Below is my column in the Hill on the expected fight over the Supreme Court seat to be vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer. The Democrats are calling for a confirmation process strikingly different from their own approach in the last three Supreme Court nominations.
Here is the column:
As the White House vets “short-listers” to replace Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) has reminded Senate Republicans that they really need to be “open-minded” about the choice. It was an ironic statement from a senator who told all men to “shut up” during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and rejected any notion of that nominee being entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Hirono’s comment highlights today’s uncertainty over what exactly the Senate should “mind” in a confirmation. Hirono and the White House may be most worried that their eventual nominee will face the standards applied to the three nominees during the Trump administration.
Being a short lister is no easy task, but the president appears intent on making it more precarious by the day. Biden said last week that he would fulfill his controversial pledge to consider only black female candidates, a threshold racial and gender test that is opposed by the vast majority of the public and will continue to cloud the selection. Biden then added another prerequisite: Any nominee must embrace a liberal view of the Constitution on “unenumerated rights.” Thus, the president seems to be drawing incoming fire on his own nominee’s position — a position less than impregnable following the stroke of Sen. Ray Luján (D-N.M.).
Judicial philosophy
Biden has maintained that his nominee must apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution. On one level, this is hardly surprising; presidents are allowed to pick nominees who reflect their jurisprudential views. Of course, the required expansive view of rights demanded by Biden does not include disfavored rights like parental rights on abortions or educational information, gun rights or states’ rights. Those rights are to be narrowly interpreted. In the prior three court confirmations, Democratic senators maintained they would oppose a nominee who followed a conservative view of constitutional interpretation.
In the case of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, Sen. Angus King Jr. (I-Maine) wrote in The Atlantic that he would only vote for a nominee who expressly favored an “appropriate application of the terms of the Constitution to particular cases.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Democratic whip, declared that his opposition to Barrett was based on her interpretive approach that would work “against change and evolution in America that is inevitable and in fact necessary.”
Under this approach, Republicans would not have to be “open-minded” about a Biden nominee who follows an expansive view of constitutional interpretation. This includes support for a “living Constitution” approach that allows courts to “update” the Constitution without the necessity of constitutional amendments. Biden reaffirmed that view in discussing his expected nominee’s acceptance that “the Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights or curtailing rights.” Indeed, adhering to the living-Constitution theory may be the only pro-life position tolerated in a Biden nominee.
Virtually all of the nominees on Biden’s rumored short list run from the left to the far left of constitutional interpretation. Yet one favorite is South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs, who holds the critical support of Biden ally Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.); Childs answered “no” when asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), during a previous confirmation hearing, if she would adhere to a living-Constitution view.
The more fluid interpretative approach demanded by Biden can entail limiting some rights while elevating others. For example, California Justice Leondra Kruger adopted a breathtaking view of the religion clauses. While working in the Obama Justice Department, she argued Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a case involving a claim that religious schools should be able to require adherence to their central religious values. Kruger clearly shocked the High Court with a categorical denial of religious freedom in such choices. That led even Justice Elena Kagan to balk and ask, “Do you believe, Ms. Kruger, that a church has a right that is grounded in the Free Exercise Clause and/or the Establishment Clause to institutional autonomy with respect to its employees?” Kruger replied: “We do not see that line of church autonomy principles in the Religion Clause jurisprudence as such.” The court unanimously rejected her position and supported the church.
Pre-confirmation pledges
During the three Trump court nominations, Democrats shocked some observers by demanding an assurance on how justices would vote on pending cases. That was particularly the case with Barrett, who was confronted with demands that she pledge under oath to preserve Roe v. Wade or ObamaCare. I warned at the time that Democrats were creating a “Barrett rule” that could be used against their own nominees in the future.
With a pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Democrats pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was nominated to kill health care and filled the hearing room with photos of people who allegedly would die if she was confirmed. At the time, some of us noted that Barrett was more likely to vote to preserve the ACA and that the senators were radically misconstruing the pending case. (Barrett ultimately voted to preserve the Act, though not one of the Democratic senators apologized for their treatment of her.)
For some of Biden’s potential short-listers, such assurances have already been given on current appeals like challenged election reforms. Many commentators (like the editors of the Baltimore Sun) are pushing the nomination of the outgoing head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Sherrilyn Ifill. Ifill declared that state election reforms requiring such things as voter identification are an effort “to subvert our democracy and ensure the outcome of elections is controlled by one political party.”
Personal background
One of the most alarming attacks launched by Democrats in prior nominations was against Justice Barrett on the basis of her religious beliefs. Sens. Feinstein and Hirono called on her to explain her association with a traditionalist Catholic church group. Some liberal commentators launched vicious, often vulgar assaults; “Real Time” host Bill Maher declared, for example, that Barrett was “a f—ing nut … really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues.”
Yet, many of Barrett’s critics are likely supportive of presumed front-runner D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sat on a now-defunct advisory school board for Montrose Christian School in Rockville, Md. As one conservative commentator has documented, the school provided “Christ-centered education for the glory of the Savior and the good of society.” Among the school’s “uncompromisingly” held principles is that God created men and women “as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation,” that Christians must oppose “all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography,” that marriage is the “uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment,” and that Christians should “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”
The question is whether Democrats will now engage in the same pearl-clutching, breathless shock over this nominee’s apparent religious connections as they did over Justice Barrett’s.
We are light-years away from the days when Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be confirmed 98-0 and 96-3, respectively. But in asking GOP colleagues to “keep an open mind,” Democrats are arguing for the confirmation process that they denied to three previous nominees.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
BLACKS AS HYPOCRITES
Haven’t “blacks” been caterwauling for 403 years that Americans are given the best and highest positions because of their color?
It would be patently hypocritical for blacks to demand a candidate because of his color.
Ain’t too proud to beg.
There are 21 million black women in America.
There are 250 million Americans.
The most qualified candidate can only come from the much larger pool of Americans.
Ergo, blacks who protest for a black Justice advocate for a less qualified candidate.
Blacks seek artificial, inferior and invalid appointments that are deleterious to the nation.
Blacks are hypocrites.
Americans are gullible and dastardly fools.
_________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
You couldn’t.
Russians and Russophiles like to play the moral equivalence game. Well, here’s one: if Russia can threaten Kyiv, then it’s only fair the Ukraine can threaten Moscow, with nuclear weapons on loan from the United States.
Why not let the Ukrainian people vote on who they want to lean towards: the United States or Russia?
I’m tired of reading the same old idea by Youtube commenters about how everything a politician does is to distract from something else. That’s bull-shitake. Can’t people face the reality that certain things just need to be done?
The Trumpsters have all scurried for cover?
Republicans are whining that they are not being consulted on the nominations, forgetting that they did not consult Democrats for the last 3 nominations. What goes around comes around. I don’t care who the nominee is as long as they vote with liberal philosophy, just like the Rs picked their nominations based on how they will vote.
In answer, Republicans shouldn’t say a word. Just replay video of all the disparaging comments made by Democrats for their appointees, including Hirono telling them to “shut up.”
I think all the Republicans should show up in red cloaks. Or maybe dress as skeletons to protest the starving conditions experienced in communist and socialist countries, a fate the Left would hurtle us towards.
Karen+S, nobody is starving in the four countries with a communist government.
The United States is responsible for lifting many of the world’s poor and hungry out of poverty.
If you read Walter Duranty’s column on Russia when it was written, you would have concluded things were peachy in Stalin’s Russia. You now can learn from history, but you seem to have forgotten the Holodomor.
S. Meyer — Learn to read with comprehension. I stated “is”, not “was”.
you probably should have stuck with “was,” not “is.” You conveniently skipped over bibliography citations #4 an #5, among several others, in your referenced “wikipedia” There are several references here and elsewhere that question the accuracy of Cuba government reports.
Wasnt he a former algebra or math college faculty member with published papers? And yet he uses Wiki.
He stupidly confirms what I wrote earlier as to reliability of data viz a viz WHO, UNICEF, etc.
e.g. globalhungerindex dot org states for their sources
See Appendix C for the sources from which the data are compiled
WHO 2021 is the primary data source and UNICEF, WHO, and World Bank 2021
Lets give him a chance to use his abacus, slide rule, fingers and toes to slay us with his command of data, gratis from Raul Castro himself, of course. Maybe he will consult a can attached to a string that stretches to Cuba, so that he can confer with El Jefe himself, that or he can reference Michael Moore, Robert Redford and Barbara Streisand for their expert analysis of Cuba.
According to World Bank, Cuba is classified as an Upper Middle Income country, unlike its near neighbor Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world.
David, I did, but where the thickness of the skull abounds, sometimes it is easier to point to history. David Benson in Duranty’s time would have eaten up the story of how wonderful Stalin’s Russia was. I guess using history as an example of gullibility is too sophisticated for your mind.
S. Meyer, in that case you fail to be able to craft a coherent paragraph.
And as for those days of yore, try Steinbeck’s “Cannery Row”. Also, not sure who by, “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men”.
The paragraphs were coherent. You have nothing to say, so you make up things.
But failed to express your meaning.
My 10th grade English teacher would have made you write it over again. She was tough.
“But failed to express your meaning.”
What you are really doing is displaying a vast ignorance.
Socrates considered himself to be the wisest of men because he knew that he knew nothing.
Food security in Cuba is at the highest level:
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/cuba.html
It is easy to look this stuff up. Far better than demonstrating, repeatedly, ignorance.
Or maybe dress as skeletons to protest the starving conditions experienced in communist and socialist countries, a fate the Left would hurtle us towards.
Karen, Cuba instituted a food rationing program in 1962 that continues till today. The problem with nutritional data and medical illnesses in Cuba is that the WHO, UN, UNICEF, etc get their data from the Communists in Cuba. It is difficult to get objective data about Cuba, other than visiting it yourself. It would as reliable as turning to CNN to learn about Andrew Cuomo sexually assaulting women or inquiring from MSNBC about Rachel Maddox history of treatment resistant mental illness
Every inhabitant receives a set quota of food purchased at subsidised prices through the “libreta” or ration book. The system is widely criticised, but it is essential for lower-income segments of the population….But to put food on the table all month long, families have no choice but to pay the high prices charged for food in the farmers’ markets, state-run stores that only accept hard currency, and the black market, which survives despite police raids and prison sentences of up to three years for contraband. Statistics from the state-run Centre of Studies on the Cuban Economy show that food absorbs between 59 and 75 percent of the family budget, in a country where the state, by far the largest employer, pays an average salary of 19 dollars a month.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/01/anemia-in-eastern-cuba-reflects-inequality/
There is a reason why Communist countries have their residents fleeing to free countries, and not the other way around.
Whatever, Cubans are among the healthiest peoples of the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba
Life expectancy at birth equals that of Puerto Rico, for example.
Sweetheart Karen,
Israel was founded on socialist principles. Ever hear of a *kibbutz*? How many Israelis starved during that period?
Standing by for your citation….
Jeff Silberman says “Sweetheart Karen,”
In the 60’s Democrats would consider Jeff a pig.
So, basically, Democrats reiterated their desire for completely different standards for Democrat appointees than Republican appointees.
Got it.
What are the chances that Democrats will be “open minded” about the next Republican appointed SCOTUS nominee? Or shall the massive order for handmaid cloaks stand?
“I eat weenies for breakfast” says:
“Haven’t you noticed that the responses on the right appreciate Turley’s position on speech? You don’t, yet you remain on his blog insulting him whenever you get a chance. Then, in an about-face, you childishly try to show how you love Turley more than anyone else. You are a spineless snowflake.”
Turley’s position on free speech is the polar opposite of Trumpists. Turley certainly will defend the right of Trumpists to lie through their teeth; BUT he does NOT countenance Trump doing so unlike Trumpists who will lie for Trump.
I never said I love Turley; I said that I respect the fact that he IS a NeverTrumper who called out Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” and has said NOTHING since which would indicate that he has changed his disrespect for the inveterate liar.
JeffSilberman, anyone who frequents this forum knows that you have presented Professor Turley as the demon from fox news hell. Now you make nicey nicey when he says something bad about Trump. It’s alright. You can have more than one derangement syndrome at one time. You will however have to label them TDS 1. and TDS 2. so that we will know which one you are talking about. When you use the same quote in every one of your last ten posts you could be accused of beating a dead snake charmer. It would be easier if you would just copy and paste. Hopefully “snake charmer” will just be your fetish for the week and not for the month. There are so many things you could have said had you some tinge of letters or of wit.
TiT says:
“When you use the same quote in every one of your last ten posts you could be accused of beating a dead snake charmer.”
When I repeat Turley calling Trump this humiliating insult as many times as Turley cuts and paste his paragraph on “New York Times v. Sullivan,” I’ll hear you. Until then, go fly a kite.
The fact is NO Trumpist has criticized Turley for dismissing him as a fraud. How about you?
And NO Trumpist has answered my challenge to find ONE compliment that Turley has paid to Trump which would indicate that he has revised his opinion of the liar. Can you?
Black Women Have Suffered A Legacy Of Exclusion In Judicial Nominations
These are all good reasons for Biden’s pledge, but there is yet another. Black women have suffered a legacy of exclusion in judicial nominations that Biden, to his credit, is trying to correct. According to the Pew Research Center, less than 2 percent of all federal judges in the United States have been Black women. That’s the case even though Black women make up 13 percent of the female U.S. population, and talented Black women serve as law school deans, law firm partners, public-interest and civil rights litigators and on state courts, if willing presidents will promote them. The discrepancy in racial and ethnic representation relative to the population is worst on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Wicker’s state of Mississippi — a region where people of color are a majority, including many Black Americans whose ancestors endured slavery and Jim Crow.
Edited From:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/10/supreme-court-affirmative-action-black-woman-good-thing-00007442
So Anonymous why didn’t Obama appoint one of these brilliant black women to sit on the high court? Your inference is that racism is the reason that the black judges haven’t been appointed. What say you to the racism of Barack Obama it being so apparent that he did not appoint a black judge? Could it be that Anonymous says look there’s racism under this rock. Oh look there’s racism under this rock and this rock too. Just think how many rocks you could find in some peoples heads.
“Black Women Have Suffered A Legacy Of Exclusion In Judicial Nominations”
____________________________________________________________
And your point is?
How many students, of a global population of 7 billion, have been excluded and denied matriculation at Harvard.
Are you out of your ——- mind?
It’s merit that matters, even more so than the strict content of one’s character.
If one does not merit, one suffers to some degree.
Oh, I apologize, I see it’s you again, Karl, how’s that “dictatorship of the proletariat” thing goin’?
All you act as apologist for have “suffered” as supplicating beneficiaries of unconstitutional generational welfare, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, public housing, unfair “Fair Housing” law, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, food stamps, utility subsidies, free day care, minimum wage, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The welfare state has cost Americans $25 trillion since 1965.
Ain’t too proud to beg.
There is no passage in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees success.
Americans are free merely to endeavor.
Some believe their success must be warranted through taxation of successful people; they are called dependent communist parasites.
There is not a single member of the Yakima tribe on the Supreme Court!
Old Political Saying: ‘Dance With The Date You Brought’
Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman, originally made during the 2020 campaign, makes transparent the reality that when a president nominates someone to the Supreme Court, it is unavoidably a political act. It is fair to speculate that he feels beholden to Black women because they made it possible for him to be elected president and for Democrats to have a bare governing majority in the Senate. Black women also are the subgroup that is most loyal to Biden — 90 percent of Black female voters supported him in 2020. And he probably wants to energize this group again to avoid a Democratic shellacking in the 2022 midterms.
Edited From:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/10/supreme-court-affirmative-action-black-woman-good-thing-00007442
“Judicial philosophy”
“Biden has maintained that his nominee must apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution.”
– Professor Turley
______________
There is no such thing as a “judicial philosophy” or a “liberal interpretation.”
The judicial branch has absolutely no power to legislate, modify legislation or legislate by “interpretation.”
Justices swear an oath to support the Constitution, which consists of its “manifest tenor.”
There is only the Constitution and its “manifest tenor.”
Justices are not out-of-control, omnipotent dictators.
The control and penalty for unelected Justices who fail to support the Constitution is impeachment and conviction for abuse of power and usurpation of power.
Justices must be appointed on merit not color; it is impossible that the best candidate does not come from the largest pool of candidates.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Yes Pelosi, Yes McConnell, we now know you people are among the leaders of the 11/3/20 vote fraud, the Insurrection & among the Traitors of January 6 2021 & you continue with your loving mRNA Gene Therapy Death/Clot Shots.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/capitol-police-dept-rules-brutal-beating-trump-supporter-rosanne-boyland-steps-capitol-unconscious-died-objectionably-reasonable/
The left has chosen politics over justice. That was not how it was before Democrats went crazy to the left.
What a true shame that the Senate in 1987/1991 changed the dynamics for Supreme Court Nominees. The Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork and Justice Thomas were tragedies that could have been written by Franz Kafka.
The Washington Post in an editorial wrote at the time of Justice Bork’s hearing ‘While claiming that Judge Bork will have a full and fair hearing, Senator Joseph Biden this week has pledged to civil rights group that he will lead the opposition to the confirmation. As the Queen of Hearts said to Alice, “Sentence First-Verdict Afterward.”…
Though the Sins of President Biden’s leadership of the Senate Judiciary committee hearings for Justice Bork and Justice Thomas cannot be removed, I beseech the Republicans on the committee and in the Senate to remember Justice Thomas’s words during his hearing:
“
“Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process. My name has been harmed. My integrity has been harmed. My character has been harmed. My family has been harmed. My friends have been harmed. There is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back. I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation”.
Psalm 57:
I will take refuse in the shadow of your wings
Until the disaster has passed
I am in the mist of lions
I lie among ravenous beasts
Men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords
They spread a net for my feet
I was bowed down in distress
They dug a pit in my path
But they have fallen into it themselves.
George W:
Bork opposed federal civil rights legislation and tried to frame his opposition as a ‘states rights’ issue. Jim Crow never would’ ended had the Borks had their way.
S.2104 – Civil Rights Act of 1990101st Congress (1989-1990)
Sponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] (Introduced 02/07/1990)
Committees: Senate – Labor and Human Resources
Committee Reports: S.Rept 101-315; H.Rept 101-755; H.Rept 101-856
Latest Action: Senate – 10/25/1990 Message on Senate action sent to the House. (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes: There have been 12 roll call votes
Tracker:
This bill has the status Failed to pass over veto
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
1. Introduced
2. Passed Senate
3. Passed House
4. Resolving Differences
5. To President
6. Vetoed by President
George W:
We’re talking about the Civil Rigjts legislation of the Johnson era. Though perhaps you’re too ignorant to know that.
More of Turley’s paid partisan drivel. Turley: the reason for objection to Barrett was the fact that she wrote a law review article spelling out exactly how to overturn Roe v. Wade and still claim to respect stare decisis. Just like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, she is a right-wing radical vetted first by the Federalist Society, whose views are to the extreme far-right of those of most Americans. None of Biden’s proposed candidates is anywhere near as left of center comparatively speaking, but as Dennis points out, Turley’s assignment from Fox is to find fault before there even IS a nomination, as a diversion to the huge political story of how Trump blatantly ignored the Presidential Records Act. Ironically, a main theme of his campaign was that Hillary Clinton was “hiding thirty thousand emails”, which wasn’t true at all. First of all, she wasn’t the President, but there is a federal act pertaining to preserving records. She reasonably believed that those emails sent to the State Department or which the State Department were copied on, were being catalogued there, and so she didn’t need to save them to her personal server. She was investigated, and no criminal intent was found, but that didn’t stop the “Lock Her Up” chants.. Despite being repeatedly advised about the requirement to preserve all records, Trump not only tore up official documents into little pieces, he tried to flush some down a toilet. AND… he did know better.
Where are the stories on Obama’s flouting of NARA? Where are all Obama’s documents? Hint: not in his presidential “library.”
Hillary was not hiding anything at all! Riiiight-o.
Learn the difference between the records that are required by law (the Presidential Records Act) to go to NARA versus items that go into a Presidential library.
Hint: if it’s required by law to go to NARA, it has to go to NARA, not the library. Jeez.
Notice that you present zero evidence of Obama disobeying the Presidential Records Act. The National Archives reportedly had to retrieve 15 boxes of items from Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he left office, some of the items classified, some of the items illegally torn up. Let him be referred to the DOJ for breaking the law. Because if he isn’t, then all Presidents will know that they can break the law with impunity.
Yes, “reportedly.” That is not “evidence” of wrongdoing by Trump. Don’t forget the “reported” news that Trump was flushing pieces of torn up papers down the toilet.
As for Obama, believe as you wish. “The most transparent administration in history.” Per usual with Obama, saying it again and again does not make it so.
Obama admin spent 8 years stonewalling and refusing to produce FOIA documents, forcing journalists to sue for access to them.
Why would anyone presume every record from the Obama admin would be properly archived and made available to the public? His library is privately funded and managed. No physical documents will be stored or available there. Only digital.
An earlier statement from the National Archives about records in their possession confirms that Trump tore up some records: “Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump.”
Who knows what the Obama administration is hiding? We will likely never know.
“The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.
For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files that were requested.
And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-spent-36m-on-records-lawsuits-last-year/
Where in the law does it say the President cannot mark up these documents he is using or tear them into smaller pieces. He didn’t throw them away, so unless there is a law forbidding him to tear up a Washington Post article that needs to be saved, you are wrong.
Natasha, you sound like Tokyo Rose during world war 2. Broadcast after broadcast, same left wing crap.
Don’t forget Joe Biden’s official documents and communications from his terms as a member of the U.S. Senate that he keeps hidden away in his no-public-access private document vault at University of Delaware. Those are not his “private” property.
Actually, they *are* his private property. The Presidential Records Act doesn’t apply to Congress.
Thank you for the correction.
“The records created and maintained within a senator’s office are the property of the member. Most senators donate their collections to a research repository in their home state when they leave office. At the repository, they are made available to researchers after an appropriate amount of time has passed.”
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/About_Senators_Papers.htm
I know how much you like shooting up people with the Bug Juice mRNA Gene Therapy Death/Clot shots, I thought I’d post a humorous video the affects of your type work. Enjoy
****
HIGHLIGHTS – Comedian Mocks God And Pays The Price
18,047 views
·
Feb 9, 2022
27
Share
Download
War Room With Owen Shroyer
War Room With Owen Shroyer
Short on time, but still want to stay informed? Today’s War Room Highlights covers clips from all 3 hours of the broadcast with your host Owen Shroyer and special guests Attorney Thomas Renz and Alex Stein!
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=62048634acd82805335e1451
There is nobody from the Lummi Tribe on the court! Not a single Salish from any of the Pacific Northwest tribes.
Where is their representation!
Expand the court!
“Expand the court!”
Give them more to eat!
Jonathan: Biden hasn’t even made his selection for the SC and you are already lobbing grenades at Senate Democrats. Republican senators will have ample opportunity to make their case so put the pin back in the grenades so we can move on to more important topics–like the following:
The real shocking revelation this week is that Trump had an insane penchant for ripping up official docs that crossed his desk. He ripped up everything. The paper shreds became so large that “burner” bags had to be brought in and then taken to the Pentagon for burning. WH aides (at least those few who were willing to follow the law) warned Trump tearing up official docs was a violation of the Presidential Records Act. Trump didn’t care. No doubt because he didn’t want to leave a paper trail of all his illegal activities. Some aides even went so far as to retrieve torn up docs and put them back together with scotch tape and sent them to the National Archives. This must have been done late at night when Trump was sleeping using flashlights. “Traitors” one and all!
One doc that was inadvertently not destroyed was a draft EO, dated 12/16/20 (you can read it on Politico). In the weeks following the 2020 election Rudy Giuliani was running around the country with his hair on fire shouting the election was “stolen” through “massive election fraud”. Giuliani focused like a laser on the vote in Antrim County, Michigan where Biden was initially declared the winner. After a recount the result was changed and Trump declared the winner. That was not good enough for Rudy. He demanded the local prosecutor turn over the Dominion voting machines to Rudy’s operatives. The prosecutor naturally refused. The Antrim case became the focus of the draft EO, prepared by Giuliani, Michael Flynn and other co-conspirators, that gave the president “emergency powers” to order HLS to seize all voting machines around the country. The EO also gave an appointed special counsel the almost unlimited power to probe all elections results. In an Oval Office meeting on 12/18 Sidney Powell urged Trump to appoint her as “special counsel”. Talking about the fox inside the chicken coup! Clearly Trump was contemplating using his “emergency powers” to overturn a legitimate election. Fortunately and to his credit, AG Barr said the DOJ could find no evidence of widespread voter fraud so the draft EO was never signed. But the draft does show the extent to which Trump and his conspirators were prepared to go to illegally hold onto power by subverting the election results. These and other Trump docs are in the hands of the House Select committee. Can’t wait to see their draft report!
As a postscript, Trump was able to escape the WH on Jan. 20 carrying a number of boxes of official docs back to Mar-a-Lago. Among the docs was Trump’s “love” correspondence with the North Korean leader. Trump no doubt wanted to keep the correspondence because Kim Jong-un always addressed Trump as “Your Excellency”! As Napoleon did in 1815 to reclaim the French crown Trump is plotting his return in 2024. If he is successful we will all have to address him henceforth as “Your Excellency”.
Someone got his crack pipe early
Psaki Says Everyone Will Have To Show Proof Of Vaccination Before Receiving Free Crack Pipe. The Biden administration will be providing free crack pipes to crack addicts, but only if they can show valid proof of vaccination against COVID-19. Jen Psaki shared further details regarding Biden’s new proposal during her daily press briefing. “The president feels, and we agree, that people are going to smoke crack anyway. We might as well give them safe crack so they can hit a sweet high without fear of overdose. We’re doing this to save Black lives.” “But only if they’re vaccinated.”
Polling data shows the African American community has the highest vaccine-hesitancy rate in the country due to fears exacerbated by the Tuskegee experiment and that time the CIA created a crack epidemic to kill off all the Black people. Now the Biden administration is working to restore racial equity by further fueling the epidemic the government got them addicted to in the first place.
“If you won’t inject yourself with an experimental vaccine then you can’t be trusted to use anything but black tar heroin,” said Psaki. “No safe zones for crack cocaine until we’re sure you’re not going to infect others with a mild disease.”
Babylon Bee
Build Crack Better!
Let’s Go Brandon!
“I warned at the time that Democrats were creating a “Barrett rule” that could be used against their own nominees in the future.” Well, I appreciate Turley’s concerns…BUT we’re talking about weak-kneed RINOS and Republicans who see bipartisanship the same as wearing a mask. “Oh, you’re so virtuous” all the lefties will say for about ten minutes and then they will go back to calling them all racists. etc. Watch for Lindsey Graham and the likes of Romney to fawn all over whoever it is that is nominated.
The S Carolina / Jim Clyburn nexus is simply too blatant to ignore. Without Clyburn’s endorsement, would Biden have been the hands-down Democrat nominee? Was part of the agreement that he accept Harris as his running mate? ( At the outset, Biden declared that he intended on being a one-term president, thus opening the possibility of Harris becoming the first black woman president [ even assuming that Biden survives his entire term ]; and now, predictably, faced with the opportunity to endorse a nominee for the Supreme Court, ONCE again, Clyburn’s presence is felt in that Biden’s knee-jerk response to his task is that his FIRST choice would be a black woman, coincidentally (?) from S Carolina ??
So WHO really IS running the circus at the White House ??
rwcrampton: It’s a committee…and Obama and Susan Rice are at the head of the table. Ron Klain is the fall-guy should things turn in a bad way.
I don’t see a problem with that. If Clyburn has power in the party, he gets to exercise it.
Who really is running the circus at the Biden White House?
Dr. Jill has an oversized role as minder-in-chief. Plus there is the obvious CCP influence over the ‘sellout corrupt bought and paid for’ Biden family. To believe China has no influence in the Biden administration’s policy direction is naive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498941/Commander-charge-Kabul-evacuation-slams-White-House-distraction-chaos.html
“Commander in charge of Kabul evacuation slams the White House and Jill Biden for being a ‘distraction’ during chaos: Claims high-profile pestering for special favors to get allies out slowed military down”
President Susan Rice and Vice President Valerie Jarrett
– two illegal alien, foreign invader hyphenates – immigration law in 1863 required citizens to be “…free white person(s)….” and freed slaves must have been deported – talk about election fraud and vote tampering, it’s been happening since 1863.