It was another one of the obviously false
allegations. Best line? “left-wing activist and decades older than Judge
Kavanaugh.” Here’s what the Judiciary Committee letter said in
pertinent part. Via Senate Judiciary:
Then, on October 3, 2018, Committee staff received an
email from a Ms. Judy Munro- Leighton with a subject line claiming: “I
am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh raped me.”6 Ms. Munro-Leighton
wrote that she was “sharing with you the story of the night that Brett
Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car” and
referred to “the letter that I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19
with details of this vicious assault.” She continued: “I know that
[‘]Jane Doe[’] will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of
revealing any information about myself or my family.” She then included a
typed version of the Jane Doe letter. Committee investigators began investigating Ms. Munro-Leighton’s
allegations. Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators
were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and
determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older
than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area
nor California, but in Kentucky. In order to investigate her
sexual-assault claims, Committee investigators first attempted to reach
her by phone on October 3, 2018, but were unsuccessful. On October 29,
Committee investigators again attempted contact, leaving a voicemail. In
response, Ms. Munro-Leighton left Committee investigators a voicemail
on November 1, 2018. Keep reading…
Celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti has been referred for possible additional violations regarding his representation of clients who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
The additional complaint, from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), includes information about a second client Avenatti represented, whose name is unknown. This woman backed up Julie Swetnick’s claims that Kavanaugh spiked punch at parties to get women drunk so they could rape them.
On Thursday, Grassley referred Avenatti and his client, Swetnick, to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, alleging they provided false statements, obstructed a congressional investigation, and conspired to violate federal law with their allegations against Kavanaugh. On Friday, Grassley provided additional information supporting the charges against Avenatti, based on a report from NBC that his second client — the unnamed woman — told the news outlet that the celebrity attorney “twisted” her words.
“In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements,” Grassley wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Shortly after Grassley sent his first referral, NBC reported that Avenatti’s second client told them on multiple occasions that what was written in her sworn statement was not accurate, and that she never saw Kavanaugh spike the punch and that she didn’t know Swetnick until well after high school. She also said she never saw Kavanaugh act inappropriately toward women.
Avenatti told NBC, according to NBC, that he had recordings of the woman making the claims included in the sworn statement. Shortly after this conversation, the woman texted NBC to affirm what the affidavit said.
NBC called the woman yet again, and she again disputed what was said in the sworn statement.
“Simply put, the sworn statement Mr. Avenatti provided the Committee on October 2 appears to be an outright fraud,” Grassley wrote. “According to NBC News, the purported declarant denied — both before and after the sworn statement was released — the key allegations Mr. Avenatti attributed to her. She stated she was clear and consistent ‘from day one’ with Mr. Avenatti that those claims were not true.”
Grassley added that when Avenatti was questioned about the discrepancies between the sworn statement and what the woman told NBC, “Mr. Avenatti attempted to deceive them in an apparent effort to thwart the truth coming out.”
“Accordingly, in light of the seriousness of these facts, and the threat these types of actions pose to the Committee’s ability to perform its constitutional duties, I hope you will give this referral, as well as my prior one related to Mr. Avenatti, the utmost consideration,” Grassley concluded. “Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.”
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI have responded to Grassley’s letter.
In a tweet sent Friday evening after Grassley’s letter became public, Avenatti responded, asking: “How ignorant is Grassley?”
“He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen - it is all for show,” Avenatti wrote. “And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS.”
Conservative political action group Judicial Watch announced Friday that it has filed a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals against the lawyers who represented Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
The government watchdog says that lawyers Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich "violat[ed] the rules of professional responsibility" in their representation of Ford in her testimony against then-Supreme Court Kavanaugh by failing to inform her that the Senate Judiciary Committee had offered to meet her at the place of her choosing and hear her testimony in private rather than having to fly across the country and go through the pain of a public testimony.
The group argues that this violates the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule l.4(a) – A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Rule 1.4(b) – A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Judicial Watch's complaint comes a little over two weeks after an Oct. 2 letter by the Senate Judiciary Committee suggesting that by failing to inform Ford of the committee's offer, her legal team might have violated the bar association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which "require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers."
Below is the full text of the complaint filed by Judicial Watch:
To the Office of Disciplinary Counsel:
Judicial Watch hereby files a disciplinary complaint against District of Columbia bar members Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich in connection with their representation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee [the”Committee”].[1]
Rule l.4(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct [“DC Rules”] states: “A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” Rule 1 .4(b) provides: “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”[2]
In this case, Dr. Ford made well-publicized allegations of sexual misconduct involving Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was before the Committee. Her identity was first revealed in connection with these allegations on September 16, 2018. The next day, September 17, 2018, Ms. Katz went on several television shows asking that the Committee hold a public hearing so that Dr. Ford could offer her testimony.[3]
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, honored that request. In a letter sent on September 19, 2018, he informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the Committee was scheduling a hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for September 24, 2018, in order to “give Dr. Ford an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate and, if she chooses, to the American people.” Letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman, S. Judiciary Comm., to Debra S. Katz and Lisa J. Banks (Sep. I 9, 2018) (available at https://goo.gl/ce3SVv). He informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the hearing could be public or private, and that Dr. Ford could also choose to have a public or private staff interview with Committee staff, either by phone or in-person. Id. “To that end,” Chairman Grassley continued, “Committee staff has attempted to contact you directly by phone and e-mail several times to schedule a call at a time convenient for you and your client. We thus far have not heard back from you with regard to that request.” Id. He reiterated that “my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.” Id.
On September 21, 2018, Chairman Grassley wrote another letter to Ms. Katz, where he stated that “[t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. Press Release, Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford ‘Wasn’t Clear’ Committee Offered California Interview in lieu of Public Washington Hearing (Oct. 2, 2018) (available at https://goo.gl/6dmNJd). The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.” Id. (emphasis added).
When the hearing finally took place on September 27, 2018, however, the following exchange took place between Dr. Ford, under oath, and counsel for the Committee, Rachel Mitchell:
“MITCHELL: May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?
FORD: In an airplane.
MITCHELL: OK. It’s – I ask that, because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is – is that true?
FORD: Well, I was willing – I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.
MITCHELL: It would’ve been a quicker trip for me.
FORD: Yes. So that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane, but I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”
Nomination of the Honorable Brett M Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5): Hearings before the Comm. on the Judiciary., 115th Cong. (2018) (emphasis added).
Mitchell’s questioning at the hearing continued:
“MITCHELL: Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that – that they offered to come out to California to do so?
BROMWICH: We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. It’s a privileged conversation …
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: Would – could – could we – could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word?
BROMWICH: (OFF-MIKE)
GRASSLEY: Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?
FORD: Can I say something to you – do you mind if I say something to you directly?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
FORD: I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you – had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.“
Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, it is clear, by Dr. Ford’s own testimony, that her attorneys did not communicate the Committee’s multiple offers to take her testimony in California, despite the fact that this was Dr. Ford’s preferred option. In fact, Dr. Ford testified that she “wasn’t clear on what the offer was” and regarded the possibility of investigators taking her testimony in California as “unrealistic”-when in fact it had been specifically offered. Id.
Despite knowing of Dr. Ford’s strong preference to not travel to Washington, D.C., it was inexcusable that Dr. Ford’s attorneys should have neglected to inform her of the fact that the Committee investigators were willing to meet her in California. Dr. Ford was thus deprived of the ability to “participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued.” D.C. Rules of Prof I Conduct r. 1.4(b) cmt. 1.
The misconduct of Ms. Katz, Ms. Banks, and Mr. Bromwich noted above has been widely reported. It appears likely that they knowingly subordinated their client’s interest in avoiding the publicity of a Senate hearing and avoiding travel to Washington, D.C. to the desire of Democratic Senators on the Committee to have such a hearing take place in Washington, D.C. Their failure to inform their client of the offer to have Committee staff investigate Dr. Ford in California was dishonest at worst and careless at best. Either way, it is inexcusable, and raises substantial questions about their character and fitness to practice law. It warrants a full investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
“We are concerned that ethics rules were violated by Dr. Ford’s attorneys during the Kavanaugh confirmation and took action to get accountability,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We already filed a Senate ethics complaint against Sen. Cory Booker over his admitted rule breaking and are considering additional steps to address the misconduct committed by Justice Kavanaugh’s opponents.”
###
1 Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich were admitted to the District of Columbia bar on October 14, 1987, August 6, 2001, and December 19, 1980 respectively.
2 Courts in the District of Columbia have a history of enforcing DC Rule 1.4. See Breen v. Chao, 304 F. Supp. 3d 9,
26 (D.D.C. 2018) (Attorneys have “a professional obligation to explain matters to their clients”); Carranza v. Fraas, 763 F. Supp. 2d 113, 125-126 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Withholding such information precludes a client’s ability to participate in any substantial way in decisions that go to the core of the attorney-client relationship.”); In re Ukwu, 926 A.2d 1106, 1135-39 (D.C. 2007) (DC Rules “are not mere aspirations. They set standards that the legal profession is obliged to meet because lawyers often are entrusted with responsibility for some of the most important matters in their clients’ lives … Explaining legal matters to their clients is an essential part of the work of lawyers.”)
3 Dr. Ford engaged her attorneys in the summer of 2018.
Thank You Judicial Watch, Mr Barrett and the Daily Wire.
Brett Kavanaugh sent a defiant letter Monday to the Senate in the wake of a new sexual misconduct allegation brought against him Sunday. Kavanaugh sent the scathing letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein on Monday afternoon.
Kavanaugh wrote that he will not be “intimidated” by the “smear” accusations against him.
“I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats against my family will not drive me out. The character assassination will not succeed,” Kavanaugh said.
The letter called the accusations against him a “grotesque and obvious character assassination.”
“There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring. These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service. As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be.”
Kavanaugh directly addressed the original allegation him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. “All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a consequential decision regarding the application of the Second Amendment in 2008.
The ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia.
Dick Heller, a plaintiff in the landmark court case, sat down with The Daily Caller News Foundation in honor of the 10-year anniversary of the decision that permanently altered the debate over the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller, who worked as a security guard at the Federal Justice Center in Washington, D.C., carried a firearm while he was at work. Wanting to keep a firearm at his home, he applied for a gun permit and ultimately was denied.
He reflected on his time in the Supreme Court and the moment Justice Antonin Scalia announced the decision that would forever change the terms of the gun debate.
“As Scalia cleared his throat, it was so quiet that you could have heard a mouse scurry across the floor. You could hear your heart beating. You could feel it. It was unbelievably quiet,” Heller said. “And his first statement was ‘we are not here today to erase the Second Amendment of the United States.'”
Matt Vespa Posted: Jul 14, 2018 7:05 PM MSNBC host Katy Tur asked if a conservative legal philosophy was appropriate in 2018, given that the nation—in her view—has become more progressive. It’s “not 1776,” she added. She was interviewing J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegyand former student of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, when she made the remark. Here it is in full:
"Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it's appropriate to continue to take such a strict, originalist view of the Constitution, given it's 2018 and not 1776?"
Well, Mr. Vance handled this loaded question well. Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of Daily Wire, was not so kind, torching Tur for her “levels of stupid” with these remarks (via Mediaite):
Oh, the levels of stupid,” Shapiro reacted. “1776, the Constitution was not yet written, Number One. Number Two: If you believe that America has evolved beyond the Constitution, it has an amendment process. Also, we have legislatures that you can elect. And finally, the idea that any of this justifies the Supreme Court moving away from the text of a law simply so that they can interpret the Constitution as poetry is more evidence that the left wants the Supreme Court to simply be a super legislature as opposed to, you know, an actual judiciary that is using judgment instead of will, as per Alexander Hamilton in Federalist ’78.”
Shapiro also ridiculed those who have been making fun of Kavanaugh’s first name by saying they’re the same people who are “celebrating” Cardi B‘s newborn daughter Kulture.
Ouch. The Supreme Court shouldn’t legislate. In fact, no judge should, which is at the core of conservative legal philosophy, among other things. The late great Justice Antonin Scalia notably said that he takes stare decisis in most cases, except Roe v. Wade since that turned the judiciary into a legislative body, which is something he cannot abide by—and the reason why liberals are worried Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Yet, the Supreme Court doesn’t just meet and decide to hand down opinions on things. Second, Kavanaugh is most likely going to be confirmed, so we’ll get to see another liberal meltdown in this Supreme Court fight. As for Roe, it remains to be seen, though the Left has this notion that abortion will be illegal on the first day of the next SCOTUS term. Every time a Republican has been in a position to nominate someone to the high court, the Left says abortion rights and Roe v. Wade are under attack. And the opinion still stands. As for conservative legal philosophy, well, maybe when the liberal media brushes up on their history, we can have a discussion about that.
Trump's Supreme Court pick says 'text, history, and tradition' key to determining constitutionality of gun laws
Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to replace retiring justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, has ruled on a number of gun-related cases in his time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including a written opinion that comprehensively explains his approach to determining whether or not gun laws are constitutional.
Kavanaugh was involved at several points in the years-long fight over Washington, D.C., gun carry laws. In September 2015, he dissented in the appeals court's decision to stay a lower court ruling striking down the city's restrictive gun-carry law. In Grace v. D.C., he indicated that he believed the city's law should not be reinstated while the case continued to play out in federal court. In September 2017, Kavanaugh was among the judges who rejected a request for a full panel hearing in the same case, leaving the decision striking down the restrictive "good reason" clause in place.
Before those cases, Kavanaugh was involved in another gun-rights case, in which he wrote a detailed account of how he views the landmark Heller and MacDonald precedents affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In that 2011 case, Dick Heller again challenged D.C.'s gun laws. This time he argued that the city's ban on many semiautomatic firearms, including the popular AR-15 rifle, and their restrictive firearm registration system were unconstitutional. The majority ruled against him.
Kavanaugh, however, dissented from the majority and agreed with Heller.
"In my judgment, both D.C.'s ban on semiautomatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller," he wrote. "In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semiautomatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles, like semiautomatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses."
"Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semiautomatic rifles are. It follows from Heller‘s protection of semiautomatic handguns that semiautomatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)"
"D.C.'s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, ‘longstanding' gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns—as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers—has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.'s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional."
After analyzing the city's ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and its registration requirements, Kavanaugh turned his focus to explaining what standard he believes the Supreme Court's Heller and MacDonald precedents demand. He argued at length that the High Court requires a "text, history, and tradition" test rather than any sort of analysis that balances government interests against constitutional rights.
"In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny," he wrote. "To be sure, the Court never said something as succinct as ‘Courts should not apply strict or intermediate scrutiny but should instead look to text, history, and tradition to define the scope of the right and assess gun bans and regulations.' But that is the clear message I take away from the Court’s holdings and reasoning in the two cases."
He addressed a number of critiques of the test in his opinion including what to do about regulation of firearms that did not exist when the Second Amendment was first adopted. He argued that constitutional principles do not change because technology advances. Instead, he said, those same principles should continue to be applied to gun laws like they are to other areas of law affected by the passage of time.
"When legislatures seek to address new weapons that have not traditionally existed or to impose new gun regulations because of conditions that have not traditionally existed, there obviously will not be a history or tradition of banning such weapons or imposing such regulations," Kavanaugh wrote. "That does not mean the Second Amendment does not apply to those weapons or in those circumstances. Nor does it mean that the government is powerless to address those new weapons or modern circumstances. Rather, in such cases, the proper interpretive approach is to reason by analogy from history and tradition.
"The Constitution is an enduring document, and its principles were designed to, and do, apply to modern conditions and developments. The constitutional principles do not change (absent amendment), but the relevant principles must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations that were unknown to the Constitution’s Framers. To be sure, applying constitutional principles to novel modern conditions can be difficult and leave close questions at the margins. But that is hardly unique to the Second Amendment. It is an essential component of judicial decision making under our enduring Constitution."
Kavanaugh said the "text, history, and tradition" test is not necessarily the most stringent possible test for gun laws and may actually allow longstanding gun laws to remain in tact where other tests may strike them down."
"The Court in Heller affirmatively approved a slew of gun laws—machine-gun bans, concealed-carry laws, felon-in-possession laws, and the like—without analyzing them under strict scrutiny," he wrote "The Court approved them based on a history- and tradition-based test, not strict scrutiny. Indeed, these laws might not have passed muster under a strict scrutiny analysis."
While Kavanaugh's opinion in the 2011 Heller case is detailed on the matter of how the Supreme Court's gun-rights precedent ought to be applied and has, in large part, earned him the endorsement of the leading gun-rights groups, it isn't a guarantee that Kavanaugh will bring the same point of view to the High Court where he will sometimes be setting precedents instead of always abiding by them. In his opinion, Kavanaugh notes that "our task as a lower court here is narrow and constrained by precedent." He went on to say that, as a longtime resident of D.C., he wasn't convinced that gun registration and regulation are necessarily bad policy.
"This is a case where emotions run high on both sides of the policy issue because of the vital public safety interests at stake," he said. "As one who was born here, grew up in this community in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and has lived and worked in this area almost all of his life, I am acutely aware of the gun, drug, and gang violence that has plagued all of us. As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence that has persisted for too long and harmed so many. And I greatly respect the motivation behind the D.C. gun laws at issue in this case. So, my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semiautomatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."
Kavanaugh said, however, that fidelity to the Constitution and the highest court in the land are more important than how he feels about any given policy.
"But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy," Kavanaugh said.
All Debts contracted and
Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as
under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.[1]
The American Left equates sincere religious faith with bigotry. That’s
why Kavanaugh will face a religious test from Senate Democrats in his
confirmation hearings. In his remarks Monday night upon accepting President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh said this: “My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent, and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”
You’d think that would be enough to settle the question of whether Kavanaugh is fit to be a Supreme Court justice: he obviously is. But he also said he is “part of a vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area,” which means there’s no question he’ll face stiff opposition from Senate Democrats. In fact, Kavanaugh will almost certainly face a religious test from Senate Democrats.
Never mind that religious tests are explicitly forbidden by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Senators are of course free to vote against any nominee for any reason, including their own anti-religious bias. And while formal religious tests in statue have been outlawed since the Supreme Court settled the matter in 1961, Democrats these days have no special regard for the Constitution or Court rulings they don’t like. (Recall that in 2014, every single Senate Democrat voted to “amend the First Amendment” under the guise of campaign finance reform in a failed bid to undo the Citizens United ruling.)
Not socialist, not female, not intersectional. Conservative.
Referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Congressional election victory last month, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said in a radio interview last week that the 28-year-old rising star from the Democratic Socialists of America represents "the future of our party." There is no other way to interpret this except as a direct admission that Democrats see socialism itself as the future of America, which will come as no surprise to anyone on the right.
Democrats love to dream about the future. The past is a tragic span of class oppression and the present is the workers’ revolution in progress, but the future is where it’s at. Like the proletariat heroes on Communist propaganda posters, leftists are fond of gazing off into the distance at a glorious Shangri-La on the horizon. What they tend to downplay is the genocidal totalitarianism necessary to pave the way for that new dawn – but hey, you can’t make the ideal omelet without breaking a few million eggs.
The future as conceived by the left is always a utopian vision in which inconvenient human nature has been hammered (and sickled) into compliance and in which equality of outcome – except for the political elites at the top – is brutally enforced. It’s worth reminding ourselves here that the word “utopia,” coined in the 16th century by Sir Thomas More for his political satire of the same name, was a play on Greek words meaning “no place” – for that is where utopia is to be found. That is why the left insists on ruthlessly engineering reality and human nature in order to mold them to fit the dream – or else. And that is why the left always begins by declaring “We’re on the right side of history” and ends by blithely proclaiming, “We’ll get it right next time.” In between, the utopians leave behind a wasteland, an archipelago of gulags, and untold numbers of murdered victims and crushed spirits.
Let’s look at a few ways in which the left envisions America’s future. Consider, for example, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s slogan that “the future is female.” Writing off half the population as irrelevant seems like an odd way to win voters, and most women in America reject the label “feminist” as well, but there is a certain pussy hat-wearing element among the left which fantasizes that if women ran the world, there would be peace on earth and good will toward men overnight. As Donald Trump bluntly told Hillary in a presidential debate: “Wrong.” The future will never be just female because it can never be just female. Sorry Hillary, but men aren’t going away nor moving to the back of the bus. We’re all in this together.
And yet some on the left consider even Hillary’s vision of the future to be not radical and illogical enough. The so-called “intersectional” feminists declare, as one headline put it, that “The Future is Not Female - It is Two-Spirit, Trans and Non-Binary.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news to them, but the narcissistic, gender-blending fantasies of naïve millennials have no future at all beyond the safe spaces of academe. They will quickly learn that the real world has no patience for preferred-pronoun petulance.
Another example. The leftist site HuffPost tweeted recently about Desmond is Amazing, a 10-year-old drag queen (yes, you read that right) who calls himself an LGBT advocate. “As Pride month comes to a close, Desmond Is Amazing, the ten-year-old drag kid from New York, is proof that the future is queer,” crowed HuffPost. Sorry, but a single manipulated child is hardly evidence that the future is queer, whatever that even means. It should be clear to anyone upon a moment’s reflection that if the future is queer, then the future is a dead end in a single generation.
In response to this, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, author of the bestselling 12 Rules for Life and certainly the most popular public intellectual since Joseph “Follow your bliss” Campbell in the 1980s, tweeted, “In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage a 10 yr old boy to dress like an adult male mimicking a sexualized adult female, use that as a ticket to fame and then claim it as virtue?”
In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage a 10 yr old boy to dress like an adult male mimicking a sexualized adult female, use that as a ticket to fame and then claim it as virtue? https://t.co/vmEoG9hXjt — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) July 2, 2018
The leftist moral universe, that’s which one. It is the topsy-turvy (im)moral realm in which everything perverse and criminal is celebrated, while normal (yes, normal) traditional values are deemed evil and oppressive. Jordan Peterson is not even a conservative, or so he claims, and yet he clearly recognizes that the left’s vampiric embrace of this child is not celebration but exploitation. Sorry, HuffPost virtue-signalers, but the future is not going to be queer.
As always, the leftists are wrong: the future will belong to neither socialists, nor just females, nor any identity-politics splinter group, because that future spells division and decay and doom. Of course, the left will keep trying, keep failing, and ultimately the future will be conservative.
Why is conservatism the future? The answer is simple: conservatism works. It offers not a utopian promise but a future grounded in reality and built upon the best that humanity has expressed and achieved. It is a future that protects the independence and freedom of all equally, not one which enforces equality of outcome and keeps everyone in thrall to mediocrity and to spiritual, as well as economic, impoverishment. Conservatism as a political, economic, and social worldview works because freedom works.
As Donald Trump’s provocative presidency continues to expose the hateful radicalism at the heart of the Democrat party, it becomes undeniable what the Marxists want: the tearing down of everything. They want the abolishment of ICE and borders, of law and order, of private property, of free speech, of the Constitution, of the family unit, of traditional values, of Western civilization itself. The future they envision demands the eradication of it all. As evidenced by the #WalkAway trend on social media, more and more Democrats and Independents are being driven toward the common sense of conservatism by this lunacy.
To many, the perfect future the left promises is a lie as seductive as Satan himself. But peel away the promises and what the left really offers is hate and annihilation, without a real-world plan for building anything upon the ruins. Conservatism offers a workable future for you, every one of us individually, not the same colorless dead end for everyone in the collective. And that is why conservatism is the future, and progressivism has none.
(CNSNews.com) - Conservatives on Monday praised President Donald Trump for nominating D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy for the U.S. Supreme Court.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Kavanaugh “has shown that Constitutional principles are the ultimate guide for his opinions.” “Those who sit on the Supreme Court play a vital role in our democracy: They interpret the law and act as the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution—even against the other branches of government. Adherence to the text of laws and the words of the Constitution serves as the check on this extraordinary power,” Ryan said. “President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh shows his commitment to selecting judges who are themselves committed to this restraint. Judge Kavanaugh will bring extensive experience to the Supreme Court; his long career exemplifies public service and, in particular, dedication to religious liberty,” the speaker said. “He has shown that Constitutional principles are the ultimate guide for his opinions. I look forward to Judge Kavanaugh’s swift confirmation in the Senate. This is an excellent choice,” Ryan added. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) pledged to “lift heaven and Earth” to get Cavanaugh confirmed. “As the longest-serving member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have been deeply involved in the last fifteen Supreme Court confirmation fights — including the confirmations of all current Supreme Court justices. When evaluating judicial nominees, I have focused on the nominees’ qualifications,” Hatch said in a statement. “One of the most important qualifications for any Supreme Court nominee is his judicial philosophy and whether he understands the proper role of the judiciary. In this particular regard, Judge Kavanaugh is an outstanding choice. I know Kavanaugh from his previous confirmation to the D.C. Circuit. He is one of our nation’s most distinguished and influential jurists,” the senator said. “During his more than 12 years on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh has authored hundreds of opinions on issues ranging from national security to agency rulemaking to constitutional rights. He has shown a deep commitment to the separation of powers and to the Bill of Rights. He will be a strong, principled voice on the Supreme Court,” Hatch said. “I am also confident that Kavanaugh has the right judicial philosophy. A nominee’s judicial philosophy is critical. It must be consistent with the judiciary’s place in our system of government and the separation of powers. The Constitution established a government of limited powers, with each of the three branches of government having a set role to play,” Hatch continued. Hatch predicted that during the confirmation process, “progressives will undoubtedly try to focus on outcomes in cases rather than on whether Kavanaugh will interpret the law as it was written.” “But focusing on policy outcomes over judicial philosophy distorts what judges do. Judges must be impartial and must fairly apply the law as written, without imposing their own preferences on the process,” he said. “Judge Kavanaugh understands the proper role of the judiciary and will faithfully honor the Constitution. That’s why I will lift heaven and Earth to see that he is confirmed. In the weeks to come, I will fight every day to ensure that Judge Kavanaugh receives a fair hearing. I have no doubt that he will serve our nation honorably on the Supreme Court,” Hatch concluded. The American Center for Law and Justice called Trump’s decision to nominate Kavanaugh a “superb choice” that will serve the nation well. “Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant jurist who embraces the philosophy of our Founders - an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution. We expect the Senate to exercise its constitutional duty to provide ‘advice and consent’ without delay.” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow. “While there is certain to be biased and vitriolic political attacks directed at this nominee, we believe Judge Kavanaugh’s character, experience, and judicial temperament will be well received by the American people. We are confident that the Senate will confirm Judge Kavanaugh and we look forward to him being seated in time for the start of the Supreme Court’s new term in October,” Sekulow added. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Trump “hit a home run” by nominating Kavanaugh. “President Trump stood up for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law with this nomination. Judge Kavanaugh has a demonstrated record of applying the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench. His record shows Judge Kavanaugh will apply the U.S. Constitution as written and intended by our Founding Fathers,” Fitton said in a statement. He called it “a great victory for constitutional government and a blow to politicized decision-making on the Supreme Court.” “We have too many politicians as it is in DC, we certainly don’t need any more on the Supreme Court. Most Americans agree with Judge Kavanaugh that the Supreme Court should apply the law as it is written and leave the legislating to the people’s elected representatives in Congress,” Fitton said. He urged the Senate to “move quickly” to work with the president to consider and approve Kavanaugh. “There is not much radical liberals can do to stop this excellent Supreme Court pick. We expect to see leftist smears, religious bigotry, more threats of violence, etc. but the votes are there for Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate,” Fitton concluded. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said Trump “made another outstanding choice” by nominating Kavanaugh, “keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.” “ Judge Kavanaugh is an experienced, principled jurist with a strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights, as evidenced by his opinions in Garza v. Hargan and Priests for Life v. HHS,” she said in a statement. “SBA List is mobilizing the pro-life grassroots nationwide and in key Senate battleground states to urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Kavanaugh. “Vulnerable senators up for re-election this year have a choice: stand with the President and their constituents and confirm a Supreme Court justice who will respect and uphold the Constitution, or cave to pressure from the extreme abortion lobby. If every self-avowed pro-life senator votes the right way, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed easily,” Dannenfelser said.
As the battle begins over the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, some valuable advice:
Conservatives, stop saying we need a conservative on the court. Pro-lifers, stop saying we need a pro-lifer.
As a pro-life conservative, I am thrilled at the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned. But I should not expect the Supreme Court to push my political agenda. That’s what the left does, and it is why so many rulings are constitutionally flawed.
Roe should be overturned not because of my pro-life passions, or any justice’s, but because as a factual matter, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
The danger in seeking a “conservative” justice or a “pro-life” justice is that it frames the pick in precisely the wrong way: politically. In politics, there are supposed to be two sides—or more. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a robed legislature hammering out decisions to satisfy a mixed constituency. It is the arbiter of constitutionality for laws passed and cases accepted.
So, when the Warren Burger court examined abortion rights 45 years ago, it had one question to tackle: Does our nation’s founding document contain a basic right to terminate a pregnancy?
Finding none, they invented one. Seven justices based their arguments not on the rule of law, but on their social view of how they felt America should be. Their wish to forbid states from protecting the unborn outweighed their obligation to follow the guidance of the Constitution’s text.
It was their personal politics that spurred them to this misbehavior, but the solution cannot be political in return. If it is, we are no better. We are surely morally better in our motives, but that too is not what Supreme Court cases are about. So instead of filling our support for Kavanaugh with references to conservative or pro-life goals, we should carry the banner of constitutionalism. When we argue against Roe in the constitutional arena, it forces opponents to assert that there is indeed an abortion right in there somewhere, something for which there is no objective evidence Conservatism invites liberal response. Pro-life activism invites pro-choice pushback. But a debate over what is and is not constitutional is where we win, both in the nomination fight and the eventual defeat of Roe, because the other side is a sociopolitical concoction.
While politics always has another side, constitutionality is a yes-or-no question. What exactly are the opposing sides of the question of whether a unicorn is in the garage? Some people may want a unicorn in the garage, some may actually believe there is one. Some may say they see one. But ultimately, the unicorn is either there or it is not, whether one is pro-unicorn or anti-unicorn.
As such, there is no need for “balance” on the court. That is a leftist construct, born of their success in framing cases as political battles with the goal of advancing various causes. What is needed is constitutional fidelity, ignoring whose interests are advanced or slowed as a result.In no way does this guarantee eternal 9-0 decisions; even principled textualists can have differing lenses.
But as Kavanaugh promises to change lives and law for decades to come, his value is not in the rulings he will assist to the delight of conservatives. His legacy will be lifted by the ways in which he honors the Constitution, a track record of benefit to all.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism. Fisher v. University of Texas protected racial discrimination in college admissions.
Justice Kennedy wrote the decision joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer. The court’s only African-American justice dissented. As did Roberts and Alito. Scalia had been the most vigorous of the Supreme Court members in challenging racial preferences in college admissions. But he had passed away.
The 4-3 decision that continued the shameful tradition of progressive racist jurisprudence will become an impossible relic once President Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee joins Gorsuch on the bench.
As we wrap up a season of Supreme Court decisions successfully reaffirming constitutional law, if at times only narrowly, it’s time to look forward to the coming restoration of our founding document.
And the restoration of our freedoms, our dignity and our honor.
The early years of the Trump administration have seen both the worst and the best of the judiciary. Federal judges joined the leftist resistance by seizing the power to decide everything from immigration policy down to whom the President of the United States can block on Twitter. These decisions weren’t just power grabs, they ignored basic law and precedent, and not to mention checks and balances.
The President spent months having his legitimate authority of office crippled while waiting for the Supreme Court to intervene. And sometimes these interventions, as in Trump v. Hawaii, were shockingly narrow. Without Gorsuch, the 5-4 decision, in which the court’s four leftists insisted on denying Trump the authority of his office, would have been the verdict of the Supreme Court and the law of the land.
During the election, Never Trumpers told us that a Republican Senate could check Hillary Clinton. Now, George Will and other GOP defectors insist that the Senate needs to be turned over to the Democrats.
Imagine the Supreme Court with two or three more leftists on it. That would have been the outcome.
And imagine Janus v. AFSCME, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Abbott v. Perez, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, and others coming up under the justices appointed by President Hillary Clinton.
Then ask how anyone who believes those cases involving religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the rights of states should have been decided to the left could possibly claim to be a conservative.
If President Trump had done nothing else, two Supreme Court appointments alone are transformative.
We stand on the threshold of a golden age in conservative jurisprudence. After generations of wandering through a wasteland of judicial activism and unilateral supremacism, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. And so can the left. That is why it is preparing to go to war for Kennedy’s seat.
Most elections only last for years. But Supreme Court appointments resonate across the ages.
Justice Kennedy took office in 1988. George H. W. Bush gave the nation the gift of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Bill Clinton sent Ruth Bader Ginsburg on in 1993 and Breyer in 1994. Think about how much these men and women altered the country across the decades. And how much more their successors will.
The left has begun screaming about Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t really believe that the Supreme Court will do away with it. But it has no better way to mobilize a screaming mob and all the money it can grab. Every major media outlet is already assembling hit pieces on the likely candidates. Democrat Senators are preparing to accuse anyone whom Trump nominates of being a rapist and a murderer of women.
Sight unseen.
It’s not really about Roe v. Wade, though that will likely be the social issue that the left will rally around. It’s not even about Trump v. Hawaii. It is about Janus v. AFSCME and Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute because it’s about defending the corrupt power and privilege of the left.
Democrats have abused the courts to protect their own corrupt institutions, whether it’s municipal unions or college campuses, and to suppress political dissent, Masterpiece Cakeshop and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, are typical examples of this phenomenon.
Losing the Supreme Court will roll back the judicial activism of generations. It will make it harder for the left to rig elections, Abbott v. Perez, and protect the ability of states to fight voter fraud, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. It will go on protecting religious freedom and it will start fighting racism.
And it will stop the judicial activist assault on the Trump administration. Because it’s not just about the Supreme Court.
The nine seats of the Court are the biggest judicial prizes. But President Trump and the Senate have been breaking judicial appointment records. 21 federal appeals judges have been confirmed. The 87 nominees are a down payment on an opportunity to name a quarter of the Federal judiciary.
And these aren’t just the same old crowd. The new judicial nominations represent a culture shift.
The Supreme Court still consists of Yale and Harvard graduates. But a shift is underway in the lower ranks with University of Virginia Law and Duke rising, while Harvard and Yale falter. Trump’s early batch of judicial nominees included an Indian-American judge out of UC Berkeley School of Law, a former magistrate judge with a degree from the University of North Dakota and a University of Nebraska College of Law grad.
When the left complains that Trump’s judicial picks lack diversity, it’s because they don’t fill quotas, instead they have intellectual diversity.
As Above the Law put it, "As Trump and McConnell take over the federal judiciary, it’s interesting to me that more people from Chicago and UVA and Duke are getting clerkships, while fewer people from Harvard and Yale are. It could be a one-year blip… it could be a 25-year blip if the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation continue to have their way."
If you want to understand the left’s clamor that Trump’s nominees are unqualified, it’s not because they’re unqualified. It’s because they’re coming from outside the usual lily pads in the great swamp.
These aren’t just cosmetic changes.
Everyone knew in 2016 that by 2020, the winner would have significantly transformed the judiciary. If Trump can get a second term and if the Republicans can maintain a Senate majority, then everything will change. Whatever else happens, those changes will be huge. And they will be very difficult to undo.
Everything won’t change overnight. But it will change for generations to come.
Like an iceberg, most of the problems with the Federal government can only be seen underwater. But the changes are also only visible underwater. The State Department has been fundamentally transformed. The military is slowly starting to return to what it was before the Obama era. The bloody battle for control of the EPA is largely reflected in the media’s obsessive attacks on its head. And conservatives are recreating the left’s efforts with a successful long march through the judiciary.
That is another reason why leftist judges have been furiously lashing out at Trump. They know that the tide is turning. As Obama liked to say, their leftist ideology is no longer on the right side of history.
Ever since the election, the left retreated into a hateful media bubble. It built an echo chamber in which everyone was convinced that President Trump would fail. It even managed to find some Republicans who were happy to climb into the bubble with them. But the only people who need to live in a bubble are incapable of coping with the reality outside. And reality has a notorious right-wing bias.
In 2016, the blue wall fell. Now the judicial wall is falling.
Thank You Mr Greenfield and FPM. And with this evolving paradigm perhaps someday we will see an honest, constructionist Judiciary take on Psychiatry, and destroy it.
A closely divided Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to shield documents relating to the cancellation of DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extended temporary legal status to foreign nationals who illegally entered the country as children.
The Court divided five to four along ideological lines in a late Friday ruling that temporarily permits the administration to conceal records relating to the program. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the decision, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
The ruling is likely a boon to Trump’s efforts to defend DACA’s termination.
“The Department of Justice is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision today putting on hold the district court’s overreach,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said. “The Department of Homeland Security acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner, and the Justice Department believes the courts will ultimately agree.”
The case was occasioned when a coalition of four states sued the administration over its September decision to end DACA, which has benefited some 800,000 individuals. Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, now president of the University of California system, also joined with the plaintiffs.
In response to the lawsuit, the administration furnished nearly 250 pages of documents relating to the program’s termination. Plaintiffs, suspecting that the government was hiding DACA records, argued that the administration would have produced a greater body of work before cancelling such a sprawling, consequential program. U.S. District Judge William Alsup agreed, and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release more documents. A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Alsup’s ruling, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In an extraordinary move, Alsup filed his own brief at the high court, arguing Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the government’s Supreme Court lawyer, misrepresented the scope of his order. The Daily Caller News Foundation was unable to determine when a trial court judge had last filed a brief in the Supreme Court concerning their own ruling.
The Court nonetheless sided with the administration, but did not explain its reasons for doing so.
In dissent, Breyer argued that courts cannot effectively supervise federal agency action without reviewing all relevant materials.
“[J]udicial review cannot function if the agency is permitted to decide unilaterally what documents it submits to the reviewing court as the administrative record,” Breyer wrote. “Effective review depends upon the administrative record containing all relevant materials presented to the agency, including not only materials supportive of the government’s decision but also materials contrary to the government’s decision.”
Breyer also noted it is highly unusual for the Court to rule on a matter involving discovery or document production.
The case will now return to federal court in San Francisco for further proceedings.
