TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Judicial Activism? Tyranny Is More Like It
Arnold Ahlert  
.
Former Attorney John Dowd Calls Mueller 
“A Fraud” for Editing His Comments
by sundance
theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ After a court filing revealed how Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller carefully edited the telephone message by John Dowd to Michael Flynn’s attorney... Dowd points out the motives of Weissmann and Mueller was to create a fraudulent report.In the Michael Flynn sentencing phase Judge Emmet Sullivan requested the Mueller prosecution team provide records related to the case. Among other evidence, the judge ordered the government to file on the public docket “the transcript of the voicemail recording” from President Trump’s attorney John Dowd to Michael Flynn. The transcript of that voicemail recording was cited in the Mueller report as evidence that team Trump was trying to obstruct justice by shaping witness testimony. Last Friday the Mueller team released the transcript of the call. However, as originally noticed by Rosie Memos the released transcript clearly shows the Mueller team selectively edited the transcript to weaponized their portrayal of the contact...  https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/04/former-attorney-joh...  
.
BIG WIN! Trump can use 
military funds to build the border wall
by S.Noble
independentsentinel.com } ~ A federal judge, a Trump appointee, has ruled against congressional Democrats who sought to temporarily stop the president from using military funds for a border wall... Judge Trevor McFadden handed the president a big victory. McFadden ruled that House Democrats cannot go to court to block Trump from using military funds to build the border wall “because the Constitution grants the House no standing to litigate these claims.” This is a case about whether one chamber of Congress has the “constitutional means” to conscript the Judiciary in a political turf war with the President over the implementation of legislation. … While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion,” the Judge ruled.The House argued that this expenditure would violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution and usurp Congress’s authority. The administration argued that the court cannot intervene “because the Constitution grants the House no standing to litigate these claims.” “To be clear, the Court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers,” McFadden added.
.
The Books He Loved but Others Shouldn't Read
by Amir Taheri
gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ "Tell me which books you read, and I'll tell you who you are!" That was how the late Iranian literary critic Mohit Tabatabai used to tease Tehran's glitterati in the "good old days."... To be sure, the claim wasn't based on any scientific study but empirical evidence showed that it wasn't quite off the mark either. Books do offer an insight into the soul of a reader, provided he has a soul. Thus, those interested in all things Iranian, especially in these exciting times, wouldn't want to miss a new book on the Islamic Republic's "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, if only because it devotes a chapter to books that he loved as a young man. The new book, a sort of biography, was originally written in Arabic under the title "En Ma'a al-sabr fathan" ("Patience Leads to Victory") but has just come out in Persian translation under a pseudo-poetical title, "The Drop of Blood That Became a Ruby". The "Supreme Guide" recalls his "passion for reading famous Iranian and world novels" and insists on "the deep impact" that reading novels had on him. But what novels did the future "Supreme Guide" found especially captivating? Top of Khamenei's list are 10 of the cloak-and-dagger novels written by Michel Zevaco, the Corsican-French writer who helped popularize what the English call "penny-dreadful" romances in France. Zevaco uses a simple formula: taking a historic character or event and fictionalizing it with a dose of page-turning pathos. Zevaco's world is a universe of sex, violence, conspiracy and betrayal. In Zevaco's best-selling novel "Borgia," the head of the dreadful Borgia family that dominated Florentine politics in the medieval times, rapes his own sister Lucrece, a seductive blonde. The novel "Nostradamus" is a fictionalized biography of a roaming charlatan who claimed to read the future to gain money, power, sex and fame. Zevaco's most popular novels come in the series known as "Les Paradaillans" of which only two are translated into Persian...  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14325/ayatollah-khamenei-books 
CA to use Fed tax $$$ to pay for health, 
vision, dental, abortions for illegals
by S.Noble
independentsentinel.com } ~ The California State Assembly passed AB 4 MediCal For All. This bill would extend eligibility for full-scope MediCal benefits to illegal aliens of all ages... It still has to pass the State Senate and the governor has to sign it into law. It is a one-party state and the far-left governor will likely sign it. AB 4 has not yet been assigned to a committee in the California State Senate. If you think we have a lot of illegal aliens piling in now, just wait. The trip will definitely be worth it for the free healthcare, especially for those needing a lot of medical care. The FEDERAL government, in other words, the FEDERAL TAXPAYER, pays for the Medi-Cal expansion. Currently, the federal government pays 88 percent of the costs for children enrolled in CHIP and the state pays 12 percent. Finally, under ACA, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of providing health care services to the newly eligible MediCal population from 2014 through 2016. You the Federal taxpayer will pay for illegal aliens to get their free healthcare. MediCal pays for abortions, visual services, and dental. The Fed needs to look into this and stop it.  READ THE BILL HERE   http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id...  
.
The use and misuse of income data and 
extreme poverty in the United States
by Bruce D. Meyer, Carla Medalia, Victoria R. Mooers & Derek Wu
aei.org } ~ Recent research suggests that rates of extreme poverty, commonly defined as living on less than $2/person/day, are high and rising in the United States... We re-examine the rate of extreme poverty by linking 2011 data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and Current Population Survey, the sources of recent extreme poverty estimates, to administrative tax and program data. Of the 3.6 million non-homeless households with survey-reported cash income below $2/person/day, we find that more than 90% are not in extreme poverty once we include in-kind transfers, replace survey reports of earnings and transfer receipt with administrative records, and account for the ownership of substantial assets. More than half of all misclassified households have incomes from the administrative data above the poverty line, and several of the largest misclassified groups appear to be at least middle class based on measures of material well-being. In contrast, the households kept from extreme poverty by in-kind transfers appear to be among the most materially deprived Americans. Nearly 80% of all misclassified households are initially categorized as extreme poor due to errors or omissions in reports of cash income. Of the households remaining in extreme poverty, 90% consist of a single individual. An implication of the low recent extreme poverty rate is that it cannot be substantially higher now due to welfare reform, as many commentators have claimed...  https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Meyer-Extreme-Povert...  
.
.
Judicial Activism? Tyranny Is More Like It
Arnold Ahlert:  “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President sumbag/liar-nObama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century.” —from Attorney General William Barr’s speech  to American Law Institute, May 21, 2019 
 
Ever since the 2016 election, leftists have made it clear they will do their utmost to negate its results. And as the above quote makes clear, they have allies on the bench more than willing to trample the separation of powers. That’s happening despite Alexander Hamilton’s promise  that “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.”

As every sentient American knows, that is no longer the case. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was far more prescient when he warned that the judiciary would become the “despotic branch.”

In fact, “influence over the purse” was the latest outrage perpetrated by an out-of-control judge. On the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, District Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction denying the Pentagon the ability to transfer $1 billion in defense funding to construct fencing in Yuma, Arizona, and El Paso, Texas.

The first question one might ask is how a judge in California gets to halt a policy that affects Texas and Arizona. The answer is simple — and damning: potential plaintiffs go “forum-shopping,” defined as a “practice adopted by litigants to get their cases heard in a particular court that is likely to provide a favorable judgment.”

For those seeking to thwart Trump’s immigration agenda, Gilliam was an obvious choice: Federal Election Commission records reveal the judge contributed $6,900 to Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s 2008 presidential campaign, another  $8,500 to scumbag/liar-nObama’s Victory Fund four years later, and a $4,500 donation to the Democratic National Committee, along with $3,100 to the leftist Covington and Burling LLP PAC between 2012 and 2014.

Columnist David Horowitz reveals just how partisan Gilliam really is. “In 1996, the Northern District of California, the very court over which Gilliam presides, ruled that the president has ‘inherent executive authority’ over denying entry to aliens,” he writes. “That is the purpose of this border wall.”

It was not the first time judges attempted to usurp the president’s “inherent executive authority” allowing him to deny entry to aliens. When the president issued a travel ban against Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia — due to their penchant for exporting the same kind of terrorism that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001 — U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order “on a nationwide basis.”

That order was unanimously upheld by a three-judge panel from the reliably leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while additional lawsuits were filed by other judges and other states. Moreover, even when Trump revised his ban, Judge Derrick K. Watson, of Federal District Court in Honolulu, and Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Maryland, still ruled against it.

And while it was all occurring, a mainstream media that has devolved into Orwell’s Ministry of Truth referred to the restrictions as a “Muslim travel ban” — all the racist implications fully intended.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, with Chief Justice John Roberts correctly asserting that it falls as squarely within a president’s powers to issue it. The ruling ended 15 months of legal machinations, which gets to the heart of the problem. “The Supreme Court only heard 60 cases last year,” Horowitz explains. “Meanwhile, the lower courts heard tens of thousands of cases, and their dockets are full of every political issue under the sun.”

In other words, the sheer volume of unconstitutional judicial activism relative to SCOTUS’s ability to mitigate it overwhelmingly favors the activists.

AG Barr makes that reality even clearer. “When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table — we must win every case,” he stated. “The challengers, however, must find only one district judge — out of an available 600 — willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.”

Thus, our so-called system of checks and balances is nothing of the sort. Moreover, the number of agendas is virtually limitless. In addition to injunctions against Trump’s travel ban, activist judges have issued  nationwide injunctions to prevent the administration from restricting grant money to sanctuary cities, ending the unconstitutionally initiated DREAMER program, preventing transgenders from entering the military, and putting a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. Several abortion and reproductive health policies have been stayed as well.

Leftists aren’t wholly to blame for judicial overreach. “Conservative activists tended to file suit against the scumbag/liar-nObama administration in district courts in Texas, while liberals are litigating against Trump on the West Coast,” columnist Max Bloom explains.

However, the numbers don’t lie. “In President Trump’s first year alone, federal judges issued 20 nationwide injunctions — as many as President scumbag/liar-nObama’s eight years in office,” Fox News reports.

In a speech given at the Federalist Society’s Seventh Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, Vice President Mike Pence revealed the administration is looking to challenge national injunctions. “The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them,” he stated. “And it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation.”

Congress could address the issue as well. Article III Section 1of the Constitution grants Congress to create — or eliminate — every federal court but SCOTUS. That power that could be used to rein in much judicial overreach.

Congress can also impeach judges that don’t adhere to the requirement of serving “during good Behaviour.” Yet in all of America’s history only 15 federal judges have been impeached. Eight were convicted by the Senate, four were acquitted, and three resigned before a trial outcome.

Why so few? Because if Congress reined in an out-of-control judiciary, it would be held responsible. “Can’t have that,” columnist Selwyn Duke astutely notes. “Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.”

Duke is too kind. The Legislative Branch’s abdication of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities has created a vacuum that activist judges are more than happy to fill.

Justice Clarence Thomas believes SCOTUS must enter the fray. “These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding,” he states. “And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”

The sooner the better. America has been held hostage by the “least dangerous” branch of government long enough.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63374?mailing_id=4309&utm_mediu...  

Views: 13

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Joe Biden On Violence Against Women:   We Have To Keep ‘Punching At It, And Punching At It, And Punching At It’

 The audience laughed as he said this.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said that America needs to be “punching” back to combat violence against women during Wednesday’s Democratic debate.

Biden was asked if he would tackle specific issues regarding the #MeToo movement at the beginning of his presidency, if he were to be elected. The former vice president previously sponsored the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which aimed to protect victims of domestic violence.

The presidential candidate responded to the question about assaulting women by using the phrase “punching” repeatedly, apparently not thinking about the implications of using such a word.

“No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger other than in self-defense, and that rarely ever occurs,” Biden said. “So we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it. No, I really mean it.”

A few people laughed in the audience as he said this.

Biden added that it is important to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which has passed in the House and held up in the Senate. The former Vice President also suggested that America has to “fundamentally change the culture” of how women are treated, noting that it is “everyone’s responsibility.”

“It’s a gigantic issue, and we have to make it clear from the top, from the president on down that we will not tolerate it,” Biden said. “We will not tolerate this culture.”

Tucker's big takeaways from the Trump impeachment saga

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service