On Tuesday, Republican House members sent a letter to PayPal asking for information about a controversial policy the company considered enacting that would essentially punish users for engaging in speech the company disagrees with:

The letter demanded that PayPal send House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee and Financial Services Committee written answers to 15 questions about the circumstances surrounding the “Acceptable Use Policy,” which was published by PayPal on Oct. 8. The questions demand PayPal to name those who drafted the policy, who had the authority to approve it, and whether PayPal had coordinated with the Biden administration regarding it. . .

Biden's Border Crisis is off the charts, and there's no end in sight. 

Border numbers:
- 3.6 million illegal crossings
- 900,000 known "got-aways"
- 20,000 pounds of deadly fentanyl found
- 78 terrorist suspects crossed in the last fiscal year
- 0 visits to the border by Joe Biden in 42 years of being a politician pic.twitter.com/4Q43gN7Mzf

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) October 20, 2022

It's no wonder considering the Biden Administration and Democrat lawmakers are all practically encouraging people to cross the border with their policies in a direct affront to law and order.

Leftists have been waging an endless war on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, often resorting to attacking the spouses of Conservative Supreme Court Justices—especially Ginni Thomas, wife to Justice Clarence Thomas. But this time, the attacks were broadened to include not only the spouses of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett but also liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. A September article appearing in Politico posits that conflict of interest disclosure requirements for the Justices' spouses are far too lenient, "fanning fears of outside influences."

New polling from Gallup released today suggests that Americans' trust in the media is at its second lowest of all time:

Just 7% of Americans have "a great deal" of trust and confidence in the media, and 27% have "a fair amount." Meanwhile, 28% of U.S. adults say they do not have very much confidence and 38% have none at all in newspapers, TV and radio. Notably, this is the first time that the percentage of Americans with no trust at all in the media is higher than the percentage with a great deal or a fair amount combined. . .

On Sunday, the RNC, NRCC, and the PAGOP filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for its plan to illegally accept undated mail-in-ballots in direct opposition to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month.

Pennsylvania Democrats have a history of undermining election integrity and ignoring rules set by the PA legislature.

Republicans are stepping in to promote free, fair, and transparent elections in the Keystone State. (2/2)

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) October 17, 2022

In 22 years as RNLA Executive Director, I have never seen a poll measuring support for Voter ID with less than 75 percent in favor of the policy. Historically, polls show approximately eight out of 10 Americans support requiring identification to vote. Such a poll was released again today by Gallup, America's oldest polling firm:

Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote Favor 79 % , Oppose 21%

A coalition of national and local Republican parties represented by attorney Phil Strach has successfully blocked one of the North Carolina State Board of Elections' ("NCSBE") latest attempts at unlawful rulemaking. (The complaint in Deas v. NCSBE can be found here). NCSBE had interpreted its rules to restrict the coming and going of at-large election observers, stating that, if an at-large observer stayed less than four hours at a particular site, their political party could not send another person to replace them. On Thursday, Wake County Superior Court Judge Vince Rozier decided that the rules governing election place observers should be relaxed. 

There are two kinds of election observers in North Carolina: those who must stay at one polling place and at large-observers who can move among polling places. Political parties have long been allowed to send observers to watch voters and election administrators at polling locations to ensure that the electoral process is followed appropriately. NCSBE's guidance would have unfairly impacted election integrity operations since it would have prevented the substitution of regular observers with party lawyers, who could then investigate any irregularities witnessed by non-lawyer observers. As Strach observed: "We wouldn't be able to replace the layperson observer with the lawyer observer .... We would just be screwed." 

Yet another Democrat secretary of state has “accidently” encouraged non-citizens to illegal register to vote. This time it is Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold:

Around 30,000 non-U.S. citizens living in Colorado were mistakenly sent postcards late last month encouraging them to register to vote. . . .

That Department of Revenue driver's license list includes residents issued special licenses for people who are not U.S. citizens. But it didn't include formatting information that normally would have allowed the Department of State to eliminate those names before the mailers went out, Griswold's office said.

The Colorado postcards, in English and Spanish, specify that residents must be U.S. citizens and at least 18 years old to register. They tell recipients how to register but are not a registration form.

Straight from the Democrat playbook: if you can’t beat ‘em, just ignore the fact that you lost.

Today, the Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit’s horrible ruling in Ritter v. Migliori and along with it took the air out of the sails of Democrats who continue to cry wolf over commonsense election procedures.  But after the loss, of course, Democrat consigliere Marc Elias and other Democrats attempted to soften the blow.

The liberal mainstream media is using the opening of the Supreme Court’s term this year as an excuse to attack its conservative members in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.  As Mark Paoletta writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The ascendant originalist approach at the court is more faithful to the Constitution, but it is less welcoming to the liberal policy-making many have come to expect from the court since the Warren era. Expect to see many more baseless attacks on the court’s conservative members in the future.

As Peter Roff points out this effort has been somewhat successful in swaying surface level public opinion polls of the Court.

The undermining of the court’s legitimacy is part of the political process, not the legal and certainly not the democratic one. Everything from the references to its poll numbers to the way the current majority is described – conservative, far-right, hard right – rather than originalist, constitutionalist or even as justices favoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning rather than an expansive one – are all notes in the same song. Progressives want to restore the court’s position as the final word on liberal causes it’s been since FDR and are not especially concerned about how they do it. They reject the idea it should function as the referee in disputes between the branches of the federal government, the states and, on occasion, the people.