Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Blame Legislators, not Supreme Court Justices


Ballot boxDon’t blame the Supreme Court for the cowardice or complicity of the fools and knaves who populate far too many of our legislatures. From the federal to the local level, legislatures have been cowering behind the other two branches of government, notably since the end of the “15 days to slow the spread” of a new strain of respiratory virus. Long before then, Republicans at the federal, state, and county legislative levels have largely failed to positively assert the virtue of protecting real voters against the real disenfranchisement of ballot-box stuffing, in all its forms. They have, with exceptions like Ohio and Florida, to name two of a few good examples, failed to zealously protect the franchise at the core of our republic’s continuing viability. So, it is state-level Republican’ts, abetted by the United States congressional delegations of Republican’t fools and knaves, who have created the mess that courts are now being asked to clean up, without the proper political backing.

John Fund and Hugh Hewitt, neither one a conspiracy theorist or fringe media person, both wrote serious books on the entirely real problem of voter fraud in our nation. They both published their books on this topic in 2004, shocked into action by the 2000 presidential election debacle. John Fund wrote Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. Hugh Hewitt wrote If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It. That same year, historian Tracy Campbell published Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition-1742-2004 (on loan at archive.org). Fund followed up in 2012 with a co-authored book going further into the subject: Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk. His warning then:

While Americans frequently demand observers and best practices in the elections of other countries, we are often blind to the need to scrutinize our own elections. We may pay the consequences in 2012 if a close election leads us into pitched partisan battles and court fights that will dwarf the Bush-Gore recount wars.

Courageous ACB in Her Own Words


Amy Coney Barrett and TrumpJudge Amy Coney Barrett is her own woman, not the next Scalia/Alito/Thomas. She has thought her way through court business since law school, laying out her concerns and reasoning in plain print. While court opinions and law review articles can be a bit daunting, she writes clearly enough for the lay reader to understand.

Instead of accepting the pre-spun sound bytes and clipped quotes, we should look to the available complete video and writings of Amy Coney Barrett. I salute Heavy for having provided quotes with links to sources back in 2018, when ACB was under consideration to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. A quick search on YouTube and Barrett’s Notre Dame Law School faculty page yielded a helpful set of videos and writings, outside of court opinions, with Courageous ACB in her own words.*

Summarizing ACB’s law review articles, she has thought her way through the role of courts since law school. Her first publication of note, a 1997 article, addressed one instance of people of faith living obediently to a higher authority while also participating in a system of secular law. At the time, she believed that Roman Catholic church teaching barred faithful judges from participation in death penalty cases. She concluded that judicial ethics rules allowed these judges to recuse themselves, so allowing Catholics to be faithful to both heavenly and earthly authority. The rest of her public writings flesh out her views on interpreting the Constitution and on the power of precedent.

Thinking Outside the Swamp


It should be no surprise if everyone on Team Swampy gets off without even facing charges voted out of a grand jury, even if FBI agents gave away secrets to a foreign spy. To restore justice, both real and perceived, it is time for Attorney General Barr to think outside the legal swamp. It is time to make a serious case, in public and all the way to the Supreme Court, for a change of venue to a pool of demonstrably fair-minded prospective jurors.

Without this credible threat, the chance of the outside review team, leaked to the New York Times to discredit any negative findings, actually unearthing the wrongdoing of Democrats in career prosecutor disguise will approach nil. The Flynn review will produce little in the way of real justice, that is in severe legal, financial, and career consequences to the team that perpetrated this fraudulent prosecution. The wider review of political prosecutions, together with the Durham legal campaign, will produce so little as to support the DNC, deep state, and TruCon lapdogs’ claim that it has always been noble public servants standing against Orange Man Bad and his Deplorables.

The case to be made is that voter rolls, campaign contributions, and geotagged social media posts, coded for political and social views and intensity, all overwhelmingly show what “everybody knows.” We all understand that the same group of voters who put the radical Democrats into power in Virginia is conflicted out of fairly considering grand jury testimony involving Orange Man Bad. This means every single case that every social media, print, broadcast, and cable forum is demonstrably coding as pro- or con-Trump and his Deplorables.

The 411 on the Latest National Emergency


President Trump’s declaration, on 15 February 2019, of a “national emergency,” is quite ordinary, the latest in a long line of such declarations going back to President Carter. Far from creating some dangerous precedent, it only reinforces our constitutional order. While it will certainly be challenged in federal court, this may actually be the opportunity to set Article III courts back on their proper path, ending bad behavior by the lowest level, federal district judges.

The Ricochet editors desk posted the entire text of the declaration in Trump Declares National Emergency at the Southern Border. The text is quoted from the White House page, Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. C-SPAN has the video and transcript of President Trump’s remarks, followed by some hostile questions on the lawn.

In his remarks beforehand, President Trump repeatedly invoked Angel Moms and had them stand with the photograph of their dead loved one. These women, seated in the front row, turned and put the inconvenient truth into the face of the media who have pointedly ignored their loss. Do watch the video.

The “411” on “National Emergency”


Sadly, supposedly expert, professional commentators have continued the lazy practice of bloviating rather than elucidating. Let’s circle back around and lay out the law on “national emergencies.” It is right there for anyone who can read to read, without any special permissions: 50 U.S. Code Subchapter II – DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. Let’s all do a bit of reading together, and then I invite members with relevant legal experience to comment on any relevant case law.

Consider the following law. Think very carefully through the very first sentence. As with some many other areas, where Congress feels a need to “do something” but doesn’t know how to specify, to clearly limit, the usual result is a vague grant of authority to the Executive branch.

Declare National Border Emergency, Kill Two Birds with One Stone



Talk of President Trump building the border wall under a declaration of national emergency seemed fanciful, unanchored in law. While major media including Fox News have done no more than wave the term around, a lawyer and talk show host for Urban Family Talk actually laid out the law. There is a case for building under a national emergency, and if the President takes this route, there is also an opportunity to force the federal judiciary back under the Constitution.

The case for “wall” construction under national emergency powers:

Ruth Ginsburg’s Going to Die (or Resign) — Can the Left Handle It?


Ruth Bader Ginsberg was missing from the bench on Monday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for several cases. This absence raises speculation about her health. It’s the first time she’s missed oral arguments in 25 years. That seems impressive, but on the other hand it also seems like a basic requirement of the job. In any case, the 85-year-old far-left justice is recovering from surgery she underwent last month to remove two cancerous tumors from her lungs. Ginsburg’s tumors were found after she fell in her office in November and broke two ribs, an ironically fortunate event, as it turned out.

We all wish her well health-wise. At least I do. My mother died from cancer that was present in her lungs. But let’s not fool ourselves: Ginsburg’s 85. Even without the cancer she’s at the end of her time on the court. There’s a very high probability (not certainty) that she will either resign due to health reasons or go join her friend the great Antonin Scalia in the hereafter within the next six years. And that means that President Trump is going to nominate her replacement. And when that happens Democrats are going to lose their everlasting skeet balls.

Member Post


Due to the Golden State’s “top-two” jungle primary scheme, California voters will only be able to pick between a pair of Democrats for U.S. Senate on their General Election ballot — namely, five-term incumbent Dianne Feinstein or hard-Left state senator Kevin de León. All things being equal for conservatives and the California GOP, re-electing Feinstein […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


In response to a strong but unsupported reply I made on a comment on a @richardepstein post Let Them Bake Cake , @tommeyer rightly challenged me: “That said, do you think that [Justice Anthony Kennedy’s] career can be summarized as a ‘secular supremacist project of effectively outlawing biblical Christianity.’” Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


There are only a handful of basic plot structures in fiction. One of them is “if this goes on.” So in that vein I will offer this “meditation” on the usurpation of power by a “gang of five” on the U.S. Supreme Court which has effectively made them five “philosopher kings” (see Plato’s Republic). They […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.