The walls of Jericho blocking Trump’s effort to streamline government have now fallen

Trump defiant after being shot
Trump defiant

Fight! Fight! Fight! The Supreme Court ruling yesterday that allowed Trump’s plan to reorganize and reduce the federal workforce to go forward was far more significant than most realize. It in fact tells us that opposition to Trump’s effort is dissolving, and that he will have the ability in the last three years of his present term in office to complete this effort in a manner that will reshape the federal bureaucracy in ways so radical we will not recognize it when he is done — assuming Trump maintains his present aggressive effort.

First the background. In February Trump issued an executive order requiring agency managements throughout the executive branch to institute plans for reducing staffing signficiantly.

Titled “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the executive order also severely limits federal departments’ ability to bring on more staffers and mandates that agency heads closely coordinate with their DOGE representatives on future hiring plans. Once the hiring freeze that Trump put in place is lifted, agencies will only be allowed to replace one of every four employees who leave and hiring will be restricted to the highest-need areas.

Plus, agencies will not be able to fill vacancies for career positions that DOGE team leaders think should remain open, unless the department head determines they should be filled. DOGE leaders at each agency will file a monthly hiring report to DOGE.

Not surprisingly numerous lawsuits were immediately filed to block this order, claiming that Trump was required to get Congressional approval for such actions.
» Read more

11 comments

Supreme Court unanimously rules the federal government’s regulatory overuse of environmental impact statements is wrong

In a ruling that will have wide-ranging impacts across multiple industries, including rocketry, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled 8-0 that the mission creep expansion of federal government’s regulatory use of environmental impact statements (EIS) to hinder all new construction projects is incorrect and must stop.

The case involved a planned railroad in Utah, that had gotten all its permits for construction, including approval of its environmental impact statement, but was then stymied by lawsuits by political activist groups that claimed the impact statement, issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), had not considered the impact of the industries the railroads would serve, including impacts far from the railroad’s location itself.

This is a perfect example of the broad expansion of NEPA that has been imposed in the last two decades by federal bureaucracy working hand-in-glove with these leftist political groups.

The Supreme Court, including all of the Democratic Party appointees, said enough!

In its majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court clarified that under NEPA the STB “did not need to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the separate upstream and downstream projects.” The Court concluded that the “proper judicial approach for NEPA cases is straightforward: Courts should review an agency’s EIS to check that it addresses the environmental effects of the project at hand. The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects.”

This statement “is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA’s burdens (at least at the margins),” wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in The Volokh Conspiracy. “The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements.”

The article notes (and confirms) what I have been writing now for the past five years in connection with the FAA’s demand that rocket companies require new impact statements every time they revise their operations, even when those changes are relatively minor.

This point could reduce one of the largest delays caused by NEPA: litigation. Since its passage in 1969, NEPA has been weaponized by environmental groups to stunt disfavored projects—which has disproportionately impacted clean energy projects. On average, these challenges delay a permitted project’s start time by 4.2 years, according to The Breakthrough Institute.

The increased threat of litigation has forced federal agencies to better cover their bases, leading to longer and more expensive environmental reviews. With courts deferring more to agency decisions, litigation could be settled more quickly.

This ruling is an excellent move in the right direction, but no one should assume it will be followed honestly by the next Democrat who sits in the White House. Just as Biden expanded red tape by simple forcing the FAA to slow-walk its launch licensing process, future presidents could do the same.

Nor should be expect the lawsuits by these luddite leftists to cease. They will find other legal challenges and will push those instead.

The real solution is to reduce the bureaucracy’s size entirely, so there won’t be paper-pushers for these petty dictators to utilize for their authoritarian purposes. Eliminating or simplifying these environmental regulations would help as well, giving the activists fewer handles on which to hang their lawsuits.

7 comments

Supreme Court declines case of blacklisted student who declared “There are only two genders”, proving the large leftist blob is not going away no matter what Trump does

The shirt that offended teachers at Nichols Middle School
Liam Morrison, wearing the evil shirt that he wore the
second time teachers at Nichols Middle School sent
him home.

The Supreme Court today declined by a vote of 7-2 to hear the case of Liam Morrison, who as a 12-year-old was sent home from Nichols Middle School in Massachusetts because he wore a T-shirt that said “There are only two genders.” Later he came to school wearing the shirt in the picture to the right, and was sent home again.

Morrison and his parents sued, noting in their complaint that since the 1960s the courts have consistently ruled that students have free speech rights. However, in almost all those earlier cases the students were expressing views supportive of leftist causes, so of course their first amendment rights were aggressively protected by the courts.

Because Liam Morrison was taking a conservative rightwing position, however, the court now believes students like him are too young to have first amendment rights, and so of course he has been effectively silenced in school, permanently.

This case illustrates something that all freedom-loving Americans had better recognize. Just because Trump is shutting down whole agencies, firing hundreds of thousands of leftist government workers, denying federal funds to indoctrination universities like Harvard, we should not assume that all will be well in just a few years.
» Read more

4 comments

Democrats: You got what you asked for when the Supreme Court ruled presidents have absolute immunity for official actions

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!

As always, the Democrats have once again demonstrated their utter inability to reflect even slightly on the consequences of their actions.

On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court, faced with an appeal from Donald Trump that claimed he as president should have immunity from prosecution when his political opponents gain power, ruled that yes, Trump is right, that presidents do have absolute immunity for their “official” actions while in office.

The majority opinion finds that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. This immunity does “not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress,” and unofficial acts taken while in office receive no immunity at all.

The court ruled that President Trump’s conversations with the acting attorney general were core conduct subject to absolute immunity. It also ruled that his conversations with the vice president about the counting of the votes were part of his official duties, thus subject to presumptive, but not absolute, immunity—finding that Judge Chutkan should now assess whether prosecution of these actions intrudes on the authority and functions of the executive branch, and prosecutors will have to rebut the presumption of immunity if so.

Since then Democrat politicians and pundits have been gnashing their teeth in horror, claiming that this ruling now allows presidents to do almost anything once in office, from assassinating their opponents to using the military to arrest and eliminate judges he or she does not like.

The irony here of course escapes the Democrats. First, hasn’t Biden and his Department of Justice and the FBI been doing a milder form of the same abuse of power in their lawfare against Trump and those who worked for him?

Second, this case would never have gotten to the Supreme Court in the first place if the Democrats had not started that lawfare campaign. By prosecuting Trump on numerous weak and sometimes utterly bogus charges, it forced the issue to the courts, which was then forced to rule.

The biggest irony of this whole issue is that the Democrats are right. » Read more

21 comments

Supreme Court to SEC: Use of in-house administrative law judges unconstitutional

SEC: no longer above the law
SEC: no longer above the law

The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 that the SEC has violated the Constitution with its use of in-house administrative law judges to rule on its various securities fraud cases.

The agency, like other regulators, brings some enforcement actions in internal tribunals rather than in federal courts. The S.E.C.’s practice, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a six-justice majority in a decision divided along ideological lines, violated the right to a jury trial. “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” the chief justice wrote.

This ruling against the use of administrative law judges has a direct bearing on SpaceX’s own lawsuit [pdf] against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In January the NLRB filed a complaint against SpaceX, accusing it of firing eight employees illegally for writing a public letter criticizing the company in 2022. Rather than fight that complaint directly, SpaceX’s response was to file a lawsuit challenging the very legal structure of the NLRB itself, including its use of administrative law judges.
» Read more

13 comments

Supreme Court votes 9-0 in favor of NRA’s 1st amendment rights

In a major decision today, the Supreme Court voted unanimously that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has the right to sue New York state officials for their campaign of intimidation by threatening private financial organizations if they did business with it.

“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” Justice Sonja Sotomayor wrote in the unanimous opinion. “Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.” [emphasis mine]

The ruling allows the NRA lawsuit against Vullo to move forward.

I highlighted Sotomayor’s name because her position here, representing the entire court in favor of the NRA, proves that even the leftist justices at the court are increasingly tired of the abusive and illegal lawfare being waged by the Democratic Party against Republicans and conservatives. The court, from both the right and the left, is telling the Democrats they are exposing themselves to personal liability if they do not stop this misbehavior. The Supreme Court is not going to go along with it, and that includes the leftists on the bench.

This decision also provides us a strong indication of what the Supreme Court will do if and when the various lawfare cases against Donald Trump reach it. In those cases the abuse of the law has been even more clear. Partisan prosecutors like Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith, all of whom are misusing the law simply to get a political opponent, are likely not going to be treated nicely by the court.

10 comments

Pushback: Non-profit legal firm warns 200 law schools they will be sued if they defy the Supreme Court’s decision ending all racial quotas

AFL logo
Only one in an army of lawyers willing to
fight for freedom and the Bill of Rights

Bring a gun to a knife fight: One day after the Supreme Court ruled on June 29, 2023 [pdf] that affirmative action was nothing more than outright racial discrimination and that universities must stop using race as a criteria for admitting students or hiring faculty, the non-profit legal firm America’s First Legal (AFL) wasted no time and sent demand letters to the deans of every law school in the United States, numbering 200, warning them to stop these racist policies or it will sue them.

America First Legal’s letter demands that law schools immediately halt these discriminatory and unlawful practices. It further puts the deans of every law school on notice: if they do not stop, America First Legal will bring legal action against them.

The letter to the Harvard University Law School, found here [pdf], is a good sample. In it AFL makes very clear it will immediately take action if this or any other law school develops “an admissions scheme through pretext or proxy to achieve the same discriminatory outcome.”
» Read more

6 comments

A blacklisted American wins in court

Gerald Groff, no longer blacklisted by the post office
Gerald Groff, no longer blacklisted by the post office

Let’s end the week on a positive note. This week the big news in connection with Americans who have been blacklisted by our leftist governments has mostly focused on the Supreme Court ruling that Colorado cannot force a Christian web designer to create websites advocating the queer agenda. That 6-3 ruling affirmed the religious rights of Americans to refuse to promote ideas they find abhorrent. It also told the fascists in the homosexual movement they are not gods who can force everyone to endorse their lifestyle.

This column is not about that victory however. Instead, I want to tout another Supreme Court victory this same week, a follow-up of a story I had posted as a blacklist column back in August 2022, describing how postal worker Gerald Groff had been forced from his job because, after years of accommodating his religious beliefs and allowing him to not work on Sunday, his new post officer supervisor suddenly decided that he no longer had the right to those religious beliefs, and instituted disciplinary actions against him that forced him to quit. As I wrote then:
» Read more

4 comments

Today’s blacklisted Americans: Lawyers who won NY gun rights case in Supreme Court blackballed by their law firm

A witch hunt against conservative lawyers
The witch hunt against conservative lawyers accelerates.

Blacklists are back and the Democrats have got ’em: The two lawyers who recently won a major gun rights victory in the Supreme Court this week, invalidating the “may-issue” gun control laws in leftist states that prevented anyone from obtaining a gun license, have been blackballed by their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and forced to resign.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, a regular Supreme Court litigator, resigned from Kirkland & Ellis and announced they were opening their own shop in Washington, D.C. Clement has been a high-profile litigator of conservative causes since he left the administration of President George W. Bush. In 2011, he argued the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Republican lawmakers before the Supreme Court.

That case also caused Clement to resign from the firm King & Spalding following pressure from clients to drop the gay marriage case.

As reported at Politico:
» Read more

16 comments

Pro-abortion advocates threaten to storm the Supreme Court, burn it down, and murder justices

Real insurrection: According to a Homeland Security memo, pro-abortion protesters have been organizing to storm the Supreme Court, burn it down, and murder justices in protest should the court decide to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The threats also included attacking places of worship as well as anti-abortion clinics.

As is typical nowadays, Homeland Security tried to de-emphasize the seriousness of these threats of violence from the left by first hinting it was really a response to white supremacy and thus possibly justified, and then claiming such violence is really nothing more than constitutional protected speech. These two quotes from the memo from this Axios story illustrate this:

“Some racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists’ embrace of pro-life narratives may be linked to the perception of wanting to ‘save white children’ and ‘fight white genocide,'” the memo … says.

But the memo warns that this time, extremist acts could come from abortion-rights proponents as well. [However] “The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics does not constitute domestic violent extremism or illegal activity and is constitutionally protected.”

As always, our leftist government uses the premises of the left to excuse leftist violence. To them, the violence of the left is merely speech, while the speech of the right is violence, and must be silenced.

Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, we should all be prepared for riots as bad or worse as those that occurred after George Floyd’s death. This memo is merely stating the obvious. Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016 the left has decided that the only democracy and law it accepts is one in which it gets its way, every single time.

We should also be prepared for our government to do nothing to stop it, and if any rioters are captured to arrange their release as quickly as possible. These protests are certainly intended as a weapon to warp the results of November’s election, in favor of Democrats. Remember, the violent leftist protesters are merely the storm-troopers of the Democratic Party, used to promote violence in order to make possible the reelection of its politicians, by hook or by crook.

23 comments

Today’s blacklisted Americans: Conservative Supreme Court justices doxed and threatened by pro-abortion protesters

The left goes after the conservatives on the Supreme Court
The left goes after the conservatives on the Supreme Court

Persecution is now cool! The leaked draft opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that suggested that Roe vs Wade will be overturned this year has resulted in another wave of persecution by pro-abortion activists, almost all of which are Democrats and leftists.

The first indication that the threats and hate were real was revealed two days after Alito’s draft was leaked when his office canceled a scheduled public appearance by him at judicial conference this week.

Though the office provided no explanation for the cancellation, the reasons soon became obvious when two different radical left organizations partnered to publish the home addresses of all six conservative Supreme Court justices, encouraging protesters to go there and use “a diversity of tactics” to “force accountability.”

In collaboration with Vigil for Democracy, Ruth Sent Us generated and posted a Google Maps graphic pinning what it claims are the home addresses of Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts, where they presumably reside with their families. Vigil for Democracy titled the map, “Extremist Justices,” adding, “Where the six Christian fundamentalist Justices issue their shadow docket rulings.” The map has 3,185 views so far.

In Virginia, where three of the six justices live, protesting outside a private home is illegal.

» Read more

11 comments

Today’s blacklisted American: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas: Banned at amazon
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
Blackballed by Amazon Prime.

Blacklists are back and Amazon’s got ’em: During Black History month in February, Amazon decided it would no longer live stream on Amazon Prime the documentary on the life of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.

In the midst of Black History Month, Amazon pulled a critically acclaimed and popular documentary on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black justice currently serving on the Supreme Court, from its streaming platform. The documentary, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” is “currently unavailable to watch in your location,” the website reads when the title is clicked. The outage appears to be nationwide, as reported by Breitbart.

Amazon appeared to drop the PBS documentary, while still promoting a wide range of films including “All In: The Fight for Democracy” with Stacey Abrams and two movies on widely discredited activist Anita Hill.

That was in February, a time period when Americans of all stripes are supposed to celebrate the achievements of all blacks, no matter their politics. Amazon however for reasons that remain unexplained removed the Thomas documentary at that very moment, and has not reinstated it to this day. You can buy the dvd at Amazon, but you cannot watch it on Amazon’s live streaming service, even though the film’s maker, Michael Pack, was never offered an explanation for its removal.
» Read more

7 comments

Supreme Court dismisses Texas suit on election

The dead Constitution

The Supreme Court today dismissed the Texas lawsuit asking it to invalid the election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia because of election law changes made by bureaucrats rather than the state legislatures as directed by the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday evening rejected the state of Texas’ challenge to the 2020 election results in four battleground states, extinguishing one of the last remaining hopes for President Trump’s campaign to reverse Joe Biden’s lead in those states.

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the justices ruled. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

No one should be surprised by this. It is not the court’s job to give permission to the state legislatures to do their job. It is their responsibility to act, and they have ample evidence that the vote has been, if not stolen, very unreliable and not trustworthy.

They are just too cowardly to do it. They’d rather have an excuse to cop out. They will now do so, saying that they can’t do anything because the Supreme Court told them they couldn’t. This is a lie, and a joke.

The election has been stolen. Do not expect there ever again to be a legitimate election in the United States. Expect Democrats to begin winning every race, in every battleground swing state.

94 comments

Key legal issues behind the Texas petition to Supreme Court re election issues

Link here.

The author reviews the petition, the logic behind it, and the legal possibilities. She also cogently reviews the worst examples of misbehavior in the four swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, that justify Supreme Court action. If you are one of those people that refuses to recognize the illegalities in the handling of the election in those states, you should read this article to education yourself.

The key point however is this:

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

Texas is essentially demanding what I suggested several weeks ago: If election issues are not fixed, elected state Republicans must refuse to certify.

Texas is demanding that these four states put the decision to the legislatures, since their election counts cannot be trusted. While the arguments are sound, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will listen.

15 comments

Why Barrett’s confirmation went fast: Senate Republicans finally grew a spine

Link here. The author outlines all the ways the Democrats tried to duplicate their slander campaign against Brett Kavanaugh, then notes this:

The biggest difference is that Republicans simply weren’t playing with these attacks. Each and every one of these stories — and dozens of similar ones — was met with swift condemnation or yawns. Every single one.

It took a few decades of the left playing the exact same games with most confirmation battles, but finally, the right figured out how to render those attacks worthless. It’s not just conservative Americans, but the senators themselves who are playing this differently.

Rather than the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately responding to the Washington Post’s anti-Kavanaugh attack by bending to the will of the Democrats, this time they just didn’t care. As Democrats openly said on national television that they would do anything to stop Barrett’s confirmation, rather than act scared, the Republicans were not moved. They haven’t responded with outrage or drama, but just a steely resolve to get the nomination done. [emphasis mine]

Why it took Senate Republicans decades to figure out this basic premise, that the best way to deal with bullies and temper tantrums is to ignore them, is another question. It suggests that for decades those Republicans really liked bowing to those tantrums, because they really didn’t want to achieve any of the conservative goals their voters wanted and that they always campaigned on.

However, fake conservative senators like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are gone, replaced with senators who are either more legitimately conservative (Marsha Blackburn) or faced with a tough reelection fight that forces toughness (Martha McSally). The result is that no Republican in the Senate is willing to play the Democrat’s game anymore. They can scream and kick and hold their breath, but on Monday Amy Barrett will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

19 comments

Supreme Court rules federal judges have no right to overturn gerrymandering

A victory for democracy: Supreme Court has ruled that federal judges have no authority to overturn congressional districts created by state legislatures.

The 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s other conservatives said partisan election maps drawn by North Carolina Republicans and Maryland Democrats are constitutional despite their one-sided nature.

It was a dramatic withdrawal by the nation’s highest court from the political battles that have consumed states for decades, and it was loudly denounced by the court’s liberal justices.

“How do you decide where the line is between acceptable partisanship and too much partisanship?” Roberts said from the bench in announcing his ruling on the last day of the term. “At some point, it should occur to you that what you’ve been asked to do is not judging at all.” The chief justice said the challengers from North Carolina and Maryland asked for “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power” that would have broad consequences. “There will be no end to the litigation,” he said.

While this decision ends the use of the federal courts to override the decisions of elected state legislatures, the court has let stand state court actions that overrode gerrymandering. In the end, however, the essence here will shift political power back to the states and their legislatures.

0 comments

Ginsberg extols Kavanaugh for hiring female law clerks

Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg yesterday extolled fellow justice Brett Kavanaugh for hiring the most female law clerks of any previous justice.

Ginsburg, in prepared remarks to a conference for judges in New York, noted that while women have made progress towards equal representation among the court’s clerks there are areas where improvements are still needed. “Justice Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew. Thanks to his selections, the Court has this Term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks,” she said, according to remarks released by the court.

During Kavanaugh’s nomination hearing he promised to do this, and has followed through, putting the lie to all the evil slanders the Democrats accused him of during those hearings.

As I wrote on American Greatness in October,

Now is the time to look these bullies in the eyes, and tell them that we will not be intimidated, that we will stand for what we believe, and we will not bow to their smears and slanders and screaming protesters who know nothing of us, care nothing for us, and are increasingly willing to harm us and our children because we reject their oppressive and overbearing demands.

Kavanaugh has done this. And so has Ginsburg now. She is considered a hero by the same leftists that slandered Kavanaugh, and she is now telling those slanderers they were full of bunk. Good for her!

45 comments

New York Times and Associated Press look for dirt on Kavanaugh’s wife

They’re coming for you next: The New York Times and the Associated Press have now made broad requests for the email records of Ashley Kavanaugh, wife of the current Supreme Court nominee, while she was town manager for the Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 (that’s only part of the village).

The two news organizations took different approaches to obtain the e-mails. According to the documents, the AP made a sweeping request for “all emails sent or received” by Ashley Kavanaugh’s Village of Chevy Chase email address.

By contrast, The New York Times is currently requesting that The Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 hand over “any emails to or from Ms. Kavanaugh that contain any of the keywords or terms listed below.”

And what a list it is, including words like “liberal,” “abortion,” “gay,” and “federalist,” while also explicitly asking for e-mails containing the names of certain individuals.

It’s a witch hunt, and a perfect illustration of McCarthyism of the left. “Have you ever been a member of the Republican Party, or do you know anyone who has?” As noted at the link,

[I]t’s all but clear that the PIA request from the NYT and the AP isn’t to shine a light on the workings of Chevy Chase local government; it’s to invade Mrs. Kavanaugh’s correspondence to dig up dirt on her husband. The nature of the search parameters from the NYT make that excruciatingly clear, unless the NYT has an ongoing in-depth exposé on the use of “federalist” thought in local governments.

…This is an intimidation tactic designed to discourage the next Supreme Court justice appointed by Donald Trump or any other Republican president, warning everyone that spouses will become fair game not just in electoral politics but in non-electoral politics as well.

This is only the beginning. The witch hunt, having failed against Trump, must continue until it succeeds, even if it means broadening it so that everyone who opposes the left is always guilty, and subject to as much blacklisting and thuggery as possible.

47 comments

First look at Trump’s short list for Supreme Court

Link here. Two different news sources of from opposite sides of the political spectrum come up with the same short list of five names:

  • Brett Kavanaugh, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Amul Thapar, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Amy Coney Barrett, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Raymond Kethledge, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Hardiman and Kethledge were also on Trump’s shortlist from which he picked Neil Gorsuch, and Hardiman’s background then made him, for me, a weak choice.

Kethledge was not given much attention in the previous nomination discussion, but the link above takes a quick look at one of his court decisions that suggests he could be a “wild card.” This is the kind of appointment I fear, because all too often such appointments immediately shift leftward, like Souter and Kennedy, once appointed.

It is clearly early in this process. More information will surely be forthcoming on these, and maybe other candidates.

8 comments
1 2 3