web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019

The Left wants a list of who POTUS candidates would put in this building. 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if it involves progressives copying Donald Trump.

Ripping a page right out of Donald Trump’s election playbook from 2016, the group Demand Justice has called for all the Democrats running for President declare publicly who that would nominate out of the handy dandy list they provided.

How convenient and very copy cat-ish of Trump 3 years ago.

According to The Washington Post

Democratic presidential contenders are coming under increased pressure from their base to take a page from Donald Trump’s 2016 playbook and release a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees — one part of a larger strategy from party activists to make the courts a central issue in the 2020 race.

Demand Justice, a group founded to counteract the conservative wing’s decades-long advantage over liberals in judicial fights, will release a list of 32 suggested Supreme Court nominees for any future Democratic president as they ramp up their push for the 2020 contenders to do the same.

The slate of potential high court picks includes current and former members of Congress, top litigators battling the Trump administration’s initiatives in court, professors at the nation’s top law schools and public defenders. Eight are sitting judges. They have established track records in liberal causes that Demand Justice hopes will energize the liberal base.

Seems like the progressives have FINALLY learned the lesson of paying some attention to the third branch of the government.

Now you can go ahead and take a look at that list and if you are like me, be absolutely puzzled by who all those people are. Lucky for us commoners, Carrie Severino from the Judicial Crisis Network just yesterday wrote a piece over at National Review called Demand Justice’s SCOTUS List Is Too Extreme Even for Obama that helps give us an idea of the backgrounds of these folks.

From the article…

Demand Justice’s list has 32 names on it. Only four of those are Obama-nominated judges. Shockingly, only eight have any judicial experience at all! While President Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees currently includes 24 individuals, of whom 23 are experienced federal or state judges, the extremists at Demand Justice have clearly taken a different tack. Their list — which they are lobbying Democratic candidates to adopt — is wholly consumed by far-left activism and identity politics.

They see the courts as their ticket to implementing their radical policy agenda, which includes gutting the First and Second Amendments, establishing a right to illegal immigration and abortion on demand straight through birth, and destroying our economy by imposing burdensome regulations on everyone from Main Street to Wall Street.

When I first read this I thought, well maybe the Obama nominated judges that were confirmed don’t have enough seasoning yet. Then further on reading, I find out that 24 of them don’t have ANY JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE at all.

Did no one pay attention during the Harriet Miers fiasco under Bush 43?

So the left has put together a list of people that they want on the court that the vast majority have ZERO experience on the bench. They are straight-up activists. I actually admire Demand Justice brazen truthfulness here in trying to push this on the Dems.

Severino commented on twitter about how the candidates when finally asked ran from the subject and tried to change the subject like it was the plague.

What this tells me is that the left is organizing to do the same thing conservatives have done but the candidates are not focused on this at the stage of the game they are currently in. This might change after a nominee is picked but for now, it looks like they are more interested in impeachment than who they would put onto the court.

That works for me.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part II

Westlake Legal Group AP_17174023673327 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019

FILE – This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Earlier, we highlighted the cases heard by the Supreme Court on Monday of this week (as well as the many delights of October!) Three more cases were heard by the Court yesterday, all on very “hot button” issues.  (READ: The Court Is in Session – Part I.)

First up was Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. This case examines the applicability of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The pertinent portion of the Act prohibits discrimination in the employment context “because of [an] individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  The law was first passed in 1964 and has not, to date, been construed (by SCOTUS) to encompass sexual orientation or transgenderism. Plaintiff Gerald Bostock was a coordinator for child welfare services in Clayton County, Georgia, for a number of years.  In 2013, he joined a gay recreational softball league and, according to Bostock, “from that point on, my life changed, ” he says. “Within months, I was fired for being gay. I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance and at the time I was fighting prostate cancer. It was devastating.” Bostock filed suit in federal court in Georgia, alleging that his termination violated Title VII, in that his termination (ostensibly for being gay) was prohibited by the “because of sex” provision.

Bostock’s case was consolidated for oral argument with Altitude Express v. Zarda, a case filed in federal court in New York by Donald Zarda following his 2010 termination by his skydiving company employer.  Zarda had informed a customer that he was gay in order to allay her concerns about being strapped together with him during the jump.  The customer complained and Zarda was terminated. He asserted this was due to the customer’s homophobia (though the customer also contended that he had touched her inappropriately during the jump.) Zarda died in a base jumping accident in Switzerland in 2014 and his family continued the litigation in his name.  Similar to BostockZarda involves the question of whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is encompassed within the language of Title VII.

The consolidated cases were then followed by the case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. This was another employment discrimination case, only Harris involves the question of whether the provisions of Title VII also prohibit discrimination based on an individual being transgender. In that case, Aimee Stephens, a Michigan funeral director, was terminated following her declaration in 2013 that she intended to live and dress as a woman. (Prior to 2013, Stephens was known as “Anthony” and dressed and lived as a man.) Stephens made a claim for discrimination with the EEOC, which then sued the funeral home, asserting that firing Stephens for being transgender violated Title VII.

ACLU attorney David Cole presented an interesting argument on behalf of Stephens:

Cole described the case in simple terms. Stephens is being treated differently because of the sex she was assigned at birth. If she had been assigned a female sex at birth, he argued, she would not have been fired for wanting to come to work dressed as a woman. But instead she was assigned a male sex, Cole continued, and so she was fired because she failed to conform to the sex stereotypes of her employer. It can’t be the case, Cole asserted, that Ann Hopkins – the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s original case on sex stereotyping – couldn’t be fired or denied a promotion for being insufficiently feminine, but Stephens could be fired for being insufficiently masculine.

Once again, SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe provides an excellent analysis of Tuesday’s arguments.  The transcripts of the arguments can be found here and here.

We’ll provide additional overviews as to upcoming arguments, as well as some in-depth analysis, in the coming days. However, I also want to point out that the Court granted certiorari this past Friday on several more cases of interest: June Medical Serv., et al. v. Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Health (consolidated with) Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Healthv. June Medical Serv., et al. – cases involving a challenge to the Louisiana law which requires admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions; United States v. Sineneng-Smith (reviewing a 9th Circuit decision which found a federal law making it a felony to encourage or induce illegal immigration for financial gain unconstitutionally broad).  Look for these cases to be heard early in 2020. Additionally, on Monday, the Court opted to move forward with oral argument in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a case involving New York City’s since-repealed ban on transporting guns outside the city limits, despite the fact that the ban was subsequently changed.  This one is now scheduled to be heard in December.

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2019-supreme-court-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016?

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019

The year 2016 was a doozy of an election on the national level. Donald Trump surprised a lot of people ( including myself) when he won the Presidency and made Hillary a two-time loser in POTUS runs. The reason why Trump was able to pull off this feat was because of two simple words.

Electoral College.

I have written here at Red State before about this…READ  Yuck: Colorado Decides To Bypass The Electoral College With National Popular Vote and the reason why it needs to be preserved.

Now a new challenge is possibly facing a showdown in the United States Supreme Court and it could radically alter how we have done elections in this country for over 240 years.

According to…CNN

Three presidential electors in Washington state who voted for Colin Powell in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton and were fined under state law, are asking the US Supreme Court to take up their appeal and decide whether a state can bind an elector to vote for the state’s popular vote winner.

“The original text of the Constitution,” their lawyers argued in court papers filed Monday afternoon, “secures to electors the freedom to vote as they choose.”

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal of the so-called “faithless electors,” it could thrust the justices into yet another high-passion political fight in the heat of the 2020 presidential election. It comes as some predict that the volatile political atmosphere and disputes over redistricting could further emphasize the role of the Electoral College in the upcoming election.

The states have always run federal elections. However, with this new wrinkle, the states would pick people who then do not have to abide by the state’s very own rules if the faithless electors are ruled constitutional on a federal level.

The 10th amendment to the United States Consitution declares that…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even though people have argued that the 12th amendment was passed to deal with some complications in the process of federal elections it does not specifically say how states were to deal with the rules for selecting electors. That, at least in my mind would mean that the states get to pick the process.

However, can you imagine a scenario where 10 or 12 states have a different processes to pick and allow electors to do what they want? That would be an epic mess.

I am fascinated about this whole process and will keep an eye on what SCOTUS decides to do. I don’t think they have much choice to take it up and we will see soon enough.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part I appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court SCOTUS Judicial Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part I appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part I appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4.42.40-PM Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House Supreme Court SCOTUS progressives liberals acting badly Justice Brett Kavanaugh julie swetnick Judicial Impeachment farce Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Courts Allow Media Exception

Screenshot from this video

Here’s a good reminder why not to vote for Democrats, if anyone needed one.

What Democrats did last year to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh to stop his confirmation was just despicable.

You saw Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sit on an allegation until it was convenient to drop. You saw people like Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), now presidential candidates but auditioning at the time for the base, get busted spreading falsehoods in the effort.

This is some of the insanity they incited.

It didn’t matter if they smeared a good man’s name forever if they got what they wanted.

Fortunately, they failed.

But some are still trying to push the narrative.

A group of protesters stormed the Supreme Court today, blocked traffic and screamed about Kavanaugh, calling to “Impeach the mother f**ker!” Townhall’s Julio Rosas caught the action.

They spoke of Merrick Garland and had Julie Swetnick among their number. You may recall Swetnick who told the farcical story about Kavanaugh “gang rape parties,” whose story kept changing and who, along with Michael Avenatti, was referred for criminal investigation based on their actions. But these folks cheered her like she was a returning hero, saying “We believe you!”

Best way not to get people to support your cause? Prevent them from getting where they want to go.

Warning graphic language:

They then went to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s house, shouted and wrapped caution tape around it.

They don’t realize they’re the ones attacking the proper process of the courts, not McConnell.

Every time they do something like this, another Republican voter gets his wings.

This is why we vote, to make sure that these folks never get back more power.

The post Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4.42.40-PM-300x167 Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House Supreme Court SCOTUS progressives liberals acting badly Justice Brett Kavanaugh julie swetnick Judicial Impeachment farce Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Courts Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The New York Times Book on Brett Kavanaugh is Getting Clobbered by its Fox Rival Championing ‘Justice’

Westlake Legal Group AP_18270696540839-620x413 The New York Times Book on Brett Kavanaugh is Getting Clobbered by its Fox Rival Championing ‘Justice’ washington D.C. Uncategorized The New York Times the education of brett kavanaugh: an investigation Supreme Court SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Mollie Hemingway Kate Kelly justice on trial Judicial Crisis Network Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Congress Carrie Severino Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh gives his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Michael Reynolds/Pool Image via AP)

 

So how’s the recently-released book on much-hated/much-loved Brett Kavanaugh doing?

Firstly, there appears to be some missing information, as observed by Fox News:

The…book, titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, faced a bumpy road at the outset as its authors faced criticism for not including what many saw as critical information about a sexual misconduct allegation they relayed in an excerpt published by The New York Times.

As for the sales report, well, it ain’t so good:

(NYT) writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly saw just over 2,000 copies sold in the week it debuted mid-September, market research data revealed. The data came from the NPD Group’s BookScan tracker, which covers about 80 percent to 85 percent of print sales.

The slump might certainly be attributed to the public’s hopes to never, ever hear about the hubbub again, given the climax of madness during Brett’s confirmation hearings (here and here).

Somehow, certain groups reached the fever pitch of insisting that all women should always be believed in all circumstances about all things. The hysteria even came with nonsensical phrases such as “Believe All Victims”: Of course, victims should be believed; but you first must determine whether they’re victims. Therefore, investigation must precede surety.

But not in that moment of madness.

So are the no-good numbers due to disinterest? Not if another book is any indication — one that was, incidentally, written by Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway and Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel Carrie Severino.

Justice on Trial has trounced the other Brettfest:

In the first week after publishing Justice on Trial, the book saw more than 17,000 book sales and it eventually reached multiple bestseller lists. Justice on Trial sales slowly declined to roughly 1,700  around the time The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation was released. But by the second week of publication for that book, it had already fallen behind Justice on Trial in weekly sales.

As of the week of Sept. 22 – 28, Hemingway and Severino sold more than 55,000 copies and enjoyed 15 weeks ranked among Amazon’s top 10 selling books. That included two weeks as No. 1 and four weeks as No. 2. By contrast, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh ranked 68th on Amazon after its release and quickly dropped to 168th in the following week.

Regnery Publishing, which released Justice on Trial, told Fox News that it sold over 100,000 copies in ebook, print and audio formats.

Looks like Donald Trump has an opinion as to why the new book’s done so poorly:

“I call for the Resignation of everybody at The New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh SMEAR story, and while you’re at it, the Russian Witch Hunt Hoax, which is just as phony! They’ve taken the Old Grey Lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue and ruined her reputation… She can never recover, and will never return to Greatness, under current Management. The Times is DEAD, long live The New York Times!”

He’s a man with an opinion, folks.

Will The Education of Brett Kavanaugh rally? It remains to be seen.

For more on the aforementioned missing info, here’s Fox once more:

The initial excerpt contained allegations that Kavanaugh’s genitalia was thrust in a woman’s face during his college years. When The Times published the excerpt in its opinion section, it omitted the fact that the alleged victim herself had no memory of that happening. According to the reporters, that omission was an “oversight” by the paper’s editors.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Norm Macdonald Responds To New Comedian Shane Gillis’s ‘SNL’ Firing: ‘This Means WAR’

Think You’ve Heard The Stupidest Thing Ever? I Disagree. Witness The Woke’s New Condemnation Of IKEA

The Far Left Is Making Teens Miserable Over The Imminent Destruction Of The World

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post The New York Times Book on Brett Kavanaugh is Getting Clobbered by its Fox Rival Championing ‘Justice’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18270696540839-300x200 The New York Times Book on Brett Kavanaugh is Getting Clobbered by its Fox Rival Championing ‘Justice’ washington D.C. Uncategorized The New York Times the education of brett kavanaugh: an investigation Supreme Court SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Mollie Hemingway Kate Kelly justice on trial Judicial Crisis Network Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Congress Carrie Severino Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: New Kavanaugh book that was showcased in bogus NYT feature tanks in first few weeks of sales

Westlake Legal Group bk Report: New Kavanaugh book that was showcased in bogus NYT feature tanks in first few weeks of sales The Education of Brett Kavanaugh The Blog Supreme Court SCOTUS pogrebin kelly kavanaugh Education

A shot of pure schadenfreude to pick you up at the end of a long week. Because we now cycle through three or four major new news stories every day in the Trump era, I’ve lost all sense of time. I would have guessed offhand that that fiasco in which the NYT featured a new allegation about college-era sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh and — oops — forgot to mention that the supposed victim doesn’t recall any such incident may have happened in … mid-August, maybe? Late July?

No, it was two and a half weeks ago. That was the last big blog obsession before the Ukraine story supernova’d.

Authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly did an extensive media tour to promote their work, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” and the bad publicity from the Times’s smear job at least did them the favor of raising public awareness of the book. The one-year anniversary of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and related retrospectives in the press also would help drive interest. Or so one would assume.

In reality sales have reportedly been disastrous, although just how disastrous is a matter of (minor) dispute. Our cousins at Townhall are hearing that “roughly 2500 books” were sold. Paul Bedard at the Examiner places the number a bit higher but still firmly in “disaster” territory. Wha’ happened?

Expected to sell at least 10,000-12,000 in the first two weeks and propel The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation onto the newspaper’s bestseller hardcover list, it has sold about a third of that in the first two weeks.

A publishing source provided the latest BookScan numbers, which can account for about 80% of sales. That number is 3,120. “If you add in ebooks — they may have sold a total of 4,000. That’s one of the most epic bombs in political publishing over the past decade,” said the source.

By comparison, another Kavanaugh book, Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, which details the Democratic war on the Trump nominee, has sold 60,000 books and a total of 100,000 copies since its July 9 debut. It was written by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino and published by Regnery.

There’s no way to independently verify Bedard’s numbers but it’s very easy to independently verify where the book stands on Amazon’s list of hardcover bestsellers. As I write this, it’s #8,432. The Kindle version’s ranking is worse. So, yes, “epic bomb” sounds like a safe bet.

My guess is that Pogrebin and Kelly tanked because they’re guilty of miscalculation and also victims of bad luck. The miscalculation was them probably assuming that they’d draw readers from both sides of the aisle politically. It’s Kavanaugh, right? The most electric third rail of the Trump presidency, featuring one of the most memorable confirmation hearings in American history. But the Times feature with the inexplicably omitted detail about Kavanaugh’s so-called victim poisoned the book immediately for Republican audiences. Even if the Times had noted that the “victim” didn’t remember any assault by Kavanaugh, the fact that the book claimed to have uncovered new allegations of sexual misconduct would itself have likely poisoned the prospect of right-wing sales. There was a big right-wing audience for Hemingway’s and Severino’s book, as Bedard notes, but that work was about the attempt to railroad Kavanaugh last year. The scumbag villains were the Democrats, not the justice himself. If Pogrebin and Kelly thought there’d be a conservative audience for their work just because the right is supposedly interested in all things Kavanaugh, that was a mistake.

Betting on interest from a left-wing audience was sounder given the new allegations in the book and the anniversary of the hearings. It looked like progressive leaders were about to help Pogrebin and Kelly out too by revisiting the subject of Kavanaugh, inspired by the book’s release. Just within the past 10 days, both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have called for impeaching Kavanaugh. But it was the authors’ hard luck that those impeachment demands were completely overtaken by a serious effort to impeach the president, rendering the Kavanaugh stuff an afterthought. Politically speaking, it was like getting your big break in 1964 as the act that went on before the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. There’s only one news story in blue America right now and for the foreseeable future.

On top of all that, Democrats who lunged at the scoop in the NYT piece about a previously unknown accusation of sexual misconduct against him ended up being burned by the revelation later that the victim didn’t recall it. At that point, Dem pols understandably shied away from using the book as the foundation for a new PR campaign against the justice.

So, in the end, who was the book for? Lefties were wary of it, righties loathed it. The authors’ one hope of making it irresistibly newsworthy by landing an interview with Kavanaugh himself went up in smoke when he allegedly refused to go on record. It ended up pleasing nobody. Result: “Epic bomb.”

The post Report: New Kavanaugh book that was showcased in bogus NYT feature tanks in first few weeks of sales appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bk-300x153 Report: New Kavanaugh book that was showcased in bogus NYT feature tanks in first few weeks of sales The Education of Brett Kavanaugh The Blog Supreme Court SCOTUS pogrebin kelly kavanaugh Education   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Heartbreak: House Democratic Impeachment Caucus Is Dealt a Setback After Pelosi Smacks Them Down on Two Fronts

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-620x317 Heartbreak: House Democratic Impeachment Caucus Is Dealt a Setback After Pelosi Smacks Them Down on Two Fronts washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics North Carolina Judicial impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Congress California Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks during her weekly media availability on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 27, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Though the “bombshell” New York Times hit piece against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has collapsed under the weight of its own deliberate omissions, that hasn’t stopped some impeachment-happy Democrats from demanding a formal impeachment inquiry.

But while the discredited report hasn’t prevented opportunistic Squad members and Democratic presidential candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris from hitting the gas on the Impeach Kavanaugh bus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a giant red “STOP” sign in hand – and is already using it:

House Democratic leaders and rank-and-file members are dismissing calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with some arguing the House has limited investigative resources and others saying it is a politically toxic issue.

Asked on Tuesday night if she sees the House spending any time on the Kavanaugh matter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a simple “no.”

Pelosi didn’t elaborate, but other House Democrats boiled it down to fears a Kavanaugh impeachment show trial could hurt them in 2020:

Rep. Katie Hill, a California freshman, said she believes talk of impeachment could hurt Democrats on the campaign trail.
[…]
“… I know that this is not the issue that we want to be talking about just in terms of election,” she added. “I would like us to be able to just do what’s right, but I know that for many of my colleagues, it’s a really, really tough one.”
[…]
Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright also said his party should not prioritize the issue.

“Democrats are focused on the bread and butter, kitchen table issues facing ordinary Americans,” he told CNN.

Meanwhile, Politico reports on the “impeachment schism” that has grown between Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler over the committee’s slow Trump impeachment waltz:

In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi criticized the panel’s handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting President Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don’t have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said.

“And you can feel free to leak this,” Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room. Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the meeting.

Politico Playbook reported this morning that Democrats are far short of the votes they would need in the House to be able to impeach Trump. According to Democratic insiders they’ve talked to, 175 Democrats would vote today to impeach Trump if the issue came before the floor. That’s 43 short of the 218 needed.

So Pelosi is right to be concerned about how it would look for members if they tried and failed to impeach Trump in the middle of a crucial election cycle after months of Democrats like Nadler and AOC screaming “IMPEACH!”

They don’t have the votes now. They won’t have the votes later. Not for a Kavanaugh impeachment nor a Trump impeachment. Pelosi knows it.

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey)

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Heartbreak: House Democratic Impeachment Caucus Is Dealt a Setback After Pelosi Smacks Them Down on Two Fronts appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-300x153 Heartbreak: House Democratic Impeachment Caucus Is Dealt a Setback After Pelosi Smacks Them Down on Two Fronts washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics North Carolina Judicial impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Congress California Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com