Friday PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

[Rudy Tirre]

TheFrontPageCover

~ Featuring ~  

Lower Courts Obstruct Trump

at Unprecedented Rate

by Political Editors  

.

Supreme Court blocks Louisiana 

abortion law from taking effect

by Kimberly Leonard & Melissa Quinn

{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a Louisiana abortion law from taking effect in a split 5-4 vote... Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal wing in putting enforcement of the Louisiana law on hold. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have denied the stay application, allowing the law to take effect. The case marked the first time the Supreme Court has taken action on a case dealing with abortion since Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the high court in October.The Louisiana law requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. If it ultimately goes into effect, two of Louisiana's three abortion clinics are expected to close because they would not be able to meet the requirement. In a dissent, Kavanaugh said the case "largely turns" on whether Louisiana's three doctors who provide abortions can obtain the necessary admitting privileges during a 45-day regulatory transition period. The plaintiffs then could bring a challenge to the law if the doctors were unable to obtain admitting privileges at the end of that period, Kavanaugh wrote. Jeff Landry, Louisiana's attorney general, said in a statement he is hopeful the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case on the merits of the law and argued the state's abortion restrictions are "constitutional and consistent with our overall regulatory scheme for surgical procedures."...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law-from-taking-effect?utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_02/07/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News

.

President Trump's SOTU Affirmed 

Liberty to Unresponsive Subversives

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig

{americanthinker.com} ~ An hour before Pres. Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, I opened my mail. It included a thank-you note regarding a contribution I had made to a right-wing organization... The author of the note quoted Nikita Khrushchev, who said, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism." The author of the thank-you note was revolted by this remark by N.K. and knew I would be as well. I grew up during the Cold War and understood that communism was not merely an alternative theory of politics and economics to that held by most Americans, but was a living and breathing threat to our freedom emanating 24-7 from the USSR, the PRC, and a determined fifth column of traitorous leftists living in these United States. Our conflict with communism was not a mere academic or drawing room debate between gentleman-scholars. Rather, the ardent supporters of communism wished to extract the essence of our freedom and opportunities from our society.  In the name of curbing the rich, they wish to curb us all, grab power, assert governmental force over every area of our lives, and make themselves arbiters of every life decision we make – where we live, what kind of work each of us does, where and when we can and cannot travel, how to heat our homes or even build our homes, where to go to school, how many children to have, how long we live and under what conditions we live, and even the thoughts we think. Almost all that we now consider "private" they would refashion and reconfigure to be seen as "public." Our individual rights would be subsumed under collective rights...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/president_trumps_sotu_address_affirmed_liberty_to_unresponsive_subversives.html
.

The 10 Most Insane Requirements 

Of The Green New Deal  

by David Harsanyi

{thefederalist.com} ~ A number of Democratic Party presidential hopefuls — including scumbag-Cory Booker, lowlife-Kamala Harris, Elizabeth dinky-Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, and Beto O’Rourke, for starters... have already endorsed or expressed support for the “Green New Deal” (GND). Today, Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey dropped details about her plan.  It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and commie-Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND. While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals: Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction...

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=136b43ff47-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-136b43ff47-83771801

.

U.S. Government and Private Industry Must Prepare for

Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare Escalations

by fdd.org:   In October 2018, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and The Chertoff Group conducted a cyber-enabled economic warfare (CEEW) tabletop exercise with former senior government officials and private sector leaders... The purpose of the exercise was to identify points of alignment and divergence between what the private sector and government may want, need, and demand from each other in the immediate aftermath of a major cyber incident. The CEEW exercise simulated a massive cyberattack affecting various U.S. lifeline sectors at the same time that the U.S. military was deploying substantial forces to an overseas theater due to a geopolitical standoff with a peer adversary. As military tensions escalated, the cyber attacks did as well. There were cascading impacts on critical and consumer infrastructure, degrading military capabilities and stoking public fear that access to food, health care, and bank accounts could be jeopardized. In addition to examining areas of alignment and divergence, the exercise also analyzed decision-making authorities and processes, resilience capabilities, and information-sharing mechanisms. The most important finding from the discussion is that unless government and private sector decision makers begin developing CEEW-specific procedures and trust now, the United States will find itself flat-footed during a major cyber event. It is tempting to say that defenses against state actors should simply be left to the U.S. government, but this ignores the very real business disruption and follow-on public panic that can occur in cyber-enabled economic warfare attacks. Banks, logistics firms, and even consumer goods manufacturers are obvious targets...

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/02/05/government-and-private-industry-must-prepare-for-cyber-enabled-economic-warfare-escalations/

.

Get China and Russia Out of Venezuela - 

and the Western Hemisphere

by Gordon G. Chang

{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ "What are our national security interests in Venezuela?" Adam Smith, the Washington Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, asked... Erin Burnett on January 29 during her CNN primetime show. "The idea that we're going to go in and do battle in Venezuela over who should be running that country, I don't see a single U.S. national security argument for doing that." Not a single interest, Chairman Smith? In December, two Russian Tu-160 Blackjacks landed  near Caracas. The Mach 2, nuclear-capable bombers can launch cruise missiles with a range of 3,410 miles, putting the U.S. homeland at risk from the airspace over Venezuela. The Blackjack bombers also buzzed America's West Coast as they left the region last month. Representative Smith charged  President Trump with making Venezuela policy "on whims and fantasies and no reality behind it." On the contrary, Trump policy is based on the reality that the U.S. must be involved in the resolution of the Venezuelan crisis and not on the whims or fantasies that bad actors on their own will produce constructive solutions. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of misguided ideas when it comes to Venezuela. Tony Blinken, for instance, deputy secretary of state in the scumbag/liar-nObama administration, told Kate Bolduan on her CNN show on January 28 that Washington should bring China and Russia into discussions about the crisis. Why, you may ask, is this a less-than-brilliant idea?...  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13700/venezuela-china-russia

.

.

Lower Courts Obstruct Trump at Unprecedented Rate

by Political Editors:  Lower federal courts have issued injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s executive actions a record 30 times. “That number,” The Daily Signal reports, matches “the total for the first 42 of the 45 presidents so far in American history.” We knew judicial activism was a problem, but that’s astounding.

The majority of the injunctions, the Signal explains, were “against Trump administration policies providing extreme vetting of immigrants from countries deemed to be failed states; denying funding to sanctuary cities that won’t cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration law; and tightening the asylum process for illegal immigrants, among other issues.” In other words, policies that aren’t exactly conventional.

To make matters worse, these injunctions weren’t merely regional in scope but national. Not surprisingly, the source for most of the injunctions came from judges sitting on some the country’s most left-leaning courts, such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to 1963, no lower court had ever issued national injunctions, and it wasn’t until the 1980s that nationwide injunctions began to become more common.

In fact, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s Justice Department pushed back against the practice, arguing, “A trial court abuses its discretion by fashioning an injunction, which is overly broad.” And last year, House Republicans proposed the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act, which would have put limits on nationwide injunctions, confining the rulings for the most part to the district over which the court presides, but it was never voted on.

Back in 2016, Justice Samuel Alito noted the obvious problem with lower courts being empowered to issue nationwide injunctions, writing that it “invites the loser to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.” Precisely. What we have witnessed through the first two years of Trump’s presidency attests to the reality of this problem.

Michael Morley, an assistant professor at Florida State University College of Law, points out, “All it take is a single litigant anywhere in the nation to win one time, and then they are able to obtain effectively nationwide relief enforcing the rights of all people throughout the nation. So, you have a fundamental asymmetry where the government has to win everywhere, whereas to have a policy or a regulation or an order invalidated, a challenger only has to win once.”

One thing is certain — the more lower courts continue to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump, the more the pressure grows for legislation to be passed that prevents this abuse.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/61010?mailing_id=4065&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4065&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body