As Abortion Case Looms, Biden’s Possible Court-Packing Commission Meets

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.

Dobbs, representing the state of Mississippi, is appealing a December 2019 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mississippi passed a law in 2018 which banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s sole abortion provider, filed a lawsuit claiming this law was unconstitutional.

“Two lower courts agreed, saying an unbroken line of Supreme Court rulings dating back to Roe established that states can regulate—but not outright ban—the procedure in the pre-viability months of pregnancy,” according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, whom The Journal considers an expert on the Supreme Court’s history of abortion rulings, said, “The fact that the justices decided to take the case indicates a willingness of at least five of them to revisit existing precedent. The only reason to hear the case would be to do that.”

Stone added that if the state prevails, “the Supreme Court would be allowing states more room to regulate abortion than at any time since Roe. The court wouldn’t have to explicitly overturn Roe and other precedents, but any ruling for the state would put significant limits on abortion rights.”

The Court will review the case in its next term which begins in October, according to the report. And a decision is expected in the spring.

This news has Republicans feeling optimistic and Democrats worried about the fate of the watershed decision in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which gave women the right to have an abortion.

A statement appearing on the Court’s blog read as follows:

Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana was pleased with this news and in a Twitter post, he wrote: “Every life is precious and must be protected. Since Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, more than 62 million children have been the tragic victims of abortion. It’s long past time for the Supreme Court to right this wrong and I’m glad to see the Court take up this case.”

The ACLU warned liberals that abortion rights are under attack.

California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, finds it alarming that the Supreme Court would agree to review an abortion ban.

Obviously concerned about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being weakened or even overturned, it didn’t take long for President Joe Biden’s “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.” to spring into action. In early April, Biden signed an executive order to form this group of bipartisan legal experts to analyze the pros and cons of Supreme Court reform. The White House website states this would include “an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” i.e. packing the court.

According to the executive order, “the Commission [must] complete its report within 180 days of its first public meeting.

On Monday, after hearing the Supreme Court would review an abortion case, the Commission set up its first meeting for Wednesday. This would mean that their final report would be due in mid-November, around the time the Supreme Court was reviewing Dobbs v. Jackson. Hmmm.

At any rate, a week after Biden set up this Commission, Democratic lawmakers Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021. This legislation would add four justices to the Supreme Court bringing the total number of justices to 13.

At the time this bill was introduced, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “I have no intention to bring it to the floor,” according to Politico. But she didn’t close the door on it either. She told reporters, “I don’t know that that’s a good idea or a bad idea. I think it’s an idea that should be considered. … It’s not out of the question.”

Even if it were to pass the House, it likely wouldn’t go far in the Senate. It’s a radical bill and it would be difficult to find the 60 votes required for passage.

Although there are five conservative justices (I don’t consider Chief Justice John Roberts to be a conservative), it’s a bit premature for Republicans to celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Fox News‘ Tyler Olson writes: “Many experts don’t see a completely definitive overturning of Roe v. Wade in the cards for the court next year. The justices often take a slower approach to turning around major precedents. Some experts see the court’s eventual ruling on the Mississippi law as a possible first step toward overturning Roe – or a bellwether that the Republican justices may not plan to overturn it at all – depending on what exactly the court decides.”

The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, an attorney wrote: “We shouldn’t expect Dobbs to be the case in which Roe falls. More likely, the Court could start cracking open the internal contradictions in its prior abortion jurisprudence, paving the way for more dramatic progress later — much in the way that the Court’s liberals used decisions striking down sodomy laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act to lay the legal groundwork for overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. If Chief Justice John Roberts and some of the other Republican appointees on the Court are not on board with that campaign, we will know from their opinions in Dobbs.”

This article was previously published by The Western Journal.

Justice Breyer, a Liberal, Comes Out Against Packing the Supreme Court; Will Democrats Try It?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay

During a Tuesday address at Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke out against packing the Supreme Court. Breyer told students the addition of several justices for the purpose of diluting the power of the conservative majority “could further erode public trust and weaken the court’s influence.”

Breyer is one of three liberal justices on the court. Currently 82-years-old, there is hope among Democrats that he might retire while the party still holds the White House and the Senate. If anyone was hoping he would discuss his future plans during his speech, they were disappointed.

Citing the court’s rejection of former President Donald Trump’s election challenge cases, Breyer “defended the court’s independence.” He believes the “court’s authority rests on a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics.”

“If the public sees justices as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,” he said.

The justice mentioned “four decisions — on the Affordable Care Act, abortion, the census and young immigrants — in which the court had disappointed conservatives.”

In each of those 5-4 decisions, all made prior to the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. had voted with the liberal wing of the court, according to The New York Times.

“Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence would only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.” Breyer noted.

It is his hope to “make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural or other similar institutional changes, such as forms of ‘court-packing,’ think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”

Throughout the 2020 campaign, President Joe Biden refused to answer questions about his position on court-packing.

During an October interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Biden said, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

At the end of January, however, his administration set up a commission to study Supreme Court reform. At that time, a White House official issued a statement which said, “The President remains committed to an expert study of the role and debate over reform of the court and will have more to say in the coming weeks.”

Under current Senate rules, 60 votes would be needed to (block the filibuster) pass a bill to expand the Supreme Court.

But, as we saw on Monday, when the Senate parliamentarian agreed with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s interpretation of a section of the Budget Reconciliation Act, thus likely handing Democrats an extra chance to pass another budget busting bill this fiscal year, he may well find a way around the filibuster on legislation to pack the court.

Ohio State University Law School professor Peter Shane told WUSA9 that “Senate Democrats could block the filibuster with what’s known as the ‘nuclear option,'” which is a change to a Senate rule for a specific item.

The nuclear option was used by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2013 to allow Democrats to confirm executive and judicial nominees (with the exception of Supreme Court nominees) with 51 senate votes.

Reid’s move paved the way for his successor, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to “go nuclear” for the express purpose of confirming Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority in 2017.

I wouldn’t bet against Schumer to do the wrong thing.

Breyer has served on the Supreme Court since 1994.

Dem Sen. Whitehouse Demands AG Revisit Kavanaugh Background Check, Suggests It Could Be ‘Fake’

Advertisements

Déjà vu?

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, is doing his part to erase the legacy of former President Donald Trump.

Whitehouse, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday seeking the DOJ’s “cooperation in four Judiciary Committee oversight matters,” according to a statement on his Senate website.

Whitehouse asks the DOJ “to clean up the ‘unfinished business’ of stonewalled Judiciary Committee oversight during and even before the Trump administration.”

This includes a “review of civil litigation, based on tobacco industry precedent, concerning climate change denial and obstruction by the fossil fuel industry; the cursory and politically constrained FBI investigation of allegations of sexual assault regarding Brett Kavanaugh; the Antitrust Division’s interaction with automakers regarding their California fuel efficiency standards negotiation; and the Department’s failure to investigate apparently false statements made by politically active nonprofit groups to the Internal Revenue Service.”

Specifically, Whitehouse is asking the DOJ to reevaluate the background investigation conducted by the FBI into current Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 Senate confirmation process. He has alleged that the probe had been “politically-constrained and perhaps fake” as opposed to what FBI Director Christopher Wray had promised which was a “background investigation ‘consistent with [the FBI’s] long-standing policies, practices, and procedures.'”

“If standard procedures were violated, and the Bureau conducted a fake investigation rather than a sincere, thorough and professional one, that in my view merits congressional oversight to understand how, why, and at whose behest and with whose knowledge or connivance, this was done,” the letter said.

“If … the ‘investigation’ was conducted with drawbridges up and a fake ‘tip line’ and that was somehow ‘by the book,’ as Director Wray claimed, that would raise serious questions about the ‘book’ itself.”

The lengthy letter can be viewed here.

We all remember the far-left Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the frumpy Stanford college professor with the little girl voice. In a last ditch effort to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate, she was trotted out by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat. It was imperative, Feinstein insisted, that she testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Senate had to put everything on hold for a week so that woman-child Blasey Ford could drive to Washington, D.C. from California. She’d claimed she was afraid to fly because the Kavanaugh assault had left her with a fear of closed spaces. It was later proven that she regularly flew to Hawaii on vacations with her family.

She testified that she had been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh at some point in the early 1980s, however, she’d been so traumatized she couldn’t recall the exact year.

It turned out that none of the four witnesses she named as having been present at the party where she claimed the alleged attack occurred have any memory of it. The last of the four, childhood friend Leyland Keyser, told the FBI she had no recollection of the party.

Then-judge Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegations.

Blasey Ford’s testimony, and a succession of other inconceivable allegations which came after it, “prompted a second hearing on Kavanaugh’s nomination” and forced the FBI to conduct a “subsequent supplemental FBI investigation,” according to Fox News.

The inconsistencies in Blasey Ford’s statements continued to grow and ultimately Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court. It was a low point in American political history and the Democrats refused to let it go.

Blasey Ford’s ugly, baseless accusations inflicted much damage, not only to Kavanaugh and his family, but also to America.

It’s not a surprise that Whitehouse, a prolific conspiracy theorist, would try to revive this fiction. During the Senate confirmation hearing for then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, he spent his time talking about how dark money is stealing the Supreme Court.

When it was his turn to speak, Whitehouse explained “the connections between dark-money groups and legal advocates that have helped support the revolution in the federal judiciary under then-President Trump and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,” according to NPR.

Perhaps Whitehouse should be exercising caution at a time when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, is facing far more credible allegations of sexual misconduct.

Oh, and let’s not forget that our President has a few skeletons of his own in his closet.

Biden Signs Executive Order to ‘Expand Voting Access’ on Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’

Advertisements

President Joe Biden is contemptible. Just as he chose the anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting several weeks ago to introduce gun control laws, he used the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” to announce his latest power grab executive order to expand voting access.

As The War Room’s Steve Bannon said on his podcast last week, Biden’s eyes look dead.

He slurs his way through the words that appear on the teleprompter before him.

“The blood of [the late congressman and civil rights icon] John Lewis and so many other brave and righteous souls that was spilled in Selma on this Sunday in 1965 sanctified a noble struggle,” Biden says.

“But there are those [us] who will do anything they can to take that power away. Today we have a hailstorm, not a rainstorm, a hailstorm. In 2020, our very democracy … on the line, in the midst of a pandemic, more Americans voted than ever before.”

He’s right about that. In fact, in the state of Pennsylvania, so many people voted that there were 200,000 more ballots than people who voted!

“Multiple recounts in states and decisions of more than 60 cases from judges appointed by my predecessor, including at the Supreme Court, upheld the integrity of this historic election.”

That is not true. Those judges refused to review the cases brought by former President Trump’s legal team. They wouldn’t even look at the 1,000 affidavits of election observers who swore, under the penalty of perjury, that they had witnessed fraud.

“We’ve seen an unprecedented insurrection in our Capitol and a brutal attack on our democracy on January 6th.”

I would argue that we saw a brutal attack on our democracy on November 3.

He continues, “A never before seen effort to ignore, undermine and undo the will of the people. And to think of that and yet it’s been followed by an all-out assault on the right to vote in state legislatures all across the country.”

“You know, during the current legislative session, elected officials in 43 states have already introduced over 250 bills to make it harder for Americans to vote. We can … not … let … them … succeed.”

Biden emphasizes the importance of H.R. 1 which would make permanent all of the chicanery that handed him the presidency. He hopes that it passes the Senate.

“I also urge Congress to fully restore the Voting Rights Act named in John Lewis’ honor.

“Today, on the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” I’m signing an executive order to make it easier for eligible voters to register to vote and improve access to voting.”

Yes, because it’s so onerous to travel to our local precincts, show our drivers’ licenses and cast our ballots.

Then, he discusses words he exchanged with John Lewis shortly before he passed. Lewis had told him to “finish the work.” And that’s what our noble president has vowed to do.

He is a disgrace.

 

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

Supreme Court Denies Pennsylvania Election Cases; Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas Dissent

Advertisements

The Supreme Court has declined to review President Trump’s Pennsylvania election challenge for the reason that it is “moot.” Associate Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissenting.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1363861459193786374

Supreme Court Refuses Trump… by Jim Hoft

H/T: The Gateway Pundit

Separately, The Wall Street Journal reports that Supreme Court denied Trump’s attempt to block access to his financial records.

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!