Last night’s NBC’s town hall in Miami with former Vice President Joe Biden was panned, to quote Politico’s Marc Caputo, as another “Biden Informercial” that protected the candidate from both tough questions and skeptical voters. There was not a single question on Biden refusing to answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court, a move supported by his running mate Kamala Harris and various top Democrats in this election. However, Biden did make one notable comment about the Court and nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He said that, if Barrett helped reverse Roe v. Wade, he would make “Roe the law of the land.” Continue reading “Biden Pledges To Make “Roe The Law Of The Land” If Overturned By The Supreme Court”
Category: Politics
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the call for a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and the packing of the Supreme Court with up to six new members to secure a majority. Both ideas were expressly denounced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, to achieve these objectives, the Democratic members will have to tear down the very rule established by Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing. Continue reading “Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States”
Former FBI Deputy Director (and CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe has long said that he was willing to answer questions under oath about his controversial actions in the Russian investigation. He was scheduled to do so on Tuesday, but he now has refused — citing the infection of three senators with Covid-19. However, McCabe also refuses to testify remotely as did both former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He simply says that “fairness” dictates that he not testify at all. The basis for his refusal to appear remotely is utterly and almost comically absurd.
Continue reading “McCabe: I Will Not Testify Out of Fear For My Health … Even Remotely”
In a recent column in the New York Times, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer criticized President Donald Trump for not issuing a national order making the wearing of masks mandatory – a pledge made by Vice President Joe Biden raising serious constitutional questions. Now, Whitmer is having her broad interpretation of state executive authority checked by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that she violated the Constitution with her extension of the state of emergency. Continue reading “Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov. Whitmer’s State of Emergency Order”
The Internet is raging with conspiracy theories this weekend on how President Donald Trump may be faking his illness or using his Covid-19 treatment for some hidden dark purpose. MSNBC host Joy Reid drew criticism for passing along postings on how Trump may be lying about his illness to “get out of the debates.” On CNN, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer agreed with host Erin Burnett that even Vice President Pence may be lying in simply saying that morning that the President and First Lady were doing well while convalescing in the White House. Michael Moore warned the public that this all may be a massive lie orchestrated by Trump. Continue reading “Trump Critics Fuel Internet Conspiracy Theories Surrounding The President’s Illness”
The New York Times on Thursday published an opinion column by Regina Ip, the Hong Kong official widely denounced as “Beijing’s enforcer.” Ip declared “Hong Kong is part of China” and dismissed the protesters fighting for freedom in their city. I have no objection to the publishing of the column. Ip is a major figure in Hong Kong and, despite her support for authoritarian rule and crushing dissent, there is a value to having such views as part of the public debate. Rather, my concern is that the New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. So it will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong.
Years ago, American politics left all notion of decency behind in our age of rage. That was evident when the media and liberals celebrated the disgraceful conduct of Maryanne Trump betraying her aunt’s confidence in secretly recording her talking about her brother. The same people reveled in the unethical conduct of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen who not only secretly recorded his client, President Donald Trump, but has been violating any notion of confidentiality in pushing his own tell all book. Now, CNN’s Anderson Cooper has been reduced to shilling for Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, the former assistant and friend of Melania Trump who secretly recorded their confidential chats and is now selling a book by playing embarrassing snip bits. Continue reading ““Talk About A War On Christmas!”: CNN Thrills With Airing Of Secret Taping of First Lady”
In his long-awaited testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony proved as casual as his appearance in an open shirt from his home office. Comey was hammered with embarrassing findings of errors under his watch in the handling of the Russian investigation, including the reliance on information that FBI agents warned might be Russian disinformation supplied by a Russian agent. After years of investigation, the FBI was unable to show that a single Trump official conspired or colluded with the Russians. Instead, investigations found extensive errors, irregular and criminal conduct, and statements of intense bias by key FBI figures. Yet, Comey proceeded to give what amounted to a series of shrugs in either denying any recollection of such information or deflecting responsibility to others. Continue reading “What Rings Comey’s Bell: The Former FBI Director’s Casual Testimony Confirms the Worst About His Tenure”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the sentencing hearing of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, in the hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan fulfilled the expectations of the D.C. Circuit panel that ordered him to dismiss the charge without further delay. That decision was reversed en banc but only because the court decided (as many of us argued) that Sullivan should be allowed to issue a final decision before an appellant review of his handling of the case. The en banc court did not rule in favor of his controversial comments or orders. Yet, in the hearing, Sullivan declared “Suffice it to say, the case was remanded to me by the en banc court.” As argued below, the law is clear and, suffice it to say, Sullivan will be reversed if he follows the advice of John Gleeson. Instead, Sullivan announced that he still “has questions” and indicated that he is not prepared to issue a final decision after two years. Instead, he repeated the words of Gleeson as virtual fact like an alter ego. This is moving from the cathartic to the tragic. The Court is not just prolonging the inevitable for the ruling but the trauma for the defendant. Flynn should have been sentenced years ago and the charges dismissed months ago. A defendant should not be a vehicle of the court to express displeasure or satisfy its curiosity on public controversies. The court knows that it would be almost certainly reversed if it follows the advice of its self-appointed quasi-prosecutor Gleeson. Instead, it is continuing to refuse to rule while using the case to ask more questions about the internal decision-making at the Justice Department.
Here is column: Continue reading “It Is Time To Dismiss The Flynn Case”
Last night’s presidential debate left many of us in a deep depression over the state of our politics. Once again, the duopoly of power in this country has reduced a population of over 300 million to two subpar choices. President Donald Trump’s conduct and comments have been rightfully denounced while Biden offered little beyond not being President Trump. There were however two clear and surprising winners last night: Proud Boys and Antifa. Continue reading “Proud Boys and Antifa Emerge As The Winners From The Presidential Debate”
Below is my column in The Hill on the comparison of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett. With the exception of their conclusions on the law, both women share striking similarities and Barrett represents a triumphant moment of conservative feminists in the country. She is a brilliant jurist with a stellar background, much like the jurist she would replace.
Here is the column:
We have been discussing a crackdown on some campuses against conservative columnists and newspapers, including the firing of a conservative student columnist at Syracuse, the public condemnation of a student columnist at Georgetown, and a campaign against one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country at Dartmouth. Now, The Badger Herald, a student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin Madison, has dismissed columnist Tripp Grebe after he wrote a column opposing the defunding of police departments. What was equally disturbing was how the rationale for this raw act of viewpoint intolerance tracked the rationale used by the New York Times in a controversy over the column by Sen. Tom Cotton on the George Floyd protests.
It appears that Judge Amy Coney Barrett has gone from a “cult member” for being a devout Catholic to a possible “white colonizer” for adopting two Haitian children. Where most of us saw a loving interracial family at the White House ceremony on Saturday, Ibram X. Kendi, the new director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, saw a possible case of effective baby snatching by “White colonizers.” Continue reading “Boston University Professor Denounces Barrett As “White Colonizer” For Adopting Two Haitian Children”
We have been discussing the anti-Catholic attacks on Judge Amy Coney Barrett and how various commentators are calling her a “cult member” and a religious “monster.” Most responsible writers and newspapers have condemned the attacks but the New York Times has run a column that appears to justify the attacks using the same anti-Catholic tropes. (For the record, I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic high school in Chicago). The column by Elizabeth Bruenig explains why the attacks may “not be entirely baseless” in exploring historical and philosophical sources. While I do not believe Bruenig holds or wants to advance long-standing anti-Catholic prejudices, the column references sources and advances stereotypes that are painfully familiar to many Catholics.
Below is my column on the fierce attacks that have mounted against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, including articles suggesting that her conservative Catholic views and support for a charismatic group makes her a virtual cult member. The announcement of the new nominee will come today and Barrett has been viewed as a frontrunner. The religious intolerance unleashed by her likely nomination has continued to grow. Last night, “Real Time” host Bill Mayer came unglued with a vulgar attack on Barrett that even brought in Trump’s alleged affair with Stormy Daniels: “We’ll be saying this name a lot I’m sure because she’s a f—ing nut. . . ‘m sorry, but Amy [Coney] Barrett, Catholic — really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues. Like she doesn’t believe in condoms, which is what she has in common with Trump because he doesn’t either. I remember that from Stormy Daniels.” Imagine if a conservative commentator responded to President Obama’s nomination of Kagan or Sotomayor by referring to sex with a stripper or referring to Kagan a “really, really Jewish.” These continuing attacks do not bode well for the confirmation fight ahead — regardless of the nominee. To paraphrase Sen. Feinstein, “[Religious prejudice] lives loudly within you.”
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Judge Amy Coney Barrett On Her Intellect, Not Her Faith”