ICYMI: Majority Leader McConnell Defends Judge Kavanaugh From Vicious Democrat Attacks
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke from the Senate floor yesterday regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. McConnell not only explained his personal views as to why Judge Kavanaugh is ‘uniquely qualified, and a brilliant legal mind’ but the Majority Leader also shared similar sentiments from a number of his Senate colleagues.
Unfortunately, Majority Leader McConnell was also forced to address the loud minority of senators who have expressed unhinged opposition to President Trump’s nominee. Speaker McConnell said this,
Here is how the junior Senator from New Jersey [Cory Booker] characterized this nomination with the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Elizabeth Warren] right beside him. And here's what he said: “We are walking through the valley of the shadow of death. You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against."
This, from a member of the Judiciary Committee. He has not even met with Judge Kavanaugh. He hasn't heard a word of testimony and he is citing Scripture to proclaim that this nominee is pure evil of biblical proportions. He is claiming that the Senators and the American people who have an open mind on this nomination are complicit in the evil. This is truly outrageous and not a single Democrat has come forward to condemn what he had to say.
Leader McConnell brings up an important point that speaks to the radical commentary from Democrat leaders. While Republicans have in the past opposed the nominees of Democrat presidents, not once has a Republican Senator called a Supreme Court pick ‘evil.’ Perhaps even more disillusioned was what California Senator Kamala Harris said of the pick,
The junior Senator from California [Kamala Harris], another member of the Judiciary Committee, said Judge Kavanaugh would bring a . . . “destruction of the U.S. Constitution.” She made up her mind before there was even a nominee.
Leader McConnell brings up specific instances of extremist rhetoric coming from important leaders of the Democrat Party. Instead of scrutinizing Judge Kavanaugh in an unbiased and open-minded manner, Senate Democrats have resorted to petty political tactics and extreme commentary to bash a longtime public servant’s character. To continue to be the greatest nation in the world with the most fair legal system, this practice of hyper-partisanship from the left must end.
Senator Cornyn Rightly Calls Out “Unhinged” Cory Booker over Judge Kavanaugh
Cory Booker called Facebook racist and in an unprecedented and repugnant moment in Senate history testified against then-colleague Senator Sessions when he was nominated to become Attorney General. Senator Booker has now taken his outlandish attacks one step further (emphasis added).
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that senators who don’t oppose President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are “complicit in the evil.”Booker, speaking at a press conference with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and religious and moral leaders, said that Kavanaugh’s nomination “has nothing to do with politics” but with “who we are as moral beings.”“I’m here to call on folks to understand that in a moral moment, there is no neutral. In a moral moment, there is no bystanders,” he said. “You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against it.”
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn has rightly called out Senator Booker for this (emphasis added):
Cornyn said remarks like Booker's were "unhinged" and"detached from any reality" during a Senate floor speech."My advice to some of our friends across the aisle who are engaged in this kind of superheated rhetoric, my advice is get a grip," he said. "Get a grip.". . ."What in the world? [Booker] needs to get a grip," he said. "Everybody’s trying to outdo everybody else."
At this point no one should pay any attention to Senator Booker, who is ignoring his duties as a Senator to shrilly yell for the support of the far, far left in a desperate bid to be relevant in the 2020 Democrat Presidential primary.
The Real Growing Foreign Influence in Our Elections
RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet Dhillon wrote today in the Daily Caller about San Francisco's new policy of allowing non-citizens to vote in its School Board elections. Ms. Dhillon explains that liberals see non-citizens as a powerful force to support their radical policies:
Why are noncitizens — legal and illegal — being invited to vote in the first place, in school board elections or, as in some other jurisdictions, other municipal elections? The reason is clear: Liberal politicians, devoid of ideas and with dwindling support among Americans, see a promising voter pool in foreign nationals who might be future citizens, and have decided to cut out the waiting time and just let people vote whether they meet established criteria or not. . . .
The School Board in San Francisco controls a massive bureaucracy with a huge budget, with enormous power and influence:
San Francisco politicians are trying to play this alarming development off as no big deal, “just” a school board election because after all, some of these children are born here and are citizens themselves (some, of course, are not) and why shouldn’t the parents have a say? — so the argument goes. But make no mistake – if Americans stand by and allow foreign citizens to control our schools, the next step will be foreign citizens voting for Mayor, District Attorney, Sheriff, Board of Supervisors, judges, and more — after all, they live here — why shouldn’t they have a say in local government? Note as well how carefully San Francisco politicians avoid making any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants – for such distinctions contradict the open-borders extremism of the left.
Focusing on the San Francisco school board elections, the implications are alarming enough. San Francisco Unified School District is the seventh largest in the nation, educating some 55,000 students annually, and very demographically diverse, with 36.3 percent Asian, 26.5 percent Hispanic, 13.3 percent white, and 7.6 percent black students. The 136 total schools in the district employ 10,000 employees, and had a budget for the 2016-2017 school year of a whopping $823,841,337 — averaging $10,182 in unrestricted funds per student ($566,065,162), with an additional quarter billion dollars in restricted funds. Over this massive government machine reigns the seven-member, liberal, San Francisco Board of Education, responsible, in its own words, “for establishing educational goals and standards; approving curriculum; setting the district budget … confirming appointment of all personnel; and approving purchases of equipment, supplies, services, leases, renovation, construction, and union contracts.” The Board of Education also appoints the county superintendent of schools.
Ms. Dhillon concludes by pointing out the obvious fact about real foreign influence on our elections that is being completely ignored by the mainstream media:
If our apathetic citizens continue to turn out at barely 50 percent in off-year elections, the chances of motivated non-citizens having a substantial impact on the outcomes of entry-level political races such as Board of Education, will increase as both politicians and non-citizens see a path forward for real foreign influence in our elections, far more tangible and potent than the specter of Russian bots tweeting propaganda in a social media echo chamber. While we are distracted by such issues at the national level, on the ground, non-Americans are having a growing impact every day at the polls. The Russian bots aren’t voting on the billion-dollar school board governance – but foreign nationals surely are, and the movement is coming to a city near you.
The entire Op-Ed is well worth a read. Ms. Dhillon will be speaking at theRNLA's National Election Law Seminar on August 3 and 4 in St. Louis, Missouri. There is still time to register to hear Ms. Dhillon and many other expert speakers.
Schumer's Delaying Game on Judge Kavanaugh Will Fail
Democrats have not found a way to substantively oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. So they are switching gears to delaying his confirmation to the Court until after October 1 when the new term starts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has led an effort to stop Democrats from meeting with Kavanaugh:
Senate Democrats are largely giving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh the brushoff, refusing the customary “courtesy visits” until Republicans agree to turn over voluminous documents from the Supreme Court nominee’s past.In the two weeks since President Trump nominated him to succeed the retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Judge Kavanaugh has met with 23 Republicans, and not a single Democrat. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in an interview Monday that he would not meet with Judge Kavanaugh until the top Republican and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee reach agreement on what documents should be produced. . . .“I have told my caucus that I’m waiting, and I think most of them are following me,” Mr. Schumer said.
Of course, Schumer’s wall is already cracking. Senator Manchin of West Virginia has just agreed to meet with Kavanaugh.
The stated reason for the delay is a ridiculous effort to get irrelevant documents from Kavanaugh’s time as Staff Secretary to President George W. Bush. These records are irrelevant as Kavanaugh has a long record as a judge to examine to decide how one will vote on him. Instead Democrats are focusing on irrelevant documents in an effort to delay.
Fortunately the Senate Majority Leader is Mitch McConnell not Chuck Schumer. Leader McConnell won’t tolerate too much of this. Thank you, Leader McConnell.
ICYMI: Former Obama Official Admits the Obama Administration Is at Fault for Russian Meddling
As Trey Gowdy points out there is zero evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, an Obama Administration official last weektestified that they knew of attempted Russian meddling and were told to “stand down” and not try to stop it (emphasis added) :
The Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.
The startling admission has largely been ignored by the media. Monica Crowley lays out a case for why the Obama Administration stood down in light of Russian meddling:
Long before the 2016 election, when Donald Trump was a mere private citizen, Russia was engaged in widespread cyber-aggression against the United States. Moscow racheted up those attacks during the campaign. And yet, despite knowledge of the ongoing cyberwarfare, the president at the time, Barack Obama, and his intelligence chiefs — John Brennan at the CIA, James Clapper at National Intelligence, James Comey and his predecessor, Robert Mueller, at the FBI — reportedly didn’t lift a finger to stop it.Why? Because the Obama administration was obsessed with protecting its bigger agenda: namely, closing and implementing the Iran nuclear deal and trying to save their collapsed Russian “reset.” Calling Russia on its malign cyber activity would have imperiled both initiatives, so Obama and his intel team apparently chose to ignore it, even as it escalated.
Regardless of the reason, the Obama Administration response to Russian meddling is extremely problematic. This should be a much bigger story than the endless focus on collusion, on which Trey Gowdynotes “he has yet to see a 'scintilla' of evidence showing that there was coordination between the two sides.”
FEC Commissioner Matt Petersen to Speak at 2018 RNLA National Election Law Seminar
The RNLA is pleased to announce that FEC Commissioner Matthew S. Petersen will be speaking at the annual National Election Law Seminar in St. Louis, Missouri. The seminar will take place on August 3rd and August 4th of 2018.
We are especially pleased to have Commissioner Petersen speaking given his long track record of success in advancing honest elections, maintaining voting integrity, and protecting the First Amendment rights of political speakers. Not only was Mr. Petersen confirmed unanimously with bipartisan support from the United States Senate, he played an integral role in passing key voting legislation including the 2002 Help America Vote Act. He then was one of the most important attorneys in the nation in dealing with issues of campaign finance.
From 2005 until his appointment to the Commission, Mr. Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. In this capacity, Mr. Petersen provided counsel on issues relating to federal campaign finance and election administration laws as well as the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Commissioner Petersen has played a crucial role since being appointed as a commissioner at the FEC, including handling some of the most important campaign finance issues and cases in history. He recently stated:
Over the past two decades, the internet has transformed our political process. Federal candidates, parties, and independent actors increasingly rely upon online platforms to communicate with voters and raise campaign funds, while American citizens use internet resources to obtain election-related information and organize. The use of the internet as a tool for political engagement has had a democratizing effect: Low-cost platforms enable speakers with few resources to communicate to large audiences, while a seemingly infinite array of publicly available resources aid the citizenry in casting informed votes. Overall, this development has been a positive one. The internet’s expanding influence on the electoral system has created regulatory challenges, however, as the Commission has grappled with how to apply a law written to address communications transmitted primarily through “our parents and grandparents’” television, radio, and print media to speech conducted on computers, tablets, smart phones, and other emerging technologies. For instance, the Commission has previously considered advisory opinions regarding how federal disclaimer requirements apply to character-limited texts, small ads posted on Facebook and Google, and small banner ads on mobile devices. Our current rulemaking on internet communication disclaimers represents the most recent and ambitious effort in this ongoing process. As we move forward with this rulemaking, its twin goals should be (1) vindicating the informational interest of the American people to know who is sponsoring political ads, and (2) ensuring that online technologies continue to flourish as tools for political speech. To meet these goals, any final rule must be flexible enough to accommodate the numerous devices and platforms by which political speech is delivered, the ways voters consume information online, and the rapid pace of technological innovation. Today’s hearing represents an important step towards adapting the Commission’s disclaimer regulations to the realities of internet political communications, and I am optimistic that the Commission will be able to successfully complete this task.
Click on the link provided for more information on how to purchase tickets to hear Commissioner Petersen and the rest of the highly-qualified speakers at the RNLA’s National Election Seminar.
ICYMI: Leader McConnell on Kavanaugh's Credentials and Democrats' Attacks
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote an excellent op-ed last week on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Democratic obstruction of the confirmation process, and liberals' fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the courts. He describes Judge Kavanaugh's sterling credentials and strong judicial record:
Judge Kavanaugh possesses the qualities and qualifications that the American people deserve in a Supreme Court justice. He has outstanding academic credentials, with undergraduate and law degrees from Yale, and over a decade of experience on the nation’s most consequential federal appellate court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He possesses an exceptional legal mind and an even-handed temperament. And his record reflects a clear understanding of a judge’s role in our republic: Not to make policy or impose personal preferences, but to begin with the facts of each case and interpret our laws as they’re written.
He also recounts the left's "unhinged attacks" on Judge Kavanaugh, saying that the American people will not be fooled:
It would be too optimistic to suggest Judge Kavanaugh’s experience, reputation, education and virtues will earn him a fair hearing from the far left. Extreme voices have tried the same partisan playbook against Republican presidents’ Supreme Court nominees for more than 40 years. In 1975, they insisted that John Paul Stevens lacked impartiality and opposed women’s rights. In 1987, they called then-Judge Anthony Kennedy "sexist" and "a disaster for women." In 1990, they said that a Justice David Souter might "undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups." . . . But fact-checkers are already exposing the egregious misrepresentations of Judge Kavanaugh’s record. And the far left failed the laugh test from the very beginning by spinning apocalyptic predictions about this nomination before it even existed. . . .
And Leader McConnell skillfully explains how the left's apoplexy over Judge Kavanaugh's respect for the rule of law is fueled by their desire to use the courts to achieve their progressive policy goals that would not be able to be passed by the people's representatives in the legislature because they are too radical:
This is antithetical to the design of our democracy. The rule of law requires a sharp distinction between judicial and political offices. We need unbiased and open-minded judges who treat all parties fairly, whose decisions turn on the facts of each case and the texts of the laws that it is their job to interpret.
That’s the kind of judge the American people deserve. It’s the kind of judge they expected to receive after then-candidate Donald Trump put forward the transparent process he’d use to select Supreme Court nominees. And it’s precisely who Judge Kavanaugh’s record demonstrates that he is.
Thanks to the leadership of Leader McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Judge Kavanaugh will receive a hearing and consideration before the Senate, despite the Democrats' scare and delay tactics and the fact-less attacks by radically liberal organizations. Judge Kavanaugh is the example of the type of judge that should sit throughout our judicial system and the type of judge that President Trump has appointed: one who respects the limited role of the courts in our system of the separation of powers and who decides cases based on the law and the facts, not on the basis of preferred policy outcomes.
A Needed Policy Change to Eliminate Bias at the IRS
In the past, conservative groups had to disclose sensitive information to the bureaucratic and often biased organization that is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Fox News reports that thanks to a recent policy change, that is no longer the case.
The Trump administration is lifting requirements that some tax-exempt groups disclose the identities of their donors to federal tax authorities. The change benefits groups that spend millions of dollars on political ads, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an organization tied to the billionaire Koch brothers.
This major announcement will bring a needed change of privacy to an organization that has historically discriminated against conservatives and right-leaning organizations.
Under the new guidance, social-welfare groups and other tax-exempt organizations, besides charitable and political organizations, will no longer have to provide the IRS with the names and addresses of donors. The groups will still have to keep donor information in their own records and make it available for the IRS when the agency needs the information in audits of taxpayers.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the change on the Senate floor yesterday:
Last night, the Internal Revenue Service made an important announcement. It’s particularly welcome news to those of us who are intently focused on defending the First Amendment, for those of us who raised concerns during the last administration about activist regulators punishing free speech and free association. And it’s a straightforward, commonsense policy decision. . . .
It raises the question: If the IRS isn’t permitted to do anything with this set of Americans’ private information, why collect it in the first place? Unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when the government stockpiles private data about the donations through which Americans participate in the public discourse. We know exactly why many on the left are keen for bureaucrats to have this confidential information. Where it leads, is Americans being bullied – bullied -- for exercising their First Amendment rights. . . .
So I welcome this announcement, and applaud the leadership of Secretary Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. I’m glad that this step will make the right of Americans to freely advocate for their strongly-held beliefs less vulnerable to the malice of some in government, and to the proven failures of bureaucracies. And I urge continued vigilance for all of us who cherish our First Amendment.
Conservative groups have long been calling for a policy proposal like this one to take place, even coming together to write a letter to President Trump. The New York Times reports,
Americans for Prosperity and other 501(c)(4) organizations in the Koch brothers’ network of advocacy groups were among dozens of such nonprofit groups to sign onto a letter sent in May to Mr. Trump and Mr. Mnuchin declaring a policy change “an issue of utmost importance.” The letter accused the I.R.S. of “targeting of nonprofit organizations on the basis of ideology.”
Officials with the Treasury Department largely echoed that reasoning, explaining that the move was driven in part by the I.R.S.’s inappropriate targeting of political groups during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The RNLA welcomes this new policy change as private organizations should never face government discrimination for their political beliefs. This proposal serves as one more safeguard against potential abuse.
Cato Scholar Defends Kavanaugh
On Wednesday, July 18 the RNLA will be hosting its second-annualSummer Rooftop Reception featuring Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Shapiro's Twitter feed is a must-read for those following the Supreme Court generally and right now on the Kavanaugh nomination. Shapiro will be giving a brief review of this year's Supreme Court term and discussing the ongoing efforts to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Shapiro has been a staunch supporter of Judge Kavanaugh since President Trump announced his nomination on July 9th. Immediately after the announcement, Shapiro wrote:
Brett Kavanaugh is a strong pick for the Supreme Court.
In his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated a devotion to legal text and constitutional principle. I admire his dedication to the Constitution’s structural protections for liberty, his steadfast defense of the rights of speech and religious conscience, and most notably his willingness to question the excesses of the regulatory state. He has repeatedly affirmed that judges serve not as the champions of faction, but as the readers of laws and adjudicators of disputes.
One thing is for sure - the left will do and say anything to attack Judge Kavanaugh. Shapiro has been known to take a more humorous approach when delving into hard-hitting issues and hits the nail on the head.
Read moreJudge Brett Kavanaugh Respects First Amendment Rights; Skeptical of Campaign Finance Regulatory Overreach
One of the many advantages of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's long service on the D.C. Circuit is that we have a very clear picture of how he applies the First Amendment to statutes that restrict speech.
The D.C. Circuit hears many campaign finance cases, and the Institute for Free Speech reviewed them, starting with Emily's List v. FEC:
His opinion in Emily’s List is particularly impressive. Foreshadowing later rulings in Citizens United and SpeechNow, Judge Kavanaugh clearly articulated a First Amendment right for associations to spend money in support of candidates. The opinion demonstrates an ability to anticipate trends in First Amendment jurisprudence before they fully take hold. . . .
Emily’s List v. Federal Election Commission dealt with a spate of regulations that the FEC put in place against certain nonprofit corporations in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election. Specifically, in response to the so-called “527” expenditures made during the 2004 election against President Bush and Senator Kerry, the FEC imposed a panoply of limits designed to treat nonprofit corporations, functionally, as if they were political parties.
In an opinion that preceded and foreshadowed the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org opinions, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an opinion for the Court reversing the lower court and striking down these regulations on First Amendment grounds. The Court decided that nonprofits such as Emily’s List, a pro-choice, partisan nonprofit dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic female candidates for office, ought to have “the right to spend unlimited money to support their preferred candidates” and “receive full First Amendment protection.” 581 F.3d at 8-9. “A non-profit that makes expenditures to support federal candidates,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote, “does not suddenly forfeit its First Amendment rights when it decides also to make direct contributions to candidates.” Instead, so long as it complied with modest regulation, it was “entitled” to make certain “advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives” out of an “account…not subject to source and amount limits.” Id. at 12.
Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh warned that government could easily overstep in this area. He noted that the ruling did not decide whether Congress could constitutionally extend the ban to lawful permanent residents, nor did it decide whether Congress could prohibit foreign nationals from engaging in political speech other than contributions. He also cautioned the government “that seeking criminal penalties for violations… will require proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the law.”