Tuesday Noon ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Why the Supreme Court Got It Right
on Gerrymandering
Hans von Spakovsky
  

AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Anti-Trump fever takes threatening turn
kyL-HNo27A2Jkp0gPUjTgjr2ULz8aY4Bx-BKQNAWhxHss2XviyhaghZ_egWbx_NG3mI7L9UYEe4Vn6XsHAhTT3-zRnCfYPusF6-G1AvJGC6H3DcTMwEHFwRA_Q45aWbbCnI1B7WwfCC6ZTPUeA0ltl3CssTdv6S7ZEwFVQGuMbi1L-3EBFtmxE6_bKADXOLhb1Qoo72mRK261p3zxtwFbrX3v_qL-FRLRF8gEF_GUioALAGB4LNmsTNm3eFimZJKAUIsqiwCtyv35r-lEzdAA0_vgft3Ds1J2L3kgM1VGKO7rA4ZndVnVNKfOUQk9jOwlMgzp-42v6GMk3vpWEdcvo9CCQjA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xBy Byron York
washingtonexaminer.com } ~ The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days... with the nation's most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump's election. The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson's staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat. Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is "inhumane and unethical" and because the Red Hen "has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation." In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president's son. Wilkinson wrote that the incident, along with her own decision to oust Sanders, shows that in the age of Trump "new rules apply" in public accommodations: Americans who work for the administration or support the president should stay away. "If you're directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home," Wilkinson wrote. Wilkinson noted that "no one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron," but at the same time declared that Americans should understand that a "frustrated person" — for example, a restaurant employee — will "lash out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs." Americans should accept that such things will happen. "If you're an unsavory individual," Wilkinson concluded, "we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you." Better to stay home than risk the spittle. And of course, Wilkinson and her colleagues in the hospitality industry will decide who is "unsavory."...  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-anti-trump-fever-takes-threatening-turn?utm_source=breaking_push&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=push_notifications&utm_source=WEX_News%20Brief_07/01/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_News%20Brief&rid=5261   

Hamas ‘Partners’ with UN
um53-n3yxsWdvkghwoCJ_dti1GPxoXMy8cy494AqdHl3TO633I9T4o22bCR1bCniwN9yxOIqVWlBwFJrFNoCEAelq1bPHQUxkFifd2BqQL1tMRu18BoAIDSiqdJQNVSeZ0eIMiwBovubX7CxmXFTVLl17HtuASIyROOqAXA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By clarionproject.org ~ A Hamas sleeper agent is now the head of a UN employees union in Gaza, a strip of land on Israel’s southern border which is controlled by the Hamas terror group... Amir al-Mashal, an Hamas official, now currently serves as the head of the UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine employees union. Al- Mashal recently led the United Professional List, a joint Hamas-Islamic Jihad party, to victory in the latest union elections. As first reported by David Bedein of the Center for Near East Policy Research, Al-Mashal was specifically placed in this position by the terror group to commandeer the organization’s resources for Hamas. Mashal’s predecessor — another Hamas official, Dr. Suhail al-Hindi — was suspended from the job after Israel discovered that he was part of Hamas’ elected political leadership. Since their takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Hamas has worked to infiltrate key organizations in the area, including UNRWA, and now controls most of the main unions. UNRWA’s status is a convenient cover for the terror group’s operations. They also use UNRWA to leverage public support. In September, 2018, the U.S. cut all funds to UNRWA after the Trump administration labeled the agency “irredeemably flawed.” UNRWA has a history of failing to fulfill its mandate to support Palestinian refugees and instead promoting terrorism and incitement against Israelis and even sheltering terrorists. High-level positions within the agency have been given to senior Palestinian terrorists, including members of Hamas. In December 2017, a terror tunnel was discovered under two UNRWA schools and during the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel, at least three Hamas weapons caches were found in UNRWA facilities and another Hamas tunnel was found in a booby-trapped UNRWA clinic. An internal audit made by the U.N. in 2018 found that UNRWA was particularly vulnerable to “misappropriation, graft and corruption” in its “procurement, partner selection, food and cash distribution, hiring and promotions, and other areas.” The U.S. was historically the largest donor to UNRWA, contributing more than $350 million in 2017 alone.
.
Under Palestinian homes, US envoys hammer 
open an ancient East Jerusalem road
PkOCQhT7fq8tQsldgybLqpCV_XB5eC33lGirZoVPVVzJyS3v-Poq41dZ75g5WEmljbc3S74XIWaR5Ma5j9dcByyvJ4r3LZAnvsg-uhjQozhm_9ZIXQAwy409YadEKUYDs-ozFnCf0ra1XazEnCmHtymq_rztOcce-ihPjClM-wG4DhkhXV7lGg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710xBy Jacob Magid
timesofisrael.com } ~ US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and White House Mideast peace envoy Jason Greenblatt, at an inaugural ceremony on Sunday... hammered through the final wall standing in front of an archaeological tourist site that was dug under Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. “Whether there was ever any doubt about the accuracy, the wisdom, the propriety of US President Donald Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I certainly think this lays all doubts to rest,” said Friedman before joining other Israeli and American bigwigs in symbolically breaking down the wall, which led to the “Pilgrimage Road,” a now-subterranean stairway that was said to have served as a main artery for Jews to the Temple Mount thousands of years ago. Archaeologists have been excavating at the City of David National Park in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan for the past eight years. The area has several tiny Jewish enclaves.The ceremonial event angered the Palestinian Authority, as well as several left-wing Israeli NGOs, which claimed the opening of the site would further entrench an Israeli presence in eastern parts of the city that Palestinians hope will one day serve as their capital. The Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, tweeted  that Friedman, who before becoming the ambassador was a contributor to settlement causes, was himself “an extremist Israeli settler.” While Trump said his decision in late 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital did not relate to the borders of the city, which would be determined in a final peace agreement, Sunday’s ceremony appeared to indicate some American recognition of Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem...
.
A Fine Time to Become An American
BPknyr9nA25l40YjxOIPPQl2cwhNqphonrCc7JeTpmdwahskVXEYPScnIQDocFkqbR6E7cIKat32zFg7VPzfShClinybYK7FvEfOKBB6ksptfo9tiJbKL7bYQ8_fyxn_q8SvDGeKUZ5cDcO9tFTks4Dxpy4x3nnzx4k=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Niall Ferguso  
{prageru.com} ~ Renown Oxford-trained historian Niall Ferguson recounts his recent experience of becoming an American citizen. His unique impressions are both moving and surprising — even to him.
.
Are Prisons Actually Fueling Jihad?
Gt4K3ituf0nHRdk6Yi8Jp-otoez45ER4FcMBnWPX6PRrABPvyyrUlZRvLr2z-azfumwutViv4pBzkqJtkgciUxK1HQff75PJjl-c=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=By Brig Barker
investigativeproject.org } ~ Although prisons have been an on-again off-again political topic for years, their main purpose has been threefold: to punish the perpetrator; act as a deterrent towards further crime; and ideally, rehabilitate the wrongdoer... When it comes to imprisoned terrorists, however, that third prong has been almost entirely missing, and the damage is something we'll be experiencing for years. Some recent cases prove this point. American Ahmad Musa Jibril, now reportedly living in Michigan, was convicted in 2005 on a 42-count indictment charging fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering related crimes. He was released from prison in 2012. Since then, Jibril has become one of America's leading radicalizers, and is believed to be inspiration for the 2017 London Bridge attack of 2017. In 2014, British researchers characterized Jibril as one of two U.S. Muslim leaders most influencing ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. Is it fair to expect that time in prison would de-radicalize Jibril? There appears to be no indication that he entered into any rehabilitation or de-radicalization program. Or, did his prison time give him more notoriety and clout with the Islamists? It appears clear from the available research that Jibril did not denounce his extremist beliefs, and one could surmise that he may have become more extreme while locked up. In the end, the American public is now saddled with an Islamist committed to jihad, walking free and spouting his radical beliefs in whatever forums he pleases. John Walker Lindh offers another relevant and recent case study. Lindh, the former "American Taliban," was convicted in 2002 for terrorism related charges and released last month. He acknowledged that he served time with Jibril at the prison in Terre Haute, Ind. Lindh reportedly became very close to Jibril. According to a 2017 National Counterterrorism Center report, Lindh is expected to "advocate for global jihad and write and translate violent extremist texts." In 2015, he applauded ISIS' efforts to establish a Caliphate via letters to a news outlet. For extremist fence sitters, Lindh will most likely be an inspiration. To them, he fought against the west, was captured and imprisoned by western authorities, and is now in a place where he can preach and proselytize...  https://www.investigativeproject.org/7969/are-prisons-actually-fueling-jihad   
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Why the Supreme Court Got It Right on Gerrymandering

Hans von Spakovsky
 

In a much-awaited decision, the Supreme Court held on Thursday in a 5-4 decision that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts.

This should come as no surprise, since it’s the same conclusion the court reached the last time this issue was before it in 2004 in a case out of Pennsylvania, Vieth v. Jubelirer.

This time, plaintiffs in both Maryland and North Carolina challenged congressional redistricting maps, claiming they discriminated against Republicans in Maryland and Democrats in North Carolina.

They argued that such partisan redistricting (i.e. engaging in politics when drawing legislative district lines to benefit candidates of one political party) violated the First and 14th Amendments, as well as the elections clause and Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. District courts in both cases ruled in their favor.

However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the other (generally) conservative justices, concluded that this is a nonjusticiable political question for which there is a lack of discoverable and manageable standards.

The chief justice noted that “partisan gerrymandering is nothing new,” and neither is “frustration with it.”

Partisan redistricting was known “in the colonies prior to independence and the framers were familiar with it at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.”

Yet, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention who drafted the Constitution assigned the authority to draw political boundaries to state legislatures, checked and balanced by Congress, with no suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play in the process.

According to the majority, a contrary decision holding that legislators cannot take their partisan interests into account when drawing lines would countermand the Framers’ own decision.

The claims made by these plaintiffs and by others against partisan redistricting “invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation,” something the Constitution does not require.

In fact, the “Founders certainly did not think proportional representation was required” given that for 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution, “many states elected their congressional representatives through at-large or ‘general ticket’ elections.”

The court also found that there aren’t any “discernible” legal standards in the Constitution for making judgments on what is the “appropriate” share of “safe” seats for political parties, let alone any “limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.”

Decisions by judges on what is “fair” in the political realm would be an “unmoored determination of the sort characteristic of a political question beyond the competence of the federal courts.”

The majority opinion was quick to point out that, although partisan redistricting is a political question that the federal courts should not get involved in, this decision “does not condone partisan gerrymandering.”

Neither does the court’s conclusion “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void.” But remedying this problem is the responsibility of states and Congress, which have the power to reform the process, not the courts.

Roberts said that what the plaintiffs and the dissenters in these cases “seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”

Such an “expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”

It would be “unlimited in scope and duration” and it “would recur over and over again around the country with each new round of districting, for state as well as federal representatives.”

Roberts is certainly correct about that. There are no manageable judicial standards, no bright line one can draw in the redistricting area on how much politics is acceptable and how much would be too much, and thus a supposed violation of the Constitution.

Moreover, the Supreme Court would have to build its own version of Noah’s Ark to float above the flood of redistricting litigation that would have erupted in the federal courts if partisan redistricting had been recognized as a constitutional violation.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by her liberal colleagues, virulently dissented, claiming that the majority was refusing to remedy a constitutional violation.

She also claimed that the lower federal courts had come up with an applicable legal standard, a claim that is open to great dispute.

Nonetheless, this is the right decision by the court. As Roberts said in his conclusion, “no one can accuse” the Supreme Court of “having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence.”

But whatever competence the court may have, it has no “commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide” them.

This is an example of the “rare circumstance” where it is the Supreme Court’s “duty to say ‘this is not the law.’”  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63944?mailing_id=4374&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4374&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Command Center