barack Obama admitted—often acted as an agent of social change, thus stealing the role that the Founders intended for the legislative branch, and for that matter, democracy.

The Founders never intended to replace King George with nine civilian kings wearing black robes. Attempts by the court to discern the direction of society and to shape it is the negation of democracy.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued essentially for what we call “judicial review,” the ability of the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional law. He also called the Supreme Court the “least dangerous” branch.

What is often forgotten about Federalist 78, according to Adam J. White, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is Hamilton’s insistence that judges will “faithfully administer both the written laws and the relevant precedents.”

Hamilton could make this argument, White wrote, “because Congress and the president would be so much more powerful. Especially Congress, which not only writes the laws but also more importantly ‘commands the purse’ the main power for bending the rest of government to its will. The executive, meanwhile, ‘not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.’”

This dynamic has changed, especially as the legislature in particular has delegated so much power to the courts, executive branch, and most worryingly, executive agencies.

This is not merely the Supreme Court’s problem. It is the problem of a system that has drifted far beyond the structure designed by the Founders.

The Founding Fathers didn’t construct our constitutional republic to be a pure democracy, as evidenced by the very existence of a Supreme Court (a “nondemocratic” element in our republic). But they did ultimately believe in the sovereignty of the people and their right to make laws for themselves.

If the values of society change and the laws do not match, this should be resolved through the democratic process by elected officials and constitutional amendments, not by philosopher kings in robes.

Tur’s argument is faulty, but revealing in one respect: It shows that the left opposes Kavanaugh not because of his experience, background, or credentials, but because of his attachment to the Constitution as it was originally written, not progressive activism on the bench.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

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: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

RELATED ARTICLE: Justice Elena Kagan’s Scholarly Connection With Brett Kavanaugh

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of MSNBC correspondent Katy Tur is by Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

DEALING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT — Should you be adversarial or respectful?

/in , /by

I recently found myself embroiled in a passionate argument about law enforcement. Someone had posted a video on social media showing a man in his car eluding police allegedly after a road rage incident. He refused to stop until he pulled into his driveway at home. The fact he failed to acknowledge police commands and argued loudly when he was caught agitated the police who forced him to the ground and put him in handcuffs. A few of the viewers commented how outrageous the police acted and they would have done likewise in resisting arrest. In contrast, I made the remark the suspect only had himself to blame; had he done as he was instructed, I doubt it would have turned into an ugly episode.

This resulted in a firestorm of comments against me for taking the side of the police. Frankly, I was surprised by the push back. In my defense, I described how I was taught to drive years ago by my father, who said if the police pulled me over, to keep my hands on the steering wheel, do not argue, and treat the officer with respect saying, “Yes Sir” and “No sir.” As the police see a lot of people during the day, they know nothing about me and will naturally approach cautiously. As such, it wouldn’t pay for me to pose a threat to them by being a smart ass.

I found this advice to be invaluable over the years. By acting this way, I was able to talk my way out of a ticket on more than one occasion. Each time, as the officer saw I wasn’t a threat and was heeding his instructions respectfully, I was let go with a simple warning.

After explaining this on the posting, I was accused of being a wimp and should have stood my ground and taken the officers to task. One gentleman claimed it is necessary to resist the police, simply because they are looking for an excuse to impound your vehicle. I have never heard of this before, so I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.

The way I see it, law enforcement has a difficult job, and they meet a lot of strange people in their daily routine, some not exactly playing with a full deck of cards. My philosophy in dealing with the law is to demonstrate that I am not some kook who poses a threat to them. When this is established, I find it is relatively easy to have a rational conversation with them where I can explain my side of the story. Regardless of how I tried to rationalize it, others in the group thought I had behaved cowardly. The only thing I know, I probably get fewer tickets than they do.

In a way, I am reminded of the classic comedy routine by Chris Rock titled, “How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police [WARNING: Graphic language].”

What bothered me about this little incident was the total disregard for law enforcement, portraying them as disreputable ogres who are to be fought with, not respected. I recognize not all law enforcement officers are perfect, but to have people openly provoke a confrontation doesn’t make sense to me. Frankly, this adversarial relationship is disturbing as I believe law enforcement serves a vital function for the community and should be appreciated for their efforts. Then again, maybe this is just another sign of our changing times. I grew up in an era when we were taught the police were our friends, but I have a feeling this is a lesson no longer taught. It disturbs me when I hear 29 officers were killed in the line of duty thus far this year (compared to 44 for all of 2017). Frankly, I’m surprised how patient and professional most officers conduct themselves in light of the animosity against them.

Next time you are stopped by law enforcement, keep your cool and act respectful, they are only trying to do their job and not get killed in the process.

P.S. – Perhaps the most imaginative way I’ve heard of someone talking their way out of a traffic ticket was the father of a friend of mine in Chicago years ago. The father, named Al, was a baker and typically worked the late shift. One night, as he was driving home in the wee hours of the morning, he was tired and anxious to get to bed. Consequently, he was driving a bit too fast.

As he passed a billboard, he spied a patrol car hidden behind it, undoubtedly running radar. Seeing the car pull out from behind the billboard, he knew he was going to be ticketed. Thinking fast, he pulled his car over to the side of the road, popped his hood open, jumped out and began jiggling his carburetor (Yes, this was before electronic ignitions). As expected, the patrol car pulled up behind Al’s car and the officer stepped out. Al looked up at him and said, “Oh, thank God you’re here. Something’s wrong with the carburetor and the car was running away on me. Boy, did it scare the heck out of me.”

The officer looked at Al, then the carburetor, and gave him a warning to get the car fixed before he got into an accident. Yes, he let him go. Brilliant, just brilliant, and a great story he told for many years thereafter.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Getty.

Florida Republicans Gaetz and Ingolia discuss appointment of Judge Kavanaugh

/in , , , , /by

Matt Gaetz (left) and Blaise Ingoglia

In a special press call via telephone on Wednesday morning, Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-D1) and Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) Chairman Blaise Ingoglia (R-FL35) discussed the importance of confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the United States Supreme Court, before the midterm elections.  The call was sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida.

The intent of the call was to express confidence in the president’s recent appointment for Supreme Court by the Party.  After making brief introductory remarks, both speakers were asked various questions from the press regarding Judge Kavanaugh.

Chairman Ingolia was asked to discuss the political ramifications of the Judge’s appointment.  He claimed the Republican base was excited and would support the selection.  He also believed Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is fighting a tough race with Governor Rick Scott (R) to retain his senate seat, should quickly give his confirmation of the Judge, otherwise he will appear to be an obstructionist.  The choice puts Sen. Nelson on the hot seat, should he join the blanket opposition by the Democrats he will be giving more fuel to Gov. Scott’s campaign.

When asked if a long delay in the Judge’s confirmation would play to Sen. Nelson’s benefit, Chairman Ingolia cited a poll claiming 56% of the people want a swift confirmation.  He also believes the Republicans were energized by the appointment.

Cong. Gaetz claimed Judge Kavanaugh was a constitutional jurist.  He hasn’t personally read all of the judge’s decisions but is confident the president picked a qualified candidate.  He went on to say, the Judge will defend unborn life.  This led into a discussion on abortion with Chairman Ingolia claiming the Republican base believes pro-life is important.

The Congressman added he sees Judge Kavanaugh more as a William Rehnquist, the late Supreme Court Chief Justice, rather than conservative Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas.

When asked about the use of cannabis in Florida and the law, Cong. Gaetz saw this as a state issue which would probably not make it to the Supreme Court.

The press call was brief and lasted approximately 15 minutes; to hear the audio, click HERE.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED VIDEO: Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: Brett Kavanaugh ‘One of the Most Conservative Jurists in the Country’.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Claire Anderson Twitter: @claireandy.

Three Years Past Obergefell: From “Equality” To Totalitarianism

/in , , , , /by

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage must constitutionally be expanded to include people in same-sex sexual relationships. Back then, LGBT activists said they simply wanted “equality” through the expansion of legal rights, but the marriage debate has quickly spring-boarded the left to a new assault on conservative principles.

Now it is Christians who are fighting for the basic American values of religious liberty and free speech. With so-called “Pride Month” ending tomorrow, 2ndVote wanted to ensure that readers are aware of the corporations which stand behind the LGBT movement’s totalitarianism.

Probably the most important corporate backers of LGBT activism are those which stand behind the Human Rights Campaign. This is an organization which literally rewards efforts to crush religious liberty and left at least one advocate of traditional sexual values concerned for his and his family’s safety. Four corporations which don’t deserve your second vote dollars are Target, Starbucks, PayPal, and Apple — all of which provide financial and other support to radical LGBT activism.

These corporations aren’t just supporting the Human Rights Campaign’s redefinition of marriage. They are standing behind this totalitarian organization’s bullying of North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana over common-sense measures to protect businesses, religious organizations, and women in restrooms. Then-Indiana governor Mike Pence quickly capitulated to pressure in 2015, and his state’s measure was overturned just a week after Pence signed it into law.

We found that Apple and Starbucks joined this disinformation campaign. We also noted that PayPal’s alleged desire for “equality” in North Carolina did not prevent it from doing business in dictator-run Cuba. Shockingly, PayPal and Apple also hopped onto the Human Rights Campaign’s effort to declare that baker Jack Phillips shouldn’t have the right to bring his religious views into his own business practices.

Finally, Apple and Target have long supported the Human Rights Campaign’s push for the dishonestly-framed “Equality Act.” If enacted, this measure would make it illegal for millions of businesses and other institutions to run their businesses as they see fit.

As they say, the times — they are a-changing. This is perhaps seen no more starkly than in how “equality” and “tolerance” have been replaced with government enforcement of LGBT ideology. It’s also notable that three years ago, LGBT activists said they wanted same-sex sexual couples to be given special treatment. Now, they declare that anyone who believes biological sex is consistent despite how a person feels is nothing short of a bigot.

Starbucks, Target, Apple, PayPal — these groups are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Not spending your second vote dollars on them will be a strong warning to other corporations that Americans don’t want corporations using government to enforce radical LGBT totalitarianism.

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Military Vets of another War: on Gender

MassResistance Texas activists continue fight to stop LGBT infiltration into Southern Baptist denomination 

Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

/in , , , , /by

President Donald Trump announced on Monday night his nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, who was included in The Heritage Foundation’s original list of potential Supreme Court nominees, is a very promising choice.

The battle lines were already drawn before Trump made his announcement, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declaring he would not vote for any of the individuals on Trump’s short list.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised the confirmation vote would happen this fall. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the process of reviewing Kavanaugh’s judicial record and background, with a hearing coming later this summer.

Let’s take a closer look at Kavanaugh.

Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Bethesda, Maryland, Kavanaugh is 53 years old, Catholic, and married with two young daughters (whose basketball teams he coaches). He obtained both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. After law school, Kavanaugh clerked for 3rd Circuit Judge Walter Stapleton and 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski.

Following a one-year fellowship in the office of Solicitor General Ken Starr, Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court (along with fellow law clerk, and current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).

Kavanaugh next joined Starr at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where he led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster (an aide to President Bill Clinton) and was the principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

He also served as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a prestigious law firm where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh took on several pro bono matters, including representing Adat Shalom Congregation in its fight against Montgomery County, Maryland, which sought to halt construction of a synagogue, and representing 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez after immigration authorities decided to return him to Cuba.

Prior to his appointment to the bench, Kavanaugh served as associate counsel, senior associate counsel, and then staff secretary to President George W. Bush.

Kavanaugh is no stranger to a tough confirmation process. Although he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit (which is often regarded as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court) in 2003, the Senate did not confirm Kavanaugh until 2006, by a vote of 57-36. Four Democratic senators voted in favor of his confirmation, but none remains in the Senate today.

As Kavanaugh explained at a Heritage Foundation event in 2017:

I think Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, both of whom had substantial White House experience, would probably say that their White House experiences likewise have made them better jurists. But at the time of my confirmation in 2006, it is fair to say that certain senators were not sold on that. They were not sold that the White House was the best launching pad for a position on the D.C. Circuit.

Indeed, one senator at my hearing noted that I had worked at the White House for more than five years and said in his remarks, this nomination “is not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds, it is the whole shaker.” And this is true. After the hearing, my mom said to me, “I think he really respects you.” As only a mom can.

Approach to Judging

An outstanding writer, Kavanaugh has written approximately 300 opinions during his 12 years on the bench, many dealing with controversial topics that will likely come up during his confirmation hearing. Kavanagh has also written extensively on the separation of powers and statutory interpretation, and has co-authored a book on judicial precedent (along with Bryan Garner and 11 appeals court judges, including then-Judge Gorsuch).

Drawing from his experience working in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh argued in a 2009 article that Congress should consider enacting a law that would protect a sitting president from criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution while in office. He explained:

The indictment and trial of a sitting president … would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Kavanaugh is a committed textualist. As Kavanaugh succinctly stated in a book review published in the Harvard Law Review, “The text of the law is the law.” He has reiterated this view in many of his opinions.

In Fourstar v. Garden City Group, Inc. (2017), he wrote, “It is not a judge’s job to add to or otherwise re-mold statutory text to try to meet a statute’s perceived policy objectives. Instead, we must apply the statute as written.” And in District of Columbia v. Department of Labor (2016), he write, “As judges, we are not authorized to rewrite statutory text simply because we might think it should be updated.”

Kavanaugh is a critic of Chevron deference, under which courts show considerable deference to executive branch agencies in interpreting arguably ambiguous statutes. In his view, “Chevron itself is an atextual invention by courts. In many ways, Chevron is nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.”

And in 2017, while delivering the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at The Heritage Foundation, Kavanaugh spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers and concluded:

Statutory interpretation is inherently complex, people say. It is all politics anyway, some contend. I have heard all the excuses. I have been doing this for 11 years. I am not buying it. In my view, it is a mistake to think that this current mess in statutory interpretation is somehow the natural and unalterable order of things. Put simply, we can do better in the realm of statutory interpretation. And for the sake of the neutral and impartial rule of law, we must do better.

His record as a judge reflects a skepticism toward Chevron deference. Indeed, Kavanaugh has written or joined dozens of opinions finding an agency’s actions unlawful as well as many dissenting opinions (some of which were ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court) in which the court’s majority upheld agency actions.

For example, he dissented from his court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency could disregard cost-benefit analysis when considering a proposed rule in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2012). The Supreme Court later reversed that decision, citing Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion.

And in U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (2017), a case involving net neutrality, Kavanaugh dissented from the court’s refusal to hear the case en banc. He argued that the Federal Communications Commission was not entitled to Chevron deference because Congress had not explicitly delegated authority to the FCC to treat the internet like a public utility subject to regulation.

Other Notable Opinions

In terms of the separation of powers, Kavanaugh dissented in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2008), arguing that limitations on the president’s ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board violated the Constitution. He stated that the “President’s power to remove is critical to the President’s power to control the Executive Branch and perform his Article II responsibilities.”

Similarly, in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016), Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—an independent agency headed by a single individual who can only be removed for cause—was unconstitutional.

When the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc reached the opposite conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote a powerful dissent suggesting that the Supreme Court might wish to reconsider its holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935), which upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies.

Separation of powers was also at the heart of the 2016 per curiam (unsigned) opinion that Kavanaugh joined in al-Bahlul v. U.S., in which the court upheld the conviction before a military commission of Osama bin Laden’s driver for conspiracy to commit war crimes. While the majority declined to reach the issue of whether Congress had the authority to make conspiracy a triable offense before a military tribunal (because it is not an offense under the international laws of war), Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that “federal courts are not empowered to smuggle international law into the U.S. Constitution and then wield it as a club against Congress and the President in wartime.”

This opinion echoed Kavanaugh’s earlier concurrence in al-Bihani v. Obama (2010), in which he argued that international law should not present a judicially enforceable limit on the president’s statutory authority to detain enemy combatants unless Congress expressly incorporates international law norms into U.S. law.

As for the Second Amendment, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia (2011)—a follow-on case to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling acknowledging the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Kavanaugh would have held D.C.’s ban on the possession of semi-automatic rifles unconstitutional, stating that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kavanaugh ruled in Emily’s List v. FEC (2009) that the commission’s regulations limiting independent political expenditures by non-profit organizations violated the First Amendment. Kavanaugh also wrote the majority opinion in South Carolina v. Holder (2012), upholding South Carolina’s voter ID law.

Kavanaugh has been criticized by some on the right for not going far enough in opinions he wrote involving religious liberty (Newdow v. Roberts and Priests for Life v. HHS), abortion (Garza v. Hargan), and Obamacare (Seven-Sky v. Holder).

In 2010 in Newdow, the D.C. Circuit rejected an establishment clause challenge to prayers offered at the presidential inauguration and to the inclusion of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. While the majority held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and therefore did not reach the merits of the case, Kavanaugh concurred, stating that he would have reached the merits (which is why he has been criticized by some conservatives) and squarely ruled against the challengers, finding that “both ‘so help me God’ in the Presidential oath and the prayers at the Presidential Inauguration do not violate the Establishment Clause.”

In 2015 in Priests for Life v. Burwell, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not prohibit the Obama administration from requiring religious non-profit groups who objected to the so-called contraceptive mandate to file forms with their insurers that would have facilitated contraceptive coverage, including abortifacients, for their employees.

In a dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh stated that he would have invalidated the mandate as a violation of the deeply held religious convictions of those organizations, arguing that even if the government could, for the sake of argument, establish a compelling interest in ensuring that women have access to contraceptive services, the Obama administration should still lose because there were less restrictive means available to accomplish that objective.

A Key Abortion Case

Somewhat unfairly, even entertaining this possibility triggered the objections of some conservatives, who sought to cast Kavanaugh as a weak champion of religious liberty. Kavanaugh’s position was ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).

Moreover, as far as Kavanaugh’s commitment to religious liberty, it is worth noting that during the recent oral arguments in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a case challenging D.C. Metro’s ban on religious advertising, including Christmas ads, Kavanaugh asked some tough questions of Metro’s lawyer, stating his view that the ban was “pure discrimination” and “odious” to the First Amendment.

In 2017, in Garza, Kavanaugh voted twice in favor of the Trump administration’s legal argument that an illegal immigrant minor in U.S. custody does not have a right to an immediate government-facilitated abortion on demand.

In the initial panel decision, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, reversing the district court ruling in favor of the illegal immigrant minor. When the full D.C. Circuit reviewed the case and ruled in favor of the illegal immigrant, Kavanaugh dissented, stating that the court had “badly erred” in adopting a “radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence” and inventing “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”

His dissent fully endorsed the government’s “permissible interests in favoring fetal life” and “refraining from facilitating abortion.” In a separate dissent, Judge Karen Henderson concluded that as a noncitizen, the young woman had no right to an abortion.

Some conservatives have criticized Kavanaugh for not joining Henderson’s opinion. However, Kavanaugh not only didn’t need to go as far as Henderson did to rule in the government’s favor, the government’s attorneys had conceded that an unlawful immigrant minor is assumed to have a right to an abortion.

Finally, in 2011 in Seven-Sky, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate under the Commerce Clause in a surprising opinion by Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee and a highly-respected conservative jurist.

Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the mandate was “unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and predicting that it would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit” (forecasting the dissenting views of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).

Rather than taking the majority’s commerce clause argument head-on (which is what Kavanaugh’s critics would have preferred), he explained that it was premature to rule on the individual mandate’s constitutionality and that the case was not ripe for adjudication under the Anti-Injunction Act because the mandate had not yet taken effect, a defect which Kavanaugh believed deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the case.

In evaluating each of these decisions, it is worth remembering that Kavanaugh sits on a court in which a majority of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and would certainly not be considered conservative jurists.

Moreover, a good conservative judge might well decide to fashion an opinion in a way designed to maximize the likelihood that a closely-divided Supreme Court would ultimately agree to hear the case and adopt his position, a strategy that Kavanaugh has effectively utilized on several occasions over the years. As Kavanaugh stated during his Story Lecture at Heritage, “[W]hen Justice Kennedy says something, I listen.”

In short, Kavanaugh has been playing the long game to advance an understanding of the laws and Constitution that is faithful to the text and original meaning.

Approach to the Law

In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame Law School, Kavanaugh spoke about Scalia’s impact on the law and the late justice’s view that federal judges “should not be making policy-laden judgments.” Kavanaugh remarked, “I believe very deeply in [the] visions of the rule of law as a law of rules, and of the judge as umpire. By that, I mean a neutral, impartial judiciary that decides cases based on settled principles without regard to policy preferences or political allegiances or which party is on which side in a particular case.”

He elaborated on what Scalia stood for as a judge:

[R]ead the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. The Constitution is a document of majestic specificity defining governmental structure, individual rights, and the role of a judge. Remember that the structural provisions of the Constitution—the separation of powers and federalism—are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberty. … Remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits.

Though Kavanaugh was speaking about Scalia, his words could very well describe his own approach to the law and his commitment to the Constitution.

Americans undoubtedly will learn more about Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and the important, but limited, role judges should play in our government as the confirmation process unfolds in the Senate.

While Schumer and other Senate Democrats have already announced their intention to block any nominee, they will have a hard case to make given Kavanaugh’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research. Twitter: .

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Right Choice for America

8 Things to Know About Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

27 Reactions From Liberals on Kavanaugh

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Dismisses Liberal Hysteria Over Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, speaking last year at The Heritage Foundation, to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. (Photo: Willis Bretz for The Heritage Foundation)

VIDEO: ‘Personal Liberty’ Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominees

/in , , , , , , /by

by Bradley Eli, M.Div., Ma.Th.

Democrats fear constitutionalists will overturn Roe v. Wade

WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – Fearing that devoted constitutionalists if placed on the High Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion activists are urging Democratic senators to screen judicial nominees using a new personal liberty standard.

At a press conference Thursday in Washington, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, unveiled a new litmus test for discerning nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court who could reverse Roe. Speaking on behalf of several pro-abortion groups, Laguens said:

We are calling for a personal liberty standard, that a Senate must only confirm a justice who affirmatively declares that they believe that the Constitution protects individual liberty and the right of all people to make personal decisions about their bodies and their personal relationships, including the use of contraception, the right to have an abortion and the freedom to marry who you choose.

Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, explained during the press conference that the new standard is needed because Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts both affirmed during their confirmation hearings that Roe was “settled law” and “precedent,” only seeming to rule otherwise once seated on the High Court.

Fallen added, “We’re here to warn Trump’s nominee … that calling Roe a precedent or settled law is not enough, not even close.”

He then brought up the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was adamant about enforcing the Constitution as it was originally understood by its writers — a judicial philosophy known as originalism.

“Trump’s own litmus test has raised the bar for what a nominee must answer at a hearing. Because so many of these people on Trump’s shortlist are scholars of the late Antonin Scalia, we are not going to accept any jiggery-pokery on Roe v. Wade, and we are not going to accept any applesauce answers on the Affordable Care Act,” Fallen said.

Gorsuch is seen by many as closely following in the judicial footsteps of Scalia. Gorsuch was promoted by Leonard Leo, vice president of the conservative Federalist Society, which seeks to have the Constitution applied according to the original understanding of its authors and the American people. Leo is credited with helping Trump form his list of Supreme Court nominees. But most, if not all, of these judges see Roe as indefensible when pitted against the Constitution.

Even liberals believe the Constitution doesn’t explicitly contain a so-called personal right to abortion. Rodney Smolla, a professor at the University of Richmond, last year conceded, “I think the framers were inviting future generations of Americans to apply their own experiences in saying that there may be certain rights, like rights of privacy, that we now think of as vital that they didn’t put down explicitly on the list of rights in the bill of rights.”

Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court must overturn Roe in order to restore jurisprudence, says Evan Bernick of the Federalist Society. Roe, left unchallenged, presents a serious danger to society, writes Bernick:

It exposes ordinary citizens to government power of a kind that the Framers regarded as “the very definition of tyranny.” The minotaur of arbitrary government, unlike that of “judicial supremacy,” is no myth — it is all too real, and it is fast devouring rights once held sacred. It is time that constitutionalists cease encouraging judges to keep it satiated.

Check out our full Supreme Court coverage

Working With Green Groups, Local Governments Use This Kind of Lawsuit to Get Cash From Oil Giants

/in , , , /by

Cities and counties across the country are teaming up with environmental groups to drill for revenue by using public-nuisance lawsuits against some of the world’s largest energy companies.

These local governments claim oil giants, such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and others, have caused global warming that they say is damaging their communities, and they want to be compensated for those damages—in most cases an undisclosed amount.

Since last summer, New York City, one county in Washington state, eight cities and counties in California, and three Colorado jurisdictions have challenged the oil giants through public-nuisance lawsuits.

However, some legal experts contend these lawsuits are a misuse of public-nuisance law—which is intended to protect the public from a safety or health hazard, rather than advance regulations.

Last week, U.S. District Judge William Alsup for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit brought by San Francisco and Oakland against Chevron, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips.

The two cities wanted the five energy companies to pay for infrastructure improvements to protect their residents from sea-level rise and other purported effects of climate change.

In April, 15 Republicans state attorneys general, led by Curtis Hill of Indiana, filed an amicus brief supporting the dismissal of the case.

The states of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming joined Indiana in the amicus brief regarding the San Francisco and Oakland lawsuit.

“We oppose any type of overreach, whether by the federal government, state governments, or municipal governments,” Hill told The Daily Signal.

Hill said his office is monitoring the other lawsuits.

“These municipalities were seeking to regulate what was out of their nexus,” Hill said. “This was a shakedown. These nuisance lawsuits are used to hold up industry, specifically the energy-manufacturing industry.”

Alsup cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent, finding the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority over emission standards, which displaced nuisance claims on emissions. The judge, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said other branches of government should decide the matter.

The National Association of Manufacturers has led the effort against public-nuisance lawsuits through legal action and advocacy.

“Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note, as those complaints are likely to end the same way,” NAM President Jay Timmons said in a statement. “New York City, [Boulder, Colorado], and the other California municipalities should withdraw their complaints and follow the lead of others that are focused on meaningful solutions.”

But with an appeal on the way from San Francisco and Oakland, the other pending cases aren’t likely going anywhere.

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, an advocacy group backing the lawsuits, told Reuters, “This fight is just getting started, and we expect to win.”

Federal law defines a public nuisance as a circumstance that injures or endangers the safety, health, comfort, or property of others. More broadly, a public nuisance at the state or local level could be defined as an activity affecting the health or safety of an entire community.

In either case, it’s distinguished from a private nuisance that would affect relatively few. The contrast would be the public nuisance of a factory spewing toxic chemicals into an entire city, as opposed to the private nuisance of playing loud music at 3 a.m., waking up the neighbors.

The municipalities are twisting an area of the law that has no application to climate issues, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation.

“They are trying to use the courts in an area where it is up to the legislature, particularly Congress, to legislate,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

“They have no chance of winning if the judges in the case follow the law,” von Spakovsky said. “If they get an ideological judge who doesn’t care about the law—well, they might have some success. But, ultimately, any case like this, if it goes to the Supreme Court, is going to get thrown out.

“Eventually one of them will eventually get to the Supreme Court if the plaintiffs are foolish enough to keep appealing the decisions,” he said.

In January, New York City sued Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The city announced it also would divest its $189 billion public pension fund of investments in fossil-fuel companies over the next five years. The lawsuit claims the companies knew carbon emissions caused climate change, but were dishonest about the risks. The suit seeks to hold the oil companies liable for an undisclosed amount.

“New York City is standing up for future generations by becoming the first major U.S. city to divest our pension funds from fossil fuels,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in announcing the legal action. “At the same time, we’re bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil-fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits.

“As climate change continues to worsen, it’s up to the fossil-fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient,” he said.

The first hearing was held on June 13 before federal Judge John Keenan of the Southern District of New York, who was reportedly skeptical of the city’s position that oil companies are to blame for purported global-warming damage.

“The firehouses all have trucks. The sanitation department has trucks. If you open the door and go out to Foley Square, you’re going to see five police cars,” said Keenan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. “Does the city have clean hands?”

In April, the litigation moved to Colorado. The city of Boulder, the county of Boulder, and the county of San Miguel together filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor for damages related to climate change.

EarthRights International, one of the environmental groups representing the three Colorado governments, said in a statement last week it wasn’t deterred by the court ruling in the San Francisco-Oakland case.

“Other lawsuits—including ERI’s own lawsuit on behalf of communities in Colorado—are proceeding and will not necessarily follow the same path,” the statement says. “Meanwhile, evidence continues to emerge of the oil industry’s role in misleading the public and delaying the shift toward carbon-neutral energy sources.”

Back in California, cases were filed separately in July 2017 by the city of Imperial Beach, Marin County, and San Mateo County—initially, in California state court—against Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and other energy companies.

The cases were being heard together by federal Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who accepted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case back to state court.

But the defendants filed an appeal, asking the court to stay the proceedings until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides if all of the climate cases should be heard at the state or federal level. Chhabria, an appointee of President Barack Obama, granted the defendants’ stay, and the 9th Circuit will hear the matter later this month.

Separately, the city of Santa Cruz and county of Santa Cruz in December sued Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and other companies. They are seeking damages for extreme flooding the plaintiffs blame on the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels.

The city of Richmond, California, filed another climate public-nuisance lawsuit in January against Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and 25 other companies, alleging that harvesting natural resources and producing fuel has led to rising sea levels that threaten the city’s property.

Both cases were filed in state courts, but moved to federal court, where Chhabria is also deciding whether to send them back to state court.

In May, King County, Washington, filed a lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, claiming public nuisance. It wants to force the companies to fund an abatement program.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of York City Mayor Bill deBlasio is by Natan Dvir/Polaris/Newscom.

Unions Conspire with State to Illegally Continue Fee Collection for Non-Union Employees

/in , , , , /by

HPR: …The State of Hawaii has announced a new policy regarding the collection of so-called agency fees from non-members of public employee unions.

The policy, outlined in a memo from the State Comptroller, was spurred by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Janus v AFSCME. That case, brought by Illinois state employee Mark Janus, overturned a precedent established in 1977 that allowed public unions to collect dues from all public employees, regardless of their membership status in the union.

Non-members were charged a reduced rate compared to full members. These agency fees could not be used for lobbying or political purposes. That precedent was established in the 1977 Supreme Court case Adood v Detroit Board of Education, which found that non-members still benefit from collective bargaining carried out by unions and should contribute to funding those non-political actions.

Here in Hawaii, the State Department of Accounting and General Services automatically withholds dues and agency fees from all state employees on behalf of the union. However, in the memo published yesterday State Comptroller Roderick Becker said it is the State’s intent to “suspend non-member deductions as soon as possible.”

But that appears to be easier said than done.

The state’s payroll system does not contain state workers’ union membership status. The state has evidently been relying on each of the various public employee unions to identify members and non-members. This makes it difficult to go about stopping payroll deductions for non-members.

The memo from the Comptroller’s office indicates that the Department of Accounting and General Services is asking unions to confirm whether or not they have a non-member population and to provide the names of those members to the state. Once the names of non-members have been provided, agency fee withholdings will be suspended.

One state worker who is a member of the Hawaii Government Employees Association told HPR that following the Janus decision he attempted to change his status with HGEA to non-member. The employee was told that change could not be made until it was time to renew his annual membership in Hawaii’s largest public union….

PDF:  DAGS MEMO

READ: State Moves to Stop Fee Collection for Non-Union Employees

How bad is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety [and gun control] Act?

/in , , , , , /by

This article encapsulates all the reasons why the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act is a horribly bad piece of legislation (with the exception of  the Marshall, Guardian and/or Safety Officer piece to put armed school officials or an armed security guard at all schools – basically PCSO Sheriff Judd’s plan).  The rest is just scary and/or an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that adds more power and control to state and local governments – in fact much of it is down right Marxist in my opinion.

Any Republican in the Florida Legislature who voted Yes for this law along with Governor Scott who signed it should be ashamed of themselves.

I just read all 105 pages of the law again very slowly and it scares the hell out of me especially the part about the ex parte and Risk Protection Orders allowing the courts to seize all firearms of a person  from their home or elsewhere  accused (and must prove their innocence) of being a threat or risk to themselves or others without DUE PROCESS and in my view in clear violation of our 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights.

I highly recommend you read this law for yourself (here) especially pages  27 – 47 and 57 – 61 and send it out to others to read for themselves.  If this doesn’t scare you/them then you are much too trusting of  our system of Justice and its corruption by the left and establishment types in many areas than I am.  At the Federal level they are trying the same thing called “Red Flag” laws.

I really don’t understand why the NRA is only going after the lowering of the age piece and not the ex parte order piece which is clearly dangerous for all legal carry permit holders and gun owners regardless of age especially in the hands of liberal judges, liberal prosecutors and  LE officials in Democrat controlled areas (counties and cities).

We can’t deny that these ex parte order and Risk Protection Order pieces of this terrible law will facilitate the weaponizing of the law against 2nd Amendment rights! This is especially so where there are Liberal Judges and Prosecutors based in liberal districts, counties and cities.

Wake Up

This law is mostly about gun control rather than school safety!  It is about solidifying the leftist base that wants to take away all firearms.  It is simply a knee jerk reaction to leftist propaganda and politicizing dead children killed by a lunatic who should have been in jail or at least disarmed and this would never have happened.

The terrible Parkland High School shootings resulted from a failure of the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff and his Department to do their job in protecting schools including a Broward Coward Deputy on scene who refused to run to the sound of the gun and 3 other deputies who arrived while shooting still ongoing and hid behind barricade.   Co – responsible is the School Superintendent and Board who put in place Barack Obama & Eric Holder’s Promises program to not identify or arrest criminal minority teenagers.

Where is the condemnation and firing of Sheriff Israel, his on school site Deputies who hid behind barriers as the firing continued for 4-6 mins and the on Site Captain scene commander who wouldn’t allow Fire Chief & his EMTs to render aid to the wounded for over 20 mins and the Superintendent of Schools of Broward County & his School Board who put in place the ill-conceived Obama Promise Program to cover up teenage minority criminals including the shooter – Cruz?

We need to be on a crusade about these 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment violations of our rights in this very dangerous, slip shod, knee jerk reaction law which is based on emotional outbursts from the left seeking gun control.  The Parkland shootings are a clear result of a failure of law enforcement at the Federal and County levels and school board officials in Broward county and not every law abiding gun owner in Florida.

It seems to me that only a few folks seem concerned about this as all I hear from many conservative group and 2A advocacy circles are crickets.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act

Please feel free to send back your comments/feedback.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida Launches Gun Confiscation Program, 467 Forced To Surrender Guns

We need to harden our families, not our schools

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Sues for Documents on Mueller’s Abusive Raid on Trump’s Lawyers

/in , , , , , /by

In April, Special Counsel Mueller and the DOJ crossed yet another bridge too far, when Mueller recommended, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved, a raid on President Trump’s then-personal attorney’s home and office.

At the time of the raid, I tweeted: “The raid is just one more reason to shut the Mueller operation down – it’s constitutionally suspect, ethically compromised, & frankly has no reason for being – given the fact that there’s no evidence of @RealDonaldTrump-Russia collusion.”

Judicial Watch began an investigation that has resulted in another JW “Mueller oversight project” lawsuit.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records related to the April 9 raid on the office, home and hotel room of Michael Cohen, then-personal attorney to President Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01466)). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Justice Department lawlessly failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests.

On April 12, 2018, we sought from the Office of the Attorney General:

Any and all records of correspondence and communications between the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning, regarding, or relating to the April 9, 2018 raids on the office and hotel room of Michael Cohen.”

Also on April 12, 2018, we sent a second FOIA request for the following from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys:

  • The Search and Seizure Warrant executed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the office and hotel room of Michael Cohen on April 9, 2018.
  • The application for the above-referenced warrant and any affidavits submitted in support of the application
  • All records about the recusal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the Michael Cohen investigation.

On May 2, 2018, we submitted a third FOIA request for the following from the Department of Justice:

  • All records of communications between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York about Michael Cohen and/or the executed search warrants of Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room.
  • All records of communications between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York about Michael Cohen and/or the executed search warrants of Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room.

On April 9, 2018, the FBI raided the home, office and hotel room of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Prosecutors obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from Special Counsel Mueller’s office conveyed through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Lawyers for Michael Cohen reportedly completed a review of the over four million seized files from the raids and “found that 12,061 are privileged and shouldn’t be viewed by government lawyers.”

On its face, the raid on then-President Trump’s lawyer seemed abusive and out of line. And so it is not surprising that the Mueller Special Counsel and the Justice Department would ignore FOIA law and refuse to respond to our basic requests for information about this extraordinary raid. We’ll keep you updated.

The Majority of Immigrants ICE Arrests are Convicted Criminals 

The contrived hysteria over the treatment of children has metastasized among the open borders Left into demands, peppered with lawlessness and violence, to eliminate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Here’s an inconvenient truth: ICE protects us from criminals, as our Corruption Chronicles blog points out.

As a growing number of Democrats and their allies call for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it’s important to remember that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants arrested by the agency have criminal convictions. In 2017 immigrants with criminal convictions accounted for 74% of all arrests made by ICE, according to government data used by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in a study published earlier this year. Sixteen percent of those arrested by ICE had pending criminal charges and only 11 % had no known criminal convictions or charges, the Pew analysis found.

Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens deported by ICE last year were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and another 57,438 for possessing or selling dangerous drugs such as opioids. More than 52,000 ICE arrestees were convicted of immigration offenses, including false claim to American citizenship and tens of thousands had pending criminal charges for assault, driving under the influence and a variety of other crimes. Some had pending charges for more violent crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping and homicide. Los Angeles, an illegal alien sanctuary city, topped the list with nearly nine out of 10 ICE arrests consisting of immigrants with criminal convictions. Newark, New Jersey had the lowest number with 60% criminal arrests but every region had one thing in common: “In all ICE areas, considerable majorities of arrests were for those with prior convictions,” the Pew study says.

The figures make the calls to abolish ICE, the 20,000-employee Homeland Security agency, preposterous. The growing movement includes elected officials—some presidential contenders—at the federal, state and local level as well as those running for office. Among them are senators Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Kamala Harris (California) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York). Warren and Harris are reportedly making White House runs in 2020. Other federal lawmakers calling for the dismantling of ICE include Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan and Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano. In a piece published by a mainstream media outlet, a law professor running for New York Attorney General writes that ICE is a “tool of cruelty and lawlessness and dehumanization.” The agency was born in xenophobia and fear, the lawyer asserts, and it is doing exactly what it was designed to do: “Terrorize immigrant communities, bring a police state inside our borders and treat people as less than human.”

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media appears to support the abolish ICE movement and has demonstrated it with biased reporting as well as the promotion of radical leftist ideas such as those published by the New York Attorney General candidate. A mainstream national newspaper writes that the nation doesn’t need ICE and refers to it as an “agency that harms Latino and immigrant communities.” A northern California newspaper blames the Trump administration’s “hardline immigration policies” for transforming the idea of abolishing ICE from a pipe dream for liberal activists to a legitimate political issue. The article refers to abolish ICE as a movement that has seen a “remarkable rise from fringe issue to Democratic rallying cry.” A multitude of media outlets around the country have followed suit, shamelessly displaying their pom-poms for the insane abolish ICE movement.

The reality is that ICE needs to be strengthened because the agency is overwhelmed, officers can’t keep up with monstrous workloads and repeatedly lose track of hardcore criminals inside the United States. As a result hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with criminal records are getting released by local authorities in the U.S., according to a federal audit released last year by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. A surge in illegal immigrants under the Obama administration pushed matters into crisis mode with deportation officers so overworked that they often lose track of dangerous illegal aliens with serious criminal histories, the probe found. This includes individuals who represent critical national security threats. One ICE agent cited in the report said this: “You might work 18 hours a day, but you still won’t get caught up.” Inspectors visited four key field offices and determined that the management deficiencies and unresolved obstacles make it difficult for the feds to deport aliens expeditiously. “ICE is almost certainly not deporting all the aliens who could be deported and will likely not be able to keep up with growing numbers of deportable aliens,” the DHS watchdog found.

The attack on ICE is another front to eliminate borders by the radical Left and its political allies. No government agency should be immune from closing, but if the goal of closing an agency is to destroy the rule of law and our sovereignty then we should proceed with extreme caution.

Trust Judicial Watch to both hold the government accountable and tell you the truth about those who want to upend our laws against illegal immigration.

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

/in , , , , /by

A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens.  Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns.  Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.”  That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.”  When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction.  These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports).  Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult.  But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms.  And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership.  Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18.  Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country.  Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21.  Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.

But being deemed “too young” to own firearms isn’t the only threat to face the pro-Second Amendment community.  There may be a new approach beginning to form.  You might soon be deemed “too old.”

An article by JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey, published by Kaiser Health News (KHN) and PBS NewsHour, has begun making the rounds with a number of media outlets, such as CNN, and it discusses the issue of gun owners who may be suffering from dementia.  Sort of.

Dementia can be a devastating disorder.  It is a category of diseases, including Alzheimer’s, that affects the brain, and its impact on individuals varies widely.  Mild forms can lead to simple cognitive declines, such as slight memory loss, that are little different than one would experience during the normal aging process.  More severe and advanced cases of dementia, on the other hand, can lead to dramatic changes in those afflicted that would require professional health care, and perhaps even commitment to a dedicate healthcare facility.

Of course, discussing the problem of dementia is a conversation worthy of having.  Unfortunately, the KHN/PBS article is riddled with language that sounds like it came straight from one of the gun-ban groups being funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg.  We can only presume it is likely to be used to promote anti-gun policies that focus on prohibition, and ignore reason and constitutional considerations.

The tone of the article (a lengthy one) is set early, when it inaccurately describes our nation with the all-too-commonly heard inflammatory claim that, today, “America copes with an epidemic of gun violence….”  In fact, America’s murder rate has fallen to a near all-time low.  If anything, we have been doing remarkably well since the violent crime peak in the early 90s, with violent crime and murder rates decreasing by about half.

But repeating anti-gun rhetoric is just the start.

Aleccia and Bailey go on to refer to an analysis of Washington state survey data that claims approximately 54,000 residents who are 65 and older have “some cognitive decline” as well as a firearm in the home.  Is this really important to note?  No, because two key facts are ignored.

First, cognitive decline is common among the elderly, and can manifest itself as simply slight memory loss.  It does not mean dementia is present.  In fact, the epidemiologist who analyzed the survey data even “cautions that the answers are self-reported and that people who’ve actually been diagnosed with dementia likely are unable to respond to the survey.”  So now, rather than dementia being the concern, it’s simply old age.

Second, the story refers to these people (again, likely just elderly folks with no known mental disorder) having “access to weapons,” as if that is a concern.  However, they may not even have access.  The survey apparently asked if there was a firearm in the home.  The person surveyed could very well be living in a home that has firearms in it, but not have access to the firearm.  A son or daughter who takes in a parent, for example, could be the person who owns the firearm in the home, and may not allow others access to it.

The authors also seem to lament, “Only five states have laws allowing families to petition a court to temporarily seize weapons from people who exhibit dangerous behavior.”  These are the so-called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws that are being promoted nationwide.  They generally lack sufficient due process protections necessary for deprivation of a constitutional right and are often rife for abuse.

Furthermore, dementia is not a “temporary” disease.  It has no cure.  If an individual is exhibiting “dangerous behavior,” it is, in all likelihood, going to continue, and probably increase.  All states have a process to seek to have someone’s competency adjudicated or be involuntarily committed, which could result in a more permanent firearm prohibition. And, these laws generally protect due process by allowing individuals to put on their own defense and challenge the allegation before having their rights infringed by the state.

To make matters worse, Aleccia and Bailey also spoke with long-time anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute, as part of their parroting of the false argument that NRA has stopped “public health research into the effects of gun violence.”  Wintemute is the director of the anti-gun University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, so it is clear that there is research going on.

Ultimately, while the subject of treatment for dementia patients is a very serious issue that deserves more scientific inquiry, using such a terrible disease as a pretext to preemptively disarm elderly Americans is unacceptable.  As we have said many times before, NRA supports any reasonable steps to fix America’s broken mental health system. But if the debate is going to move towards one more Goldilocks argument suggesting that just getting “too old” is reason enough to confiscate firearms, as this article might suggest, then that is a debate we will not bear.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.