Listen to “Dems Push to Nix ICE, Geithner Tied to Predatory Loans, Dems Advocate Court Packing” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America tear apart the progressive left’s half-baked demand to abolish ICE. They also comment on the irony that a former Obama official who lashed out against loan sharks is now financing loan sharks. They also wonder why the Democrats want to add more seats to the Supreme Court while they are still out of power.
Listen to “Warnings Abounded in Annapolis, Heroes Amidst Horror, Gillibrand’s Grand Delusions” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America mourn the murders of five people in an Annapolis mass shooting and are frustrated by the litany of ignored warning signs and the knee-jerk online condemnation of President Trump for the killings because of his criticisms of the media. They also applaud the police for arriving on scene in just 60 seconds and saving many lives… and the staff of the Gazette for it’s commitment to publishing a paper today. And they try to make sense of New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand suddenly supporting the abolition of ICE and wrongly insisting that no Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
As Washington gears up for one of the most contentious Supreme Court nominations in recent memory, many political figures and pundits are applauding the tenure of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, but Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says Kennedy leaves a dark legacy on the moral fabric of America.
Shortly after the news of Kennedy’s retirement was announced, President Trump lavished praise on Kennedy.
“He’s been a great justice of the Supreme Court,” said Trump. “He is a man who has displayed great vision. He’s displayed tremendous vision and tremendous heart.”
And Staver admits that Kennedy has been a key voice and a vital vote on critical issues, including this month’s rulings in favor of Christian cake baker Jack Phillips and crisis pregnancy centers in California. Kennedy also authored a stinging dissent against the decision from Chief Justice John Roberts that saved Obamacare.
“Certainly, he was on the right side of many cases and even the most recent cases that came out of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was a fifth vote in that particular case or cases and made a huge difference,” said Staver.
But he says the cases where Kennedy got things badly wrong leave a lasting impact.
“I’m going to remember Justice Kennedy for some of the real horrible decisions that he ultimately inflicted because they have caused significant harm and even death,” said Staver. “Between the LGBT agenda, culminating in the marriage decision, and particularly the abortion decisions, that really is the legacy of Justice Kennedy.”
On abortion, Kennedy ruled both for and against federal bans on partial-birth abortions, striking down the legislation in 2000 but upholding it in 2007. However, it’s Kennedy’s role in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that deeply distresses Staver.
That case gave justices the opportunity to solidify or reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that legalized abortion nationwide. Staver says Kennedy was initially part of a majority that would have reversed those rulings.
“For thirty days, (then-Chief Justice William) Rehnquist was writing the opinion and Kennedy was right there with him. But he succumbed to lobbying pressure from Justices (Sandra Day) O’Connor, and (David) Souter. After 30 days, he changed his mind,” said Staver.
“He flipped from the five in the majority to overrule the abortion case to flipping it and the minority became the majority. Five individuals ultimately voted to uphold the abortion decisions, albeit somewhat modified,” said Staver.
He says Kennedy bears significant responsibility for the abortions since that day.
“The babies who have lost their lives since 1992, Justice Kennedy is the reason for that. He is the reason for the people who have lost their lives and all the families that have been broken,” said Staver.
Kennedy also took the lead in multiple decisions related to the LGBT agenda. He authored the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down state sodomy laws and the 2013 United States v. Windsor ruling which struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act. His majority opinion two years later in Obergefell v Hodges declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
“In June 2015, he authored a horrible decision that has no basis in the Constitution, no basis in the court’s precedents – just an imposition of his will – in which he overturned marriage laws that understood the natural definition and order of marriage being between two people of opposite sex. He struck it down and ushered in so-called same-sex marriage,” said Staver.
As the Senate braces for a monumental political fight over Kennedy’s successor, Kennedy’s place on the high court also resulted from a nasty political fight. In 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, but the nomination went down to defeat after a fierce Democratic opposition led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
Kennedy was ultimately Reagan’s third choice. Staver says history would be much different if Bork had been confirmed.
“What a big difference the decisions would have been if Robert Bork had been confirmed instead of Kennedy,” said Staver. “If you would have had Bork on the bench in 1992, you wouldn’t have abortion from 1992 to the present. You wouldn’t have same-sex marriage from 2015 to the present,” said Staver.
President Trump will likely announce a nominee within the next few weeks and says it will come from his public list of 25 possible choices. While Staver says the list is generally strong, some are preferable to others.
“No, I’m not mostly fine with whoever the president chooses. Each one of these have to be individually vetted. Not everybody is at the same level as (Justice Neil) Gorsuch,” said Staver. “We need to have another person just like that, who has that commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.”
Staver would not name any preferences for the nomination but he did single out one name he would be very disappointed to see in appeals court judge William Pryor.
“Pryor’s on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He had some bad decisions with regards to the LGBT agenda, where he injected an activist viewpoint on his particular decision,” said Staver.
He says Trump and Senate Republicans have to get this pick right, as a litany of critical issues could come before the court in the coming years.
“If they do, abortion will become history. We will stop the bloodshed of innocent children. We need to make sure we have the right person with that judicial philosophy,” said Staver. “The clash between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom and free speech, all these different things, plus more. The second amendment, so many other things. Our basic freedoms are on the line,” said Staver.
Listen to “Kennedy’s Legacy, Dems Suffer Meltdown, Wild Political Stereotyping” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America review Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 30 years on the Supreme Court and anticipate President Trump’s second opportunity to nominate a justice to the nation’s highest court. They then laugh at the hysterics of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats following Kennedy’s retirement. They also look at a report that suggests both Democrats and Republicans tend to stereotype the other side and are wildly inaccurate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday rendered a sweeping decision that frees non-members from having to pay dues to public sector unions, a ruling that overturns a previous decision and could be financially lethal to organized labor.
In a 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, Justice Samuel Alito said the ruling had to be broad because of the fundamental free speech questions involved.
“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” wrote Alito. “This procedure violates the first amendment and cannot continue.”
Wednesday’s verdict formally overturned the court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, that said unions could extract some fees from the paychecks of non-members, but not for political purposes.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represented Illinois government employee Mark Janus before the Supreme Court. The group’s president, Mark Mix, says the past 41 years proved the previous decision simply didn’t solve the problem.
“This regulatory structure is unworkable and that this case deserves what is called strict scrutiny in the legal process. That means this is a question of pure first amendment rights.
“Everything government unions do is political. They’re telling government how to allocate their resources so we went from this Solomon-like decision of splitting the baby to slicing the bologna ever thinner and trying to regulate it in even more and greater ways to throwing up their hands, saying, ‘You know what? We’re doing this wrong. Let’s get to the basic question of the first amendment,'” said Mix.
“They did that today and what they said is government employees across the nation have a first amendment right against being forced to pay fees as a condition of their employment,” he added.
The Supreme Court has taken up the issue six times since the Abood decision. In a 2012 case, the court was examining a narrower question but Mix says Alito noted then that broader questions had to be addressed.
Justice Elena Kagan authored the primary dissent in the Janus case, arguing that the majority was meddling in a process that ought to play out for itself.
“It wanted to pick the winning side in what should be — and until now has been — an energetic policy debate,” she wrote. “Today, that healthy — that democratic — debate ends. The majority has adjudged who should prevail.”
Mix is not swayed.
“Justice Kagan doesn’t realize that we’ve had literally hundreds of lawsuits across the country at every level of government on this issue and every level of the court system on this issue. She probably hasn’t seen the frustration from judges across the entire country who have tried to sort out what the court said in the Abood case and what’s in and what’s out.
“So this robust debate that she talks about is just ridiculous. This is about a scheme that union officials have enjoyed for 40 years and giving them the privilege to extract money from workers who never wanted them, never asked for them, and never voted for them and now that’s over,” said Mix.
During oral arguments earlier this year, Kagan stopped National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorney Bill Messenger presentation to ask about the union reliance on those dues.
“What our attorney said is you can’t rely on anything that violates the first amendment. If you’ve relied on it in the past, it’s been wrong and they got it right this time. So to Justice Kagan, the needs of the many don’t outweigh the rights of the few,” said Mix.
Mix says this decision does not gut unions as organized labor activists contend, since non-members are free to give as much of their income as they want to the public sector unions.
Critics of this decision also insist non-members ought to pay some dues since they benefit from the collective bargaining conducted by the unions. Mix rejects that argument, noting that collective bargaining often results in wages being allocated by seniority rather than productivity or skill.
“The fact of the matter is if these workers could speak for themselves, often times many of them would do better than the monopoly power that union officials have had over them and continue to have over them in states that allow them to be the only voice for workers in the marketplace,” said Mix.
So what comes next in this fight between organized labor and the right to work movement? Taking this same fight to the private sector.
“The next step is to end forced fees across the entire country, whether we do it state by state or Congress goes into a 1935 New Deal piece of federal legislation that (Franklin) Roosevelt jammed through the Congress and jammed through the Supreme Court that forces private sector workers to pay dues to get or keep a job. We can strike that down too. That’s the next battle,” said Mix.
Listen to “SCOTUS Smacks Down Unions, Protesters vs. Chao, Socialist Crushes Crowley” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America hail the Supreme Court’s ruling that non-members of public sector unions do not have to pay dues. They also shudder as liberal protesters get up close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. And they’re not going to miss New York Rep. Joe Crowley after his stunning defeat in a New York congressional primary, but the woman who defeated Crowley is an avowed socialist who wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and pass single-payer health care.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, shooting down part of a California law that had required such centers to inform patients about abortion services, a mandate the court rejected as compelled speech.
It was a 5-4 decision, with the court’s four liberals opposed..
In the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out the state was requiring the clinics to deliver a message they explicitly oppose.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy saw the case as a clear issue of free speech, calling it a “a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought and expression.”
The plaintiff was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF Legal Counsel Elissa Graves says the court got this one spot on.
“Today was a great victory for all Americans. The Supreme Court affirmed today that the government cannot force you to speak a message that conflict with your very reason for existing.
“The State of California here used it’s power to try to force pro-life pregnancy centers – and only pro-life pregnancy centers – to promote abortion. The Supreme Court today said that they can’t do that consistent with the first amendment,” said Graves.
Graves elaborated on how California’s FACT Act singled out pro-life pregnancy centers on this issue.
“The law was gerrymandered in such a way as to only apply to pro-life centers. It exempted centers that provided certain services, which included things like birth control and abortafacient contraceptives, things that pro-life pregnancy centers do not wish to provide, because it promoted abortion. They drafted it in this way, so it only applied to a pro-life viewpoint,” said Graves.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor wrote dissenting opinions. In reading a summary of the disagreement with the majority opinion, Breyer said the pro-life centers were actually getting special treatment.
“If a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services … why should it not be able to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care about childbirth and abortion services?” stated Breyer.
Graves says the liberals on the court are comparing apples and oranges. She says Breyer was describing what’s known as informed consent, which patients sign off on prior to a specific procedure, and that is different than what California was requiring from pro-life clinics.
“As Justice Thomas noted in the opinion here, this disclaimer (informing about abortion services) is before any sort of procedure is contemplated. It has to be presented to everyone as soon as they walk in the door.
“It’s not in any way connected to medical services, and that’s the difference. This is not an informed consent provision but a compelled speech provision,” said Graves.
It’s the second major win at the Supreme Court this month for Alliance Defending Freedom. It also represented Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop against the State of Colorado after courts in that state ruled Phillips did not have the right to refuse custom decoration of a cake for a same-sex wedding.
In that case, the high court ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips, but limited the scope of the decision to his mistreatment by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission as opposed to a broader ruling about freedom of conscience or free religious expression.
Nonetheless, Graves says the court delivered a vital, consistent message in these decisions.
“Both ‘Masterpiece’ and today in NIFLA, the court has consistently held that the government cannot express a hostility towards expressions of faith, that this is unconstitutional. That’s exactly what ‘Masterpiece’ said with Jack’s treatment by the Colorado Civil Right Commission and that’s what they said today with the way the State of California treated pro-life Christian pregnancy centers,” said Graves.
The Supreme Court is sending another high profile case back to a lower court for reconsideration. The justices declined to hear the appeal of Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman, who was sued and punished by the state for refusing to provide floral arrangements for longtime customers for their same-sex ceremony. However, they did order the Washington Supreme Court to look at the case again in light of the “Masterpiece” decision.
“They will have to use that clear ruling in ‘Masterpiece’ that you cannot have this hostility toward religion in evaluating her case,” said Graves.
Republicans and even top Democrats are condemning Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., for urging Trump administration critics to gather crowds to confront cabinet officials in public places, a call that a prominent political and media commentator sees as on the brink of “incitement.”
As the intense debate over family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border unfolded, protesters chased Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Trump adviser Stephen Miller from separate restaurants. More recently, owners of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave their establishment.
On Saturday, Rep. Waters urged supporters to crank up the pressure.
“If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them,” Waters said through a bullhorn. “You tell them, they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
American Women’s Alliance President Gayle Trotter, who is also a regular panelist on the Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz” program, says comments like those raise political tensions to a dangerous level.
“It’s terrifying and shocking that a sitting congress member would rile the crowd up like that. One of our most esteemed constitutional rights is the first amendment that protects political speech. But this speech by Maxine Waters almost goes to incitement,” said Trotter.
On Monday, the top two Democrats in Congress denounced the call to confrontation.
“No one should call for the harassment of political opponents, that’s not right, that’s not American,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who also noted that he “understands” the inclination of Democrats to respond in kind to President Trump’s “bullying harassment and nastiness.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., struck a similar tone in a tweet.
“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea,” tweeted Pelosi.
Trotter is not impressed.
“Pelosi’s comment is equivalent to saying, ‘Her skirt was too short.’ It’s trying to pin the blame on the victim, instead of really calling out a member of her caucus and saying this is completely unacceptable.” said Trotter, who wonders why Pelosi won’t call on Waters to resign .
But are these confrontations a result of high passions over immigration policy or the inevitable progression of a toxic political culture?
“This seems to be a progression that is getting more dangerous all the time,” said Trotter.
And while Waters’ comments are getting quite a bit of media attention, Trotter says if the political tables were turned, liberals and the media would be howling in protest.
She points to the New York Times and others blaming Sarah Palin, without basis, for the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords while seeing no larger issues in the Waters comments even as another Homeland Security official found a decapitated and burned animal on his front porch.
“In past circumstances, the press has made up these types of examples. Yet here, if you go to the editorial page of the New York Times, there were no [columns] there talking about the danger of this effort to target anybody in the Trump administration,” said Trotter.
Trotter sees a troubling transition as incendiary words turn into actions against Trump administration personnel. She also thinks a lot of these protesters are looking for their fifteen minutes of fame, pointing out the restaurant owners who kicked out Sanders and her family had to know their actions would make news.
“It seems like it’s not only disagreements about politics, but it’s also to the point where people are doing things just to get 24/7 media attention. This is failing to underscore that the left is failing to practice what they preach. They talk about tolerance and yet we don’t see people condemning violence in the face of political disagreement,” said Trotter.
She says there’s nothing wrong with intense political disagreement, but it needs to stay within the confines that our founders intended.
“Robust political debate is what made this country great. Instead, what wee have now are people on the left who are promoting this mob mentality. It’s a disturbing pattern of intolerance,” said Trotter.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are pleasantly surprised to see a new CBS poll showing that a strong plurality of Americans believe families should stay together but be sent back to their home countries when they come to the U.S. illegally. They also slam Rep. Maxine Waters for suggesting protesters should loudly confront every Trump administration cabinet member whether in restaurants or at the gas station. And they categorically reject columnist George Will’s call for conservatives to vote Democrats into the majorities of the House and Senate as punishment for Republicans who refuse to stand up to President Trump.
David French of National Review and Chad Benson of Radio America fill in for Jim Geraghty and Greg Corombos. They look at a U.S. district court decision that found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be unconstitutional in structure. They commend Justice Roberts for joining the four liberal justices to protect Americans’ civil liberties from warrantless cell phone searches. They also consider the affects of incessant and inappropriate protesting. And they compare Trump’s new family detention policy to Obama’s, finding a difference only in outrage from activists and the media.