While it is tempting to focus on the biases of Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan as the so-called New York hush money case is litigated against former President Donald Trump, the better approach is to follow the facts of the case, and explain why the DA's case is wrong as a matter of law.

No president has done more to destroy public faith in our justice system than Joe Biden. Consider how his political appointees are going after everyday Americans for simply exercising their faith, while ignoring the vast Biden family criminal network and leaving whistleblowers vulnerable to retaliation.

Longtime friend, colleague, and Republican lawyer Dale Oldham wrote this inspiring tribute to North Carolina election law attorney Thomas Farr who passed on April 1, following a series of heart problems.

Like Horatius at the bridge, Tom Farr spent his adult life fighting until his last breath in the defense of the Republic. I first met Tom Farr nearly 35 years ago when a team of unlikely Republican attorneys set out to slay the most enormous, obnoxious, and persistent gerrymander that has ever existed in history. It had first been put in place by the Democratic Party in the wake of their enormous electoral success during the Great Depression and it was intended to make their grip on political power in the United States permanent. It was incredibly successful, far exceeding any gerrymander which preceded or succeeded it. As a result of this gerrymander, in 1992 the Democratic Party had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years and controlled an overwhelming number of the state legislatures. Analysis of the various maps showed that it would take a nationwide vote in excess of 60% to win a majority of the seats in Congress and the state legislatures under such a gerrymandered map. It paradoxically relied upon the gerrymandering of African American voters, but its real target was always to prevent Republican electoral success. A number of us had decided to strike at the heart of that paradox and by ending the gerrymander against African American voters, we could likewise end the gerrymander of ourselves.

It was a busy week for the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) exposing and defeating the left’s election shenanigans.

Associate Counsel John Madigan helped ensure Wisconsin's presidential primary election was open, fair, and honest. In addition, RNLA Wisconsin Chair Lane Ruhland addressed a statewide audience with her WisPolitics.com guest column in support of referendum questions to ban Zuckerbucks.

In California, RNLA President and Executive Director Michael Thielen's hometown newspaper, The Orange County Register, featured his guest column exposing that state's election chaos and confusion.

Iowa’s first Republican Attorney General in more than 40 years is making good on her campaign promise to challenge bad policies from the Biden administration in court. In her first year in office, the Des Moines Register found Attorney General Brenna Bird brought, joined, or filed briefs in at least 12 lawsuits against the federal government.

Bird is fighting the Biden administration on issues such as the administration’s failure to secure the border which has led to a fentanyl crisis in her state, and climate change mandates, many of which would severely harm her state’s agricultural industry.

As we celebrate Women's History Month, we spoke with the Republican National Lawyers Assocation Co-Chair Patricia "Tricia" Paoletta about women in the law, attacks on the Supreme Court, and what keeps her up at night in this presidential election year.

Can you tell me about your experience in the 2006 confirmation hearings of Justice Alito? I understand at one point you had to jump in front of a group of progressive women who were trying to dominate a C-SPAN video livestream during a break in the hearing?  

C-SPAN had placed an open mic outside of the Senate hearing room where Judge Alito’s supporters could go on camera during breaks in the hearing to voice their support for his nomination. I had been patiently waiting my turn in line when a woman from a progressive group opposed to his nomination cut in front of me for a chance to get on camera. I allowed her to speak, but when I attempted to go to the mic, a second woman from that same group tried to edge me out! This time, I wasn’t having it! I firmly placed myself in front of the camera before she could push me aside as the first woman had done.

As we celebrate great women lawyers during #WomensHistoryMonth , we share this THROWBACK video of @TriciaPaoletta speaking boldly in support of Justice Alito during a break in his 2006 confirmation hearings. She is still fighting today for the integrity of the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/bufsZkt4tA

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) March 20, 2024

Where does your confidence and conviction to be so bold come from?

I played competitive sports growing up and politics in this town can be a competitive sport. I wasn’t going to let someone cut in front of me. I was there to support Judge Alito and I was going to do my job and speak consistently with my convictions. I have a sense of righteousness and fairness, but also a competitive nature. In addition to playing softball and basketball, I ran track and was the fastest girl in my elementary school in suburban Chicago!

What advice do you have for young women coming up in the legal profession?

Certainly, pursue opportunities that are consistent with your interest area but be open to other opportunities. Don’t be rigid. Say “yes” to opportunities. I once had an older colleague tell me “The clients are out there, outside. Not in here. Get out and volunteer, that is where you will meet people who you will network with in the future.” I think today many young people undervalue the importance of face-to-face interactions.

I had always wanted to do international telecommunications law and had an opportunity after George H.W. Bush was elected to interview for a job with the Federal Communications Commission. While it wasn’t what I thought I wanted, I interviewed for the position and from there I found another opportunity that was a better fit for me. I have always advocated for myself in my career.

I am the mother of four young folks, some millennials, some Gen Z, and I tell them that they need to advocate for themselves, but just as important, they need to work hard in their current role and then those people around them will become their advocates. 

As we celebrate Women’s History Month, it is nice to see we have more parity between men and women studying the law, but ultimately, we need to encourage and celebrate excellence. That is the most important thing for lawyers.  

The RNLA is a leader in protecting our elections from malfeasance and fraud, what do you think poses the greatest threat to the upcoming presidential election? What keeps you up at night?

My biggest concern is not having enough Republican lawyers and observers on the ground and in the field making sure everyone is following the law. Everything is better in sunlight. We must have enough people to oversee the elections process and to challenge and correct mistakes. We need enough people volunteering in those roles.

What are your thoughts on the increasing personal attacks on conservative Supreme Court Justices? 

It is a very unfair, undemocratic, and nefarious attempt by the Left to influence the conservative Justices on the Court. In the case of Justice Thomas, they are trying to stress him out enough to leave. They are trying to undermine public confidence in the Court. But our conservative Justices are not going to be bullied off the field, particularly Justice Thomas who grew up in the segregated South. So, the Left’s efforts are in vain. They will not be effective.

In 1996, when Democrats still thought illegal immigration was a bad thing, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act making it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, since then, a growing number of states have begun allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. This fundamentally undermines the sanctity of citizen votes and threatens the integrity of our system of government. 

Last night’s dueling addresses at the State of the Union between President Joe Biden and Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) leave no doubt the Republican Party is focused on restoring economic prosperity and safety to American families battered by the failed policies of the Biden administration.

Britt, 42, the first woman elected to the Senate from Alabama and the youngest woman ever elected to the chamber, gave an optimistic and forward-looking response to Biden’s unhinged, at times angry address. Biden, 81, largely gaslighted the American people claiming his policies turned “[COVID] setback into comeback.”

Britt, an Alabama attorney who lives in Montgomery with her husband and two school-age children, brought the perspective of everyday Americans who are struggling under the realities of Biden’s failures: high crime, high gas prices, high food costs and high rents.

Sen. Katie Britt Delivers the Republican Response to the State of the Union

“The country we know and love seems to be slipping away and it feels like the next generation will have fewer opportunities and less freedoms than we did,” Britt said. “Right now, the American Dream has turned into a nightmare for so many families. The true, unvarnished state of our union begins and ends with this: our families are hurting our country can do better.”

Britt went on to note Biden’s “reckless spending dug our economy into a hole and sent the cost of living through the roof.

“We have the worst inflation in 40 years and the highest credit card debt in our nation's history. Hard working families are struggling to make ends meet today. And with soaring mortgage rates and sky-high childcare costs, they're also struggling to plan for tomorrow. The American people are scraping by while President Biden proudly proclaims that Bidenomics is working. Bless his heart. We know better.”

Britt emphasized the need to restore law and order to a nation victimized by a Democrat-induced crime wave, coming in part from a border crisis he not only created, but “invited.”

“President Biden invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days,” Britt explained as she addressed the nation from her kitchen table. “From fentanyl poisonings to horrific murders, there are empty chairs tonight at kitchen tables, just like this one. Because of President Biden's senseless border policies.”

Britt closed her response by reminding us “our history has been written with the grit of men and women who got knocked down, but we know their stories because they did not stay down. We are here because they stood back up. Now it is our turn, our moment to stand up and prove ourselves worthy of protecting the American dream.”

Republicans were smart to put forward Britt, a vice presidential contender, as a foil to aging President Biden. Her concerns are shared by millions of Americans juggling careers and the demands of raising children and running a household. Britt brought a much-needed voice to the hyper-partisan political rhetoric that dominates so much of our political debate. We hope we see a lot more of her in the coming years.

Seven years into his term as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas accepted an invitation from the National Bar Association, the nation's largest association of Black attorneys, to address the group's annual conference. But a month before he was scheduled to speak, he was disinvited. According to the New York Times, the offer was tendered by Justice Bernette J. Johnson of the Louisiana Supreme Court, who was then head of the association's judicial council. The Times wrote that when the 25-member Board learned of the invitation it "provoked a strong reaction," leading members of the board to disinvite Thomas.

Justice Thomas wasn't having it. He went anyway.

From the Times:

Senior members of the National Bar Association...have said Justice Thomas has told them he expects to give his speech that day and does not accept the legitimacy of the letter disinviting him.

The members, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Justice Thomas had told them he was undeterred by a letter he received this month withdrawing the invitation because the people who wrote it were not those who first invited him.

In honor of Black History Month, we share highlights from the speech Justice Thomas' almost didn't give in Memphis on July 29, 1998. In it, he spoke of overcoming abject poverty in the segregated South and his struggle to control the "rage, anger, and resentment" that ate away at him in the years following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He explained the journey that led him to champion individual identity over the politics of group identity.

The summer of 1971 was perhaps one of the most difficult of my life. It was clear to me that the road to destruction was paved with anger, resentment and rage. But where were we to go? I would often spend hours in our small efficiency apartment in New Haven pondering this question and listening to Marvin Gaye’s then new album, “What’s Going On?”

To say the least, it was a depressing summer. What were we to do? What’s going on?

As I think back on those years, I find it interesting that many people seemed to have trouble with their identities as black men. Having had to accept my blackness in the caldron of ridicule from some of my black schoolmates under segregation, then immediately thereafter remain secure in that identity during my years at all-white seminary, I had few racial identity problems. I knew who I was and needed no gimmicks to affirm my identity. Nor, might I add, do I need anyone telling me who I am today. This is especially true of the psycho-silliness about forgetting my roots or self-hatred.

---

Any effort, policy or program that has as a prerequisite the acceptance of the notion that blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me. I do not believe that kneeling is a position of strength. Nor do I believe that begging is an effective tactic. I am confident that the individual approach, not the group approach, is the better, more acceptable, more supportable and less dangerous one. This approach is also consistent with the underlying principles of this country and the guarantees of freedom through government by consent. I, like Frederick Douglass, believe that whites and blacks can live together and be blended into a common nationality.

---

It pains me deeply, or more deeply than any of you can imagine, to be perceived by so many members of my race as doing them harm. All the sacrifice, all the long hours of preparation were to help, not to hurt. But what hurts more, much more, is the amount of time and attention spent on manufactured controversies and media sideshows when so many problems cry out for constructive attention.

I have come here today not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to anger some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black. I come to state that I’m a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I’ve come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others.

But even more than that, I have come to say that isn’t it time to move on? Isn’t it time to realize that being angry with me solves no problems?

Isn’t it time to acknowledge that the problem of race has defied simple solutions and that not one of us, not a single one of us can lay claim to the solution?

Isn’t it time that we respect ourselves and each other as we have demanded respect from others?

Isn’t it time to ignore those whose sole occupation is sowing seeds of discord and animus? That is self-hatred.

Isn’t it time to continue diligently to search for lasting solutions?

I believe that the time has come today.

Justice Thomas' unwavering commitment to individual liberty and freedom, his determination to interpret the Constitution using an Originalist approach, and his triumph over what he called "particularly bilious and venomous assaults," make him a national treasure. 

Proponents of ranked-choice voting (RCV) are engaged in a massive misinformation campaign to gain support for a voting scheme that has sown confusion and chaos everywhere it's been tried. The Soros-backed group FairVote recently produced a study claiming RCV helps minority voters, but nonpartisan fact checkers have exposed the study as fake news.

The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) recently fact checked FairVote's study and found it was based off low-quality research methods that wouldn't pass muster in a high school science fair.

This week Center Square featured a guest column by CEC Executive Director Lisa Dixon which debunks the claims that RVC benefits minority voters. Dixon countered those false claims with a study produced by Princeton University Professor Nolan McCarty which finds RCV actually hurts minority voters.

From Dixon's Center Square guest column:

As far-left progressives seek to fundamentally change America, including how we vote, their controversial and confusing voting scheme known as ranked-choice voting raises concerns about its impact on minority voters. Two recently-released studies trying to answer that question have come to wildly different conclusions. Which one is right?

First, a little background.

Under ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. While some voters find the concept appealing, the intricate process of eliminating candidates and reallocating votes can be confusing. This complexity, compounded by the sheer number of candidates in some races, poses a risk to the fundamental principles of fair and transparent elections.

Dixon goes on to debunk FairVote's claims and sums up her column with:

FairVote's methodology lacks the depth and breadth required for a comprehensive evaluation — it wouldn't stand up to the scientific inquiry standards of a high school science fair project.

The need for scientifically rigorous scholarship, as in Dr. McCarty's report released by CEC, remains crucial for navigating the complexities of ranked-choice voting's effects on minority candidates and voters and understanding how ranked-choice voting weakens minority influence.

No state or local government should adopt ranked-choice voting. It is a flawed voting scheme at best, and a cynical attempt to manipulate outcomes at worst.

Read Dixon's full column here.