Tag Archive for: Supreme court

Trump Turns To Supreme Court On Mar-A-Lago Raid

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers requested the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling regarding the Mar-a-Lago raid, saying Tuesday that not allowing the Special Master to review all the seized documents “erodes public confidence in our system of justice.”

On Sept. 21, the 11th Circuit allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to keep looking at “classified” documents the FBI seized from Trump’s Florida residence in August, after the DOJ appealed their case.

Judge Aileen Cannon had previously put a pause on the DOJ’s review while a neutral Special Master was being appointed to review all documents, but after the appeals court’s ruling, the third party watchdog can only review materials not bearing classification markings.

The DOJ now has access to roughly 100 documents bearing classification markings, which Trump’s lawyers have claimed were declassified by the former president.

Trump’s request to the Supreme Court was specifically addressed to Justice Clarence Thomas, and asks for the Special Master to have access to the “classified” materials again, claiming that the 11th Circuit “lacked jurisdiction” to stay Cannon’s order.

“This unwarranted stay should be vacated as it impairs substantially the ongoing, time-sensitive work of the Special Master. Moreover, any limit on the comprehensive and transparent review of materials seized in the extraordinary raid of a President’s home erodes public confidence in our system of justice,” the application to the Supreme Court read.

The DOJ has claimed it needs to review the “classified” materials due to their potential of being national security risks. The 11th Circuit mentioned this concern in their ruling, stating, “It is self-evident that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that the storage of the classified records did not result in ‘exceptionally grave damage to the national security.’”

In the request to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers state that the Special Master looking over all documents before the Biden administration’s DOJ has access is an “intermediary procedural step to conduct an orderly, transparent, and fair review of the seized materials.”

AUTHOR

DIANA GLEBOVA

White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Lawyers Oppose DOJ’s Request To Review Classified Mar-A-Lago Documents

Trump sues CNN for defamation and seeks $475,000,000 in punitive damages 

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here Are The 17 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Were Arrested Outside The Supreme Court

At least 17 House Democrats were arrested Tuesday afternoon outside the Supreme Court.

The Democrats were attending an abortion rights rally to protest the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In several videos posted on Twitter, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar can be seen with their hands behind their back being held by police officers who appear to be escorting them away from the protest in front of the Supreme Court.

“Today, Rep. AOC was arrested along with other members of Congress outside the Supreme Court for protesting in support of abortion rights,” Ocasio-Cortez’s office tweeted from her account.

HERE ARE THE NAMES: 

  • New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar
  • Missouri Rep. Cori Bush
  • Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley
  • Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark
  • New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez
  • California Rep. Barbara Lee
  • California Rep. Jackie Speier
  • California Rep. Sara Jacobs
  • Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib
  • North Carolina Rep. Alma Adams
  • Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean
  • New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
  • Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar
  • Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky
  • New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney
  • Michigan Rep. Andy Levin

Democratic Missouri Rep. Cori Bush tweeted Tuesday that she and her colleagues “put” their “bodies on the line” amid the protest.

“I introduced legislation yesterday and today to protect reproductive freedom. Today my colleagues and I put our bodies on the line—because we will leave no stone unturned in our fight for justice. Bans off our bodies,” Bush said.

The Daily Caller contacted the U.S. Capitol Police about the videos to which Capitol Police said they would be releasing final arrest numbers later in the afternoon.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

ShutDownDC group offers bounties on Twitter for public sightings of conservative Supreme Court justices

Ocasio-Cortez, Members Of ‘The Squad’ Appear To Have Been Arrested In Front Of Supreme Court

Ocasio-Cortez, Members Of ‘The Squad’ Appear To Have Been Arrested In Front Of Supreme Court

‘There Must Be Consequences’: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Suggests SCOTUS Justices Should Be Impeached

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Prominent Pro-Abortion Group Appears To Be Front For Radical Revolutionary Communists

A prominent pro-abortion activist group downplaying its association with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) shares significant infrastructure and leadership with the radical outfit’s other offshoot groups, a Daily Caller analysis has found.

Although RiseUp4AbortionRights seems like most other pro-abortion groups at first glance, other pro-abortion activists released a statement in late June asserting that RiseUp is a front for a “pyramid scheme” and cult of personality. The Daily Caller’s examination of the organization’s leaders, online presence, and fundraising platforms lend credence to the claim that RiseUp is an offshoot front group for the RCP.

“Support for communism in the U.S. is incredibly low, so one way for these individuals to jump-start is to ride the coattails of something that has much more acceptability” in mainstream discussion of current political events, Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, told the Daily Caller.

RiseUp shares leadership with the RCP and several of its related organizations. Sunsara Taylor is a prominent RCP spokeswoman and a co-founder of RiseUp. Taylor founded RiseUp in January 2022 to protest for “abortion on demand and without apology.” An earlier pro-abortion group Taylor founded, Stop Patriarchy, used the same slogan and also attracted scrutiny from other pro-abortion activist organizations, the Austin Chronicle reported in 2014. Stop Patriarchy has not posted any new tweets to its Twitter feed since 2020, but the organization’s website features more recent footage of an interview in which Taylor discusses the consequences of the Dobbs decision.

Taylor also founded The World Can’t Wait, Inc., (TWCW) alongside another RCP devotee in 2006 to oppose the Bush administration, particularly its policies in the Middle East.

Taylor went on to co-found another organization, Refuse Fascism, in 2016 to resist the incoming Trump administration. At the time, the RCP took credit for helping create Refuse Fascism on its website. The “what you can do now” quick links section at the bottom of the RCP website still links directly to the Refuse Fascism homepage.

Another leading RiseUp activist, Sam Goldman, is a prominent spokeswoman for Refuse Fascism. In a Jan. 2022 episode of the Refuse Fascism podcast featured on the organization’s website, Goldman stated that she has “been busy helping launch RiseUp4AbortionRights.”

The RCP website promotes digital content from RiseUp and Refuse Fascism. Similarly, Refuse Fascism’s website features digital content from RiseUp and the RCP. All three organizations generally promote each others’ digital content on their websites without making clear the nature of their association.

On its main fundraising portal, RiseUp states that it is sharing certain “tools” with Refuse Fascism until RiseUp “establishes infrastructure” for fundraising of its own. RiseUp’s PayPal fundraising account also includes the name of TWCW. Refuse Fascism and TWCW share a New York City mailing address.

RiseUp’s website claims that the group spends donated funds on protest materials and logistics. Amid accusations of financial impropriety from other pro-abortion groups, RiseUp released a statement promising that it “has never used any funds it has raised for any purposes other than exactly what the funds were raised for.”

The RiseUp statement derided criticism of Taylor and Avakian as “scurrilous and false.” The RCP added that the accusations from other pro-abortion groups “smack strongly of the tactics of the right wing fascist forces in this country and the political police (the FBI, etc.) who create pretexts to go after revolutionary groups” in its own statement. The RCP flatly denied ever having used RiseUp funds in any capacity in its statement.

Taylor refused to say if RiseUp would submit to an independent audit of its financial dealings in order to clear up the accusations, and referred the Daily Caller to previous statements on the matter. Neither RiseUp nor the RCP disclosed documentation in response statements to definitively disprove the allegations of impropriety.

VIEW THEIR INSTAGRAM PAGE HERE

The RCP centers on Avakian’s revolutionary ideology, which RCP materials refer to as “new communism.” Critics, including those who signed the June statement against RiseUp, have claimed that the RCP is a Maoist group that elevates Avakian and his teachings as messianic. The late June statement from pro-abortion groups opposed to RiseUp asserted that the RCP established RiseUp as a front to divert funds and people towards the growth of its ideology rather than earnestly supporting the pro-abortion cause.

“There will be individuals who use this division and deep and wide disappointment with the Dobbs decision to not only stake claim with regard to abortion rights, but also to make their overall failed political worldview an attractive option” to naive demonstrators, Levin said.

RiseUp has become one of the most visible pro-abortion groups in the United States. Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined RiseUp demonstrators in protest the day of the release of Dobbs. Taylor held a megaphone to Ocasio-Cortez’s face while the congresswoman led chants calling the Supreme Court illegitimate. Several protesters, including Taylor, have been spotted and photographed wearing RCP merchandise at RiseUp demonstrations.

The group has appeared at many demonstrations across the country since its inception, and has received attention from the press and celebrities. Hillary Clinton promoted a RiseUp protest on Twitter in early May. Hollywood social justice warriors Mark Ruffalo and Rosanna Arquette have publicly supported RiseUp, according to its website. MSNBC even broadcast an interview with two young RiseUp activists.

RiseUp protesters deploy unique tactics, including smearing red paint over their private parts. They also paint green handprints over the chests of protesters wearing white. Doing so represents “a facsimile of what would happen to actual living women, hemorrhaging to death from unsafe abortions,” one RiseUp activist explained to the Daily Caller at a recent protest in front of the Supreme Court.

“These are opportunists who are trying to take advantage of people of good will who have deeply held, sincere beliefs with regard to the right to abortion,” Levin concluded.

None of the signatories of the statement in opposition to RCP that were contacted returned the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICHOLAS POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-Life Groups Sound The Alarm Over Repeated Attacks, Call Out FBI, DOJ For Not Doing Enough

School District: Berkeley Riot Organizers Tried To ‘Brainwash’ Students Into Left-Wing Activism [VIDEO]

Why A Famed Liberal Scholar Is ‘Running Screaming From The Left’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Just Days After Roe Reversal, Abortion Is Already Banned In Almost A Quarter Of America

Barely more than 72 hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion is already illegal in roughly one-quarter of the states in America.

A number of Republican-controlled states have had “trigger” laws activated, which are laws put in place to impose restrictions on abortion in the event the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. Others have moved to enact new abortion restrictions, with some banning the practice entirely.

Abortion is now outlawed in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee have enacted six-week bans, and the others have fully banned abortion, according to NPR.

Other states are poised to follow suit in the near future. Republican North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley announced Tuesday that his office had certified the overturning of Roe, and the state’s abortion ban will go into effect July 28. Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds is asking courts to lift an injunction holding up the state’s heartbeat abortion ban.

“Trigger” laws are currently pending in several more states, including Idaho, Mississippi and Wyoming, and Georgia’s six-week ban is currently subject to an injunction.

Analysts expect roughly half the states in America could ultimately ban abortion entirely, or come close to doing so, now that Roe has been overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Democrats have been scrambling to find ways to maintain abortion access, and no blue states have so far implemented any new restrictions.

AUTHOR

DYLAN HOUSMAN

Healthcare reporter. Follow Dylan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House Encourages Girls ‘15 Or Younger’ To Abort Without Their Parents’ Consent

These Companies Are Promising To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortions After SCOTUS Decision

Judge Blocks Texas Trigger Law From Going Into Effect, Rules Abortions Can Proceed

Army Chaplain Under Investigation For Sending Pro-Life Message To Troops

‘A Lot Cheaper To Get Rid Of Them’: Tucker Carlson Says Corporations Are Telling People They Can’t Have Children

SCOTUS ‘Assassination Challenge’ Pushed By Trans Creator Of ‘Gender Unicorn’ Graphic

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

‘Impregnator’: Did A Democrat Rep Just Coin A New Gender-Neutral Term For Men Who Get A Woman Pregnant?

Rep. Jackie Speier used the term “impregnator” to describe men who get women pregnant during an appearance on CNN Sunday,

“There has been nothing said about the fact that a woman doesn’t get pregnant with immaculate conception,” the California Democrat told “CNN Newsroom” host Jim Acosta. “There’s an impregnator and there’s not a word that’s been said about the responsibility of the impregnator. So for all those states that are now saying a woman can’t get an abortion, I would suggest to their legislature that they require the impregnator to put up a $350,000 bond so that this mother can take care of that child.”

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling Friday written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito upholding a Mississippi ban on abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.

Democrats have called for expanding the Supreme Court after a string of rulings that did not go their way. In addition to the Dobbs ruling, many of them decried the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down the state’s requirement that those applying for a license to carry a pistol show “good cause” to be issued a permit.

WATCH:

Speier also accused the conservative justices of lying about their position on Roe v. Wade during their respective confirmation hearings.

“There’s no question they lied, and they did that under oath,” Speier said. “So, there should be consequences, I agree with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, and I think that we need to look at ways of making them pay.”

Speier hinted that impeachment would be difficult due to what she said was a requirement for a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The Constitution states a two-thirds vote is only required for conviction in the Senate, and a majority vote is required in the House of Representatives.

Speier did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE:

‘Horrifying Decision’: Democrats Lose Their Minds After Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Rights

Elizabeth Warren Suggests Putting Abortion Clinics In National Parks

Top Pollster Gives More Bad News For Democrats’ Midterm Chances

‘She Did Not Do Her Homework’: Former Gorsuch Law Clerk Obliterates Claim Justices ‘Misled’ Susan Collins

HHS Secretary Says Biden Admin May Help Transport Women Across State Lines For Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. 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 of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Social Justice Unionism Means Pro-Abortion Big Labor

Last week, Politico reported on a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion regulation to the states, ending the Court’s invention of a constitutional right to abortion. The draft opinion was greeted with predictable outrage from left-progressives, including those in organized labor.

Statements

Now, many people, especially those on the social-conservative right who are re-exploring aligning with organized labor, might not expect union bosses to be among the left-progressive leaders ready to jump on a leaked, not-finalized Supreme Court opinion, but they were. Examples include:

  • Liz Shuler, who ascended to the presidency of the AFL-CIO after the death of Richard Trumka, argued, “We must be able to control our own bodies—which has a direct impact on economic justice and the ability of working people to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
  • Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), denounced an “extremist, anti-woman majority of the Supreme Court” (that, it should be noted, is suspected to include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman) for taking away “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion.”
  • Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, said the opinion “should be viewed as part of the broader far-right assault on gender-affirming health rights in this country, including the laws targeting trans youth and their families, attacks on LBGTQ individuals, and homophobic bans on the word ‘gay’ in education,” presumably a deceptive reference to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, frequently misnamed in “objective” press accounts.

I Told You So

These statements and other pro-abortion activities by organized labor, such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana rallying with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Planned Parenthood or the new Amazon Labor Union calling for protests in New York City, demonstrate that American labor unions are inseparable from social left-progressivism through an ideological practice known as “social justice unionism.” Back in 2021, we published a serial outlining how organized labor provided financial support to Washington State measures introducing Planned Parenthood–aligned sex education material into public school curriculums.

And what of the expressed hope of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), that union organizations could provide a counterweight to “a requirement that the workers embrace management’s latest ‘woke’ human resources fad”? Well, I was skeptical, noting that “operatives who run the labor unions endorse woke H.R. fads. And to the extent they don’t, they support going even further.”

Now, I may enter into evidence the statement of Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union AFA-CWA and rumored candidate to challenge Shuler for the leadership of the House of Labor, last seen campaigning to extend the now-enjoined traveler mask mandate when it came up for renewal in March. Nelson explicitly called on her members’ bosses to engage in woke capitalism:

We call on airline management to stand with us and for equality, anti-discrimination, and mutual respect. It is not enough that corporations espouse these principles as core to their missions—now is the time to demonstrate this commitment to their employees and passengers. This is about our safety and our freedom. We cannot work if we are not safe.

Social justice unionism means that organized labor is an additional pressure point forcing capitalists to be woke, not a point of opposition. The reaction to the Supreme Court leak should prove that beyond doubt.

AUTHOR

Michael Watson

Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…+ MORE BY MICHAEL WATSON

VIDEO: Pelosi Calls The Supreme Court ‘Dangerous To The Freedoms Of Our Country’

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had harsh words for the Supreme Court, Sunday, telling CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of The Union” that Trump-appointed justices had made the judiciary “dangerous” to freedom.

“Who would have ever suspected that a creature like Donald Trump would become president of the United States, waving a list of judges that he would appoint, therefore, getting the support of the far-right, and appointing those anti-freedom justices to the court?” Pelosi exclaimed after Bash asked her why Democrats hadn’t anticipated an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade.

“Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this court, which is dangerous to the freedoms of our country,” Pelosi added, further suggesting that the court would also rule against marriage equality in the future.

WATCH:

Her words come after protestors have descended upon the homes of Trump-appointed justices, protesting the possible overturn of the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.

When asked whether this potential ruling could have an impact on the midterms, Pelosi said she believed it would, urging voters to “focus” on what Roe v. Wade meant for them personally.

“Just focus on what this does and what this means to you,” Pelosi stated. “I don’t disrespect people’s views and how they want to live their lives. But I don’t think that it’s up to the Donald Trump appointees on the court or any politicians to make that decision for women,” she told Bash.

“The fact is, this is a dangerous court to families, to freedom in our country. And that is why people have to mobilize. And my saying is, we don’t agonize; we organize,” Pelosi concluded.

AUTHOR

GRETCHEN CLAYSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Of Women’s March Promises ‘Summer Of Rage’

Despite Liberal Spin, Most Americans Want Voters To Decide Abortion Laws: POLL

‘It’s Intimidation’: Bill Maher Rails Against Protests At Justices’ Homes

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Gender Case, Gives Up On Protecting Basic Values

Our elected representatives and their appointees need to do their duties, even when it isn’t politically expedient. That’s why the Supreme Court’s recent actions are cause for concern.

Earlier this week, the court announced that it wouldn’t review a 2019 ruling by a lower court that granted a gender-confused female high school student in Virginia the right to use male restrooms. Notably, none of the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump argued in favor of considering the appeal. Last December, the court declined to review a similar case, when parents in Oregon tried to challenge school policies allowing gender-confused students the right to use opposite-gender restrooms.

The Supreme Court’s submission on this issue is deeply troubling. Six of the nine justices are supposedly principled conservatives who should recognize the risks of normalizing gender confusion. Girls and young women across the country will have to endure humiliating privacy violations, and free speech will be at risk if public schools cannot state simple realities about biological sex. Perhaps the heightened agitation around the issue during “pride” month made the justices too wary of a backlash. If so, they are abandoning their responsibility to protect basic freedoms to appease a small group of activists who will never be appeased either way.

This dangerous trend hasn’t just taken root in Virginia. In 2016, the Obama administration tried to force public schools across the country to let boys into girls’ private spaces or risk losing funding. And when North Carolina passed a law protecting the rights of private businesses – not government – to affirm the reality of biological gender, activists pressured corporations to boycott the state, and the Obama administration sued.

The Supreme Court must protect the right to call a man a man and a woman a woman. And it needs to ensure that the wellbeing of children – including young people driven to gender confusion – is protected by not normalizing transgender ideology.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bipartisan Coalition Rejects Democrats’ Call to Pack Supreme Court

A bipartisan group dominated by former state attorneys general is pushing back against proposals from congressional Democrats and progressive activists to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices.

“We feel that court packing, adding or for that matter subtracting justices for political advantage, is wrong,” former Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers, an independent, told The Daily Signal. “It would denigrate the rule of law [in favor of] the rule of men. It undermines the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Summers is part of the Coalition to Preserve the Independence of the Supreme Court, which calls itself “Keep Nine” for short in a reference to the nine justices on the high court.

The coalition, with 27 members, has grown to include former members of Congress and former governors.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


The organization is promoting a 13-word constitutional amendment that says simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”

On the cusp of President Donald Trump’s nomination of another woman to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week, some Democrats have insisted that adding justices would be appropriate revenge for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stated intention to hold a confirmation vote on the nominee.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., tweeted about the Kentucky Republican: “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a force in House Democrats’ freshman class, also has indicated support for packing the high court.

“I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available [at] our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly told fellow Senate Democrats on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans move to fill the vacant seat on the high court.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer in tweeting: “If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.”

Passing a constitutional amendment to preserve the current total of nine Supreme Court justices would not be easy, Summers said, but noted that the process of amending the Constitution has been completed 27 times in the nation’s history.

“It will be hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but it will be harder on the country to denigrate a separate and equal branch of government,” said Summers, who was Tennessee’s attorney general from 1999 to 2006 and later served as a state appeals court judge. “If one party packs the court, then another party will win power and pack the court, and you could have 27 justices or more.”

A former Democratic attorney general from Virginia, Andrew Miller, contacted Summers about allying with the “Keep Nine” coalition.

“Court packing by one party would almost inevitably lead to retaliatory court packing by another party, undermining the independence of the court and potentially the rule of law itself,” Miller said in a written statement.

Exactly 231 years ago–on Sept. 24, 1789–Congress created a six-member Supreme Court. That same day, President George Washington signed the legislation and nominated the first chief justice and five associate justices. The Constitution doesn’t specify a total number, though, and it varied in the 19th century until stabilizing at nine since 1869.

A constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices “should be seriously considered,” said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“All of this talk about court packing is dangerous and divisive,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “The number is not set in the Constitution, but nine has worked pretty well for a long time.”

Voters support a “Keep Nine” amendment by a 3-1 margin, according to a John Zogby Strategies poll cited by the coalition.  Democrats back the amendment by a 2-1 margin, the poll found, while self-described independents and moderates back the proposal by nearly 4-1.

Other coalition members include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Republican who also served as the first U.S. homeland security secretary; former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who also is a former attorney general; George Jepsen, a Democrat who was Blumenthal’s successor as Connecticut’s attorney general; former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, a Democrat; and former California Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat.

During his second term, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add justices to the Supreme Court  and force the retirement of others when the high court ruled against certain New Deal programs. However, fellow Democrats stepped in to oppose the move.

It’s not a better idea today, Summers said.

“There was an attempt by FDR to pack the court,” Summers said. “It just divided the president’s allies and emboldened his opponents.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Help The Daily Signal Cover the New Supreme Court Nominee Fairly

He’s a Friend of Supreme Court Prospect Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s What He Has to Say.


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

With Senators Like These, No Wonder America’s In Trouble

As the smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues, it is clear that the anti-Trump resistance has brought out the worst in many Democratic Party Senators. Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii are Exhibit A in the cutthroat, gutter-class attacks to which Republicans must put a halt.

First, it was Hirono who told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs make sexual assault accusations against him believable. The block quote below highlights just one of the at least three times she mentioned Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs in a discussion about sexual assault:

TAPPER: Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.

As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats.

So he comes, and — when I say that he’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, is very outcome-driven. And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him.

This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He has a — he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

HIRONO: And I can tell you two very important cases in which he applied the same standard, but came to totally different results to make it much harder for women to get this kind of coverage.

So there’s — there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility. And I put that in a context.

TAPPER: It sounds to me like you’re saying, because you don’t trust him on policy and because you don’t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don’t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982? Is that fair?:

Coons’ comments were, if possible, actually worse than Hirono’s. At least she’s just being a party hack, albeit on a critical issue. (Though she’s also a hypocrite — Hirono is a supporter of Planned Parenthood despite the abortion company’s complicity in hiding sex abuse.) Coons is a Yale Law graduate, which means he knows better than to say that Kavanaugh has the burden of proof regarding innocence.

Yet that’s exactly what he did on MSNBC:

Mr. Coons said that Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez “have nothing to gain” and have put themselves “at legal risk” by accusing Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his teen years.

“It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Mr. Coons in a Monday interview on MSNBC, “rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations.”

This pathetic effort at #Resistance to President Donald Trump’s excellent nominee would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. It’s past time for the hackery to stop and for Kavanaugh to be approved to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran Nuclear Treaty by Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When we published “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” in the August 2015 New English Review, we reviewed several options. One proposal suggested by Dr. Robert B. Skalorff entailed direct litigation by Congress before the Supreme Court under provisions of the US Constitution seeking a ruling  treating   the Iran nuclear pact as a  treaty requiring  advise and consent of the Senate . We  wrote:

That proposal entailed independent Congressional litigation on demonstrable Constitutional legal grounds regarding executive overreach. If the Senate was granted standing on direct appeal, based on the B. Altman SCOTUS ruling, it might result in a predisposed SCOTUS rendering a positive ruling thus quashing the Iran nuclear pact. Further, the ruling might unfetter the hands of any successor to President Obama on inauguration day in 2017 to undertake remedial actions. Such actions might reduce the current existential threats to both the US and Israel.

In furtherance of that original proposal we are publishing  the following article by Dr. Robert A. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, Esq. which expands upon the original concept noting support from  Constitutional law experts and applicable case citations.

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran TREATY

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day, one of the most pressing issues on the agenda is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as “the Iran deal.” Much has been discovered since the Corker-Cardin-Menendez bill was enacted, including the White House’s and State Department’s deceit which influenced the Senate to abandon its constitutionally-provided role regarding treaties.

Now it might take a lawsuit spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse not only the damage to the Constitution but also potential damage to America and our allies as a result of the provisions of the Iran nuclear-deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has overwhelming justification to sue President Obama over the JCPOA which constitutes a treaty and thereby must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those present prior to implementation.

Such a suit could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to disclaim Obama’s portrayal of this document as an Executive Agreement. It could also sustain the overwhelming will of the American people–according to polling data—to trash this “legacy” effort, for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed.

Blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear-deal would thereby necessitate the legislative branch triggering a confrontation between the judicial and the executive branches.

Two essays {authored by RBS} published in The Hill explored the legalities of this initiative, focused on its “treaty” [July 29] and “rule-of-law” [August 25] components.

In the interim [USA Today, August 5], Professor Alan Dershowitz recognized that a Supreme Court opinion challenged the President’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. He cannot avoid Congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty [Gibbons v. Ogden]:  “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress.”

Two other authors, legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy [National Review Online, July 17] and accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick [Jerusalem Post, July 21] also claimed the deal is a treaty, but none of these columnists proposed a remedy that would force a clash with this out-of-control Obama Administration. Jerry Gordon has detailed, comprehensively, “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” [New English Review, August 2015].

The drip-drip-drip of news about details of the deal as well as “secret” side arrangements that has emerged this summer congeals into two major rationales for such litigation, addressing both specifics and lack of transparency. Specifically, multiple side-deals between Iran and the IAEA satirize the concept of “anytime, anywhere surveillance” but, perhaps more important, Obama and his cabinet-members “inexplicably” failed to reveal this information to Congress as secrets.  Moreover, the Administration also misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the deal and the resulting preservation of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and right to continue advanced research that will provide it with a bomb when the pact expires in a mere decade to 15 years.

The “legislative intent” of the Corker-Cardin Bill (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015) was focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact the Administration concluded that was expanded to allow lifting of conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought—and was granted—this specific concession at the very end of the negotiations.  This was outside what the Administration had originally advised Congress about the parameters of this deal, focused on nuclear-weapons capability and not conventional weapons (or ICBMs). Thus, the final version of the Iran nuclear-deal encompassed issues, such as weaponization, that the Administration did not disclose to Congress before it debated and passed the Corker-Cardin Bill.

(Other facets of the negotiation were also misrepresented by the Obama Administration prior to when Kerry inked the deal. For example, although release of American prisoners was not ultimately achieved, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on  January 21, 2015 that the Administration’s negotiators “continue to insist” that Americans held in detention be released.)

This pattern of deception started before the Corker-Cardin Bill was passed in May. It was even maintained by Iran when the Tasmin News agency reported [June 15] “Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani reiterated that negotiations between Tehran and six major world powers solely focus on nuclear topics, dismissing any talk of military subjects in the talks.” And, reflecting the persistence of the deception,  it was manifest one week prior to when the deal was signed [July 14] during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing via testimony from Defense Secretary Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey that the arms embargo, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1929, was not to be lifted [July 7].

Thus, overall, absent the ability to review all relevant data, the Senate (1)—cannot render an informed judgment, consistent with its “advise/consent” role, and (2)—cannot be viewed to be facing a 60-day deadline, for the Corker-Cardin Bill mandates that this “clock” start “ticking” only after the database has been completed.

Refusal to provide copies of side-agreements to Congress continues unabated, as per testimony on August 5 by chief-negotiator Wendy Sherman and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. We now know why normally-sedate Senator Corker exploded (“We cannot get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin”) because such inspections have been serially outsourced by Obama to the IAEA and then, we learned more recently, by the IAEA to Iran.

The “toughest inspections-regime in history” forces America (and the world) to allow Iran to provide proof that Iran is not making nukes in Iran.

Perhaps more ominous is the dismissive posture adopted by Secretary of State Kerry [July 28] when confronted by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The innocent hypothetical was unambiguous:  Would he “follow the law” governing existing congressional sanctions if Congress voted to override a veto? The elitist reply challenged rule-of-law:  “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are.”

Could BHO go rogue?

The ability of the Supreme Court to exercise “judicial review” is rooted in the Supremacy Clause, was affirmed in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison], and has never been tested again to this day.

But, because the Supreme Court does not command any enforcement-military, the remedy for potential lawlessness is unclear. Indeed, this concern would extend to any nullification effort by the President related to the prospect that the Supreme Court would declare the Iran-Nuclear Deal to be a “treaty” rather than the “executive agreement” the President has potentially improperly considered it to be, to skirt congressional oversight and approval.

These concerns were predicted [May 7] and corroborated [July 23] in essays that presage the current crisis [by RBS, both published in The American Thinker]. They were confirmed in an e-mail exchange by noted constitutional scholar, Dr. John C. Eastman [the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence]:First, because only a ‘treaty’ is the Supreme law of the land, a mere executive agreement could not overturn statutorily-imposed sanctions.” Eastman continued in an e-mail, “And neither, in my view, could a change in the constitutionally-mandated default rule for adopting a treaty.  Second, if that is true, then members of the Senate who, collectively, had the votes to prevent ratification of a treaty would have standing to challenge the process that negated their vote.  That’s the Coleman v. Miller case on all fours.” This 1939 landmark decision ensured that Congress was empowered to specify a deadline by which an external entity was to affirm proposed legislation, such as a Constitutional amendment.

The Ottoman-Islamic defeat at the “Gates of Vienna” in 1683 is on the verge of being reversed by Obama/Kerry and their P5+1 partners, again in Vienna; the irony is that the West is validating Iranian-Islamic supremacism. It seems only the U.S. Senate can rescue (Judeo-Christian) Western Civilization from the Administration’s collaboration and perfidy.

The Senate must definitively impose a limit to the President’s executive lawlessness before a constitutional crisis erupts. Resolution by the courts may be the most effective way to check and to balance the scales that Obama has usurped.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.  Lee S. Bender, Esquire, is an attorney, activist and co-author of the book, “Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Iranian national arrested in Hancock County, Mississippi accused of tackling deputy, making terroristic threats

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Harbinger II: You thought same-sex marriage meant America is going down? Wait a month!

harbinger book coverThe Harbinger was about a series of events that needed explanation in Cahn’s best-selling book that warns of impending judgment. Harbinger II needs little explanation except to note that the Supreme Court decision for same-sex marriage came on a date that resonates with biblical meaning for what’s happening and may be confirmed within weeks.

One reason the Bible is the #1 best-selling book is because most people who read it seriously gain the conviction that it is God’s Word. They also know that the highest court in the U.S. is not really supreme. In the end, God is the Judge and we should pity the poor “justices” whose opinions of what is good for America put it past the tipping point.

The Supreme Court decision came the 9th day of the 4th Jewish month, counting from the new moon crescent. That’s the same date that “there was no bread for the people of the land,” Jeremiah 52:6. This is not about a literal famine in America, but it has a spiritual application. Christ likened bread to God’s Word in Matthew 4:4. In our parallel, we don’t have God’s Word and we are spiritually starving.

We can know the “Supreme” Court decision is Harbinger II a month from now if judgment falls as it did in the chapter above when Solomon’s Temple burned a month later on the 10th day of the 5th month, Jeremiah 52:12. It was the end of an era, like we may be now.

In 70 AD, Herod’s Temple burned, again on the 10th day of the 5th month, according to Josephus. Again that date signaled the end of an era.

That would be July 27 on our calendar. We won’t need to wait for economic collapse that many expect this fall. We won’t need to have a foreign invasion [actually that’s been going on for years, thanks to congress being sold out to a global agenda, and we already have civil and racial strife.

A new book, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code suggests that an earthquake initiates the biblical scenes of Revelation, but we haven’t recognized it because it’s encoded:

  1. It’s encoded as a trumpet in Revelation 1:10, because using the Alpha Code, we find the first place “trumpet” is found in the Bible is Exodus 19:16 when Mount Sinai shook at God’s presence in a mini-Judgment Day in the presence of God and His law.
  2. The earthquake is encoded again as the roaring of the sea in Revelation 1:15 because that’s the context of the call of Isaiah to prophetic office when “the posts of the door moved” but five verses earlier, we see the roaring of the sea (no chapter divisions in original Hebrew text).
  3. The earthquake is encoded as a ‘knock’ in Revelation 3:20 for the lukewarm church of Laodicea that ended in an earthquake circa 63 AD. Type and antitype?
  4. The earthquake is encoded as a lion’s roar in Revelation 6:1 where John heard thunder—it was the Lion of Judah, Rev 4:7; 5:5. The Lord shall roar…the earth shall shake; Joel 3:16.
  5. An “earthquake” occurs before the seven trumpets in Revelation 8:5,6.
  6. An earthquake is again encoded as a lion’s roar before the seven thunders in Revelation 10:3.
  7. An earthquake is shown to initiate “the day of the LORD” in Joel 2:10,11. Zechariah 14:1,5 says, “You shall flee as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah.” (#2 above)

This brings up the idea of evacuation. Christ said, “As it was in the days of Lot…the same day that Lot left [fled] Sodom, it rained fire…” Luke 17:28,29. Should Christians consider leaving cities?

Christ said, “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong… flee,” Mark 13:14, NIV. Early believers understood Christ’s reference to military and when the Roman army came under Cestius in 66 AD, they fled and were spared the siege by Titus in 70 AD. Military?

What about JADE HELM [Homeland Eradication of Local Militants]? Is this not an abomination that causes desolation? How does our government get away with this except a congress that’s strangely sold out to a New World Order agenda where current freedoms won’t fly?

So when we celebrate our freedoms this coming weekend, it may be bitter-sweet, knowing this may be the last such celebration this country gets.

A major U.S. earthquake on July 27 would bear a double message: “The time of God’s judgment is come  and “the Bridegroom comes, go ye out to meet Him.” Revelation 14:7; Matthew 25:6. The message of judgment is clear, but why the “midnight cry” message from Christ’s wedding parable?

God came as Judge to Egypt where there was a cry at midnight (Exodus 12:12,29,30) and God took Israel out to the wilderness [flee] where they made a covenant and He later said, “I am married to you,” Jeremiah 3:14.

God regarded the covenant as a marriage and Paul included the Exodus in “all those things happened to them for examples…ends of the world.” 1Corinthians 10:1,11.

Christians have misunderstood Christ’s wedding parables. This is implied by the women being asleep with their lights out, Matthew 25:5. But now it’s vital to get it right, because not getting into the marriage implies a serious loss of destiny.

The Alpha Code shows the first use of the midnight cry in Matthew 25:6 is Exodus 12:29,30, so that history is for us as Paul confirmed (above).

In expectancy of possible judgment on the 10th day of the 5th month, Bible-reading Christians and Jews should fast and pray on the 9th of Av—the 5th month as Zechariah 7:5 suggests. That was because the temple was destroyed then. It could be the end of our great society and the beginning of end-times.

In summary, three passages link current harbingers to a need to  flee the cities.

  1. Christ’s warning in Luke 17:28,29. The Supreme Court decision is a link to Lot (Sodom)
  2. Mark 13:14, NIV for military as an abomination that makes U.S. desolate (HELM: July 15)
  3. Zechariah 14:5 links fleeing to an earthquake: July 27? Why not save this article to review then.

The 9th of Av (when many Jews fast and pray, Zech 7:5) falls on Sunday. It would be wonderful if churches everywhere were filled with people who cared enough about America to skip supper and come to church for prayer. Maybe “Wonderful Numberer” arranged it so we have no excuse?

Elijah had the guts to pray for  judgment to fall in order to turn Israel back. Do we? Isn’t it time?

SCOTUS Says You Can Be Sued for Unintentional Discrimination by Walter Olson

Stop calling it fair housing law. If it was ever a matter of fairness, it isn’t now.

Under today’s 5-4 Supreme Court holding in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate.

Instead — to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority — you might have been influenced by “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions.

What you did had “disparate impact” on some race or other legally protected group, and now you’re caught up in potentially ruinous litigation in which it’s up to you to show that you had a good reason for what you did and could not have arranged your actions in some other way that had less disparate impact.

The decision is quite broad in its implications. For example, in employment discrimination law, where disparate impact has long been legally established, it is increasingly legally dangerous to ask job applicants about criminal records, or carry out criminal background checks on them before a job offer, for fear of disparate impact.

Is it still safe to ask such questions of prospective tenants in your apartment building? Better ask your lawyer.

The case hinged on statutory interpretation, and as Justice Alito’s dissent makes clear, King v. Burwell wasn’t the only case decided today in which a majority mangled the clear meaning of a law’s text to get the result it wanted.

As Justice Ginsburg was frank enough to note at oral argument, “”If we’re going to be realistic about it…in 1968, when the Fair Housing Act passed, nobody knew anything about disparate impact.”

On the contrary, the law’s text specified that it was banning decisions taken “because of” race, and to find a loophole the majority was obliged to fall back on an incidental clause banning the making “unavailable” of a “dwelling,” which we are meant to believe snuck in a huge new area of liability.

As the majority stresses, many appeals courts did go along with a liberal interpretation. But the Executive Branch did not — in 1988 it took the position before the Court that the law did not permit disparate impact claims — while Congress hedged the issue in later enactments so as to keep all sides on board a compromise.

Despite ridiculous claims (like that in a Vox headline) that the Court today “saved” the Fair Housing Act or that a contrary decision would have “gutted” it, the great majority of litigation under the Act has been on disparate-treatment complaints (which, as Alito notes, can already use disparate impact as evidence of pretext.)

But the Obama administration, as I’ve documented elsewhere, has launched a huge effort to turn disparate-impact law into an engine of revolutionary changes in local government and housing practice, introducing, for example, such concepts as a local government obligation to pursue subsidized federal housing grants and to enact laws forcing private landlords to accept Section 8 tenants.

As the four dissenters make clear, a compliance and litigation nightmare now looms for many in real estate, finance, and local government as they try to dodge liability.

“No matter what [Texas] decides” in the case at hand on locating low-income housing, for example, one or another group “will be able to bring a disparate-impact case” based either on the theory that projects should be put in poorer areas (which enables building more of them) or in affluent areas (which will benefit some future residents).

If you have time to read only one bit of today’s opinion, read Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate dissent. Thomas brilliantly recounts the EEOC’s successful subversion of its own founding statute, culminating in the Court’s profoundly mistaken opinion in Griggs v. Duke Power, the employment case that founded disparate impact theory.

“We should drop the pretense that Griggs’ interpretation of Title VII was legitimate,” he writes. It’s a tour de force — and already being denounced vehemently on the Left.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.


Walter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

The Left Will Always Blame the GOP on Obamacare

With the 2016 elections right around the corner, conservatives must begin immediately preparing to rebut the massive Democratic Party/mainstream media, symbiotic messaging operation. I read a piece this week by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that summarizes the far Left’s new Obamacare messaging strategy in the event of a Supreme Court loss in the King v. Burwell (Obamacare subsidies) case.

Here is a short summary of where we are. The far Left is terrified that the Supreme Court is going to rule against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, essentially voiding the Obamacare subsidies in the states using the federal exchange even though the legislative language in the law regarding the “subsidies” was written this way to punish states for failing to set up state exchanges. The far Left and the Obama administration are disputing this point despite clear, videotaped evidence of Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s lead architects, stating otherwise.

Now, the Obama administration has never let videotaped evidence of their prior contradicting statements dissuade them from continuing to lie to the American people (i.e. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”) but, in this case, their lies are especially egregious because their plan to withhold subsidies from states that refused to set up a state exchange was designed to punish the citizens of that state for not complying with Obamacare. When the punishment backfired because of public opposition to Obamacare, and support for the governors and legislators who refused to comply with its exchange language only increased, they went with plan B: lie. As usual, after their strategic miscalculation they are desperately trying to find a way to blame Republicans for this disaster, although not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the final version of Obamacare.

The far Left’s messaging strategy to avert political disaster because of their tactical miscalculation regarding the Obamacare subsidies is to say that the Republicans have “taken away” the subsidies and pin the blame on Republicans if the court rules against the Obama administration. But, here’s the catch; the Dems destroyed our already-troubled healthcare system all by themselves by unilaterally supporting Obamacare. The reason the Obamacare “subsidies” (which are your tax payer dollars given back to you after the government takes a cut) are necessary is because insurance costs are exploding because Obamacare forces Americans to buy expensive insurance they do not want and do not need. And the reason these “subsidies” may be taken away is because the Democrats unilaterally wrote and passed the law this way to punish Americans for resisting this legislative debacle.

Unsurprisingly, when you combine the mandate to purchase health insurance policies, which included multiple unwanted and unneeded services with the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions designed to redistribute costs according to government edicts, you have a recipe for explosive healthcare cost growth. Of course, none of this was a mystery to the Republican Party when they warned America about the coming storm of healthcare premium hikes, a warning the mainstream media largely downplayed to ensure the “wizard” stayed well-hidden behind the curtain.

So here it is in a nutshell: Obamacare was shoved down your throats using parliamentary trickery. Obamacare forced you to buy expensive insurance you don’t want or need at dramatically inflated costs to compensate for the redistributive, big-government, effort to price-control the health insurance market. Obamacare taxed you to gather a honey pot of money. Obamacare then used this honey pot of taxpayer money to “give back” to Americans to pay for their new, and more expensive insurance.

You will never fix this legislative disaster by doubling down on absurdity. The economics won’t work because they can’t work. The Republican Party must prepare their counter message right now to explain to the American people the horrible tsunami that Obamacare has created. If we allow the far Left to continue to distort markets, engage in massive income redistribution operations, and instill more big-government coercion schemes to force compliance on the American people by simply pledging to prolong the misery by “fixing” the subsidy system and continuing the misery, then we are no better than the president who lied to us to sell us this jalopy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image of the Supreme Court building is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

Anti Bible Christians

Homosexual marriage is gaining some strange allies. “Christians” who reject what the Bible says on the subject.