Connect with us

Judiciary

Republican lies, damned lies, and Brett Kavanaugh

Published

on

Republican lies damned lies and Brett Kavanaugh

In my never-ending effort to expose Trump and the GOP as conniving con-artists dedicated to crushing conservatives while simultaneously pretending to protect and defend our values, I’m always on the lookout for their latest lies.

As the 2020 election draws near, Republicans are already repeating the lies and broken promises from past elections to hide their failures and beg for your money and your vote. In addition, we’ve been fed us a steady diet of the evils of socialism as Mitch McConnell promises to be the “Grim Reaper” for socialism, and he’s given his word that Republicans will be a “fire wall” protecting the Constitution, but only if we let them keep their Senate majority.

Lately, Mickey has been touting his non-existent success at transforming the judiciary by filling the courts with “strict constructionists,” and he’s been repeating this lie in his appeals for donations for his campaign. In an email I received yesterday, he said in part:

“President Trump has not wasted a single moment nominating pro-Constitution judges to serve our country.

“He has nominated two superb Supreme Court nominees, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, and over 100 pro-Constitution judges to serve in lower courts across America. And your Republican Senate Majority has confirmed them at the fastest clip in history.”

Ah yes. Justice Kavanaugh. Perhaps the greatest example so far of McConnell’s lie.

Beginning with one of his first decisions where he rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas, states that were seeking to defund Planned Parenthood, Kavanaugh has become a solid ally of the leftist wing of the court — a trend that even had Trumpist Rush Limbaugh scratching his head. Don’t worry Trump cult, El Rushbo still defended him.

Kavanaugh’s nomination to replace Justice Kennedy was a bad deal for conservatives and the Constitution from the very beginning, and I opposed his confirmation for several reasons:

Amazingly, but not surprisingly, even with these concerns, Fellowship of the Pharisees member Robert Jeffress called Kavanaugh’s nomination “a clash between good and evil — between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness,” and he praised Trumps pick because Trump is God’s man.

The nomination also garnered the adulation of evangelicals across the country along with so-called conservative groups.

McConnell also stated in his email:

“I’m up for re-election, and you can bet that Chuck Schumer and his Washington Democrat allies will do everything in their power to beat me. They want to pack the courts with progressive activist judges who will legislate from the bench instead of following our Constitution. The only thing standing in their way is me. As long as I am the Senate Majority Leader, that won’t happen.”

I think when Mickey said he’s the only thing standing stand in the way of Democrats, he really meant he’s the one plowing the way for them.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

What Kamala Harris (and most of America) missed in William Barr’s responses to her

Published

on

What Kamala Harris and most of America missed in William Barrs responses to her

For a former prosecutor, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) seems to have a hard time questioning people. Her attempts to embarrass and harass Attorney General William Barr at last week’s Senate hearing yielded no fruit and made he look foolish as she continued to ask the same question, receiving variations of the same answer every time.

First, she started asking the Attorney General why he didn’t recuse himself from the Mueller report. When Barr mentioned consulting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Harris turned her questioning towards him, wondering whether Barr had consulted with the ethics wing of the Department of Justice regarding Rosenstein’s involvement. After all, he was leading an investigation in which he was also a potential witness.

After verifying with his team, Barr confirmed they had been consulted. Harris clearly wasn’t expecting this to be the case, so she continued asking the same question again and again, yielding the same results. But in the middle of this, Barr pointed out the Senate itself had overwhelmingly confirmed Rosenstein for the task ahead of the Mueller report and gave their support. He fell short of asking the Senator if she had consulted with them, considering the Senate had confirmed him, but the implication was apparent.

This video from The Epoch Times’ show Declassified with Gina Shakespeare also delved into the circumstances Barr is facing today with the House Judiciary Committee threatening to hold Barr in contempt unless he breaks the law for them.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

House goes Barr-less as Nadler promises vote for contempt of Congress

Published

on

House goes Barr-less as Nadler promises vote for contempt of Congress

There is clearly contempt in Congress right now, but it’s not coming from Attorney General William Barr. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler want to have a vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress if he does not provide an unredacted Mueller report soon.

Barr was a no-show, as expected, at the committee hearing today.

“Ordinarily at this point, I would introduce the witness, but instead we will conclude this proceeding,” Nadler said. “We cannot permit him or anyone in the administration to dictate the terms of this hearing. We will not hear from the attorney genera today but his committee intends to obtain the information it needs to conduct legislative oversight.”

Opinion

As our EIC noted yesterday, Nadler doesn’t want the accountability of his Democratic members of the committee attacking Barr. He wants people with no accountability come election day to do the questioning for them, allowing them to remain distant from the proceedings. It’s a sham.

The last thing this country needs is more of a gap between the actions of our elected officials and the ballot box. If they want to attack Barr, do it. Don’t hide behind lawyers.

The reality is this: the Mueller report is available and there’s nothing in it to support the Democrats’ narrative, so they’re doing everything they can to change the conversation in their favor by painting Barr as a bad guy. It’s not Barr’s fault the report didn’t jibe with the agenda they’ve been building for two years around the Mueller investigation. He wasn’t even in office at the time for the vast majority of the investigation itself.

They didn’t get the fruit they sought, so they’re trying to manufacture false fruit out of thin air. This is despicable, which is why most Americans hate Congress in general.

Quote

“I think what we’re seeing from Chairman Nadler is incapable of holding power.” – Press Secretary Sarah Sanders

Final Thoughts

If Nadler wants Barr to testify, all he has to do is hold the hearings the proper way with members asking questions instead of unaccountable lawyers. Nadler’s unwillingness to do it the right way betrays his fear of being on the record.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending