About Cheering the Jailing of Kim Davis

A great deal can and has been said about the jailing of Kim Davis already.  So I will confine myself to pointing out two aspects of the response to her jailing.

1. Protestations that jailing Kim Davis is necessary to uphold the Rule of Law are really, really rich.

Funny how Leftist Democrat officials are almost never jailed or even sanctioned for defying the Rule of Law.  Any Sanctuary City mayors or councilmen in jail?  Has Obama been impeached or even censured for refusing to enforce immigration law?  Were any of those who issued marriage licenses to gay couples when that was illegal, were any of those jailed?

And where was the concern about the Rule of Law when Justice Kennedy and four other Supreme Court justices pulled a coup against the Rule of Law to make Gay Marriage supposedly (BOW DOWN!) the Law of the Land?

Leftist attitudes towards the Rule of Law are just like their attitudes toward democracy.  If it serves their agenda, then great.  If it doesn’t, then their agenda is oh-so much more important than democracy and the Rule of Law.

2. The Pink Shirt crowd might want to think twice about cheering the jailing of Kim Davis.

Does anything show what cretins the Pink Shirts are than their cheering the jailing of someone non-violently being true to their faith?

Reaction to the news that #KimDavis was ordered to jail, captured by @Samowensphoto pic.twitter.com/MnXrO9OUtr

— Gazette-Mail (@wvgazettemail) September 3, 2015

Reasonable people can disagree with Kim Davis. Unreasonable people are glad she's in jail. 

And “unreasonable” is putting it nicely.  This is yet one more episode in which the gay rights crowd shows for all to see that they are neither reasonable nor tolerant.  They once played on people’s sympathy and still try so to do.  But I suspect they are now losing sympathy and fast.  For defeating one’s political opponents is one thing.  Overkill is quite another and evokes sympathy only in Clint Eastwood movies.  And jailing Kim Davis is overkill.

(Yes, it’s a fed judge who jailed her.  But that little changes the result nor the effect.)

But even if the Pink Shirts had enough sense to keep their glee to themselves, they might want to think twice about rejoicing in the jailing of Kim Davis at all.  Americans are a tolerant people.  But they also love freedom, particularly freedom of religion and thought.  And jailing someone for non-violently following the dictates of their faith is an outrage to many, even to those who disagree with how Ms. Davis is going about this.

These and similar episodes are likely weakening support for the gay rights crowd and are awaking, energizing and motivating those with a more sane and traditional view of freedom.  If so, the Pink Shirts may not be the ones cheering in the end.

An Ignorant Dictator in a Black Robe

Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, the ruling of Federal Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen (By the way, anyone notice that the more names a woman uses, the more likely she’s a liberal drone?) striking down Virginia’s gay marriage law is tyrannical and downright ignorant.

Why tyrannical?  She struck down a Virginia Constitutional Amendment approved by voters in 2006.  She put her dictate above that of Virginians to amend their Constitution.  Her word is more important than constitutional democracy itself.

Why ignorant?  She demonstrated for all to see that she doesn’t know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence from Obama’s . . . aura.  In an already cloyingly written ruling comes this gem:

Our Constitution declares that “all men” are created equal. . . .

That’s the Declaration of Independence that says that, lady.

But who cares about the Constitution anyway.  The whims of The Dear Leader and of allied dictators in black robes are so much more important, don’tcha know.

MORE: She is an Obama appointee.  Why am I not surprised?

Rainbow Tyranny in New Mexico

Photographer Elaine Huguenin is happy to take pictures of gay costumers.  But her Christian beliefs prevent her from consciously participating in a same-sex wedding by doing photography for the same.

But the New Mexico Supreme Court just said, Too bad.  Take gay wedding photos on demand or else.  That is “the price of citizenship” in a petty liberal gulag.

Of course, there are many other photographers available who would be glad to do a gay wedding. 

Is there only 1 wedding photographer in New Mexico? Seriously. Just find another one.
— Amy (@CAAmyO) August 22, 2013

But a minimum of inconvenience to gays and (in this case) lesbians is soooo much more important than freedom of religion.

Even some who do not oppose same-sex marriage are appalled.  Ben Shapiro is right – this ruling is “state-sponsored tyranny at its finest.”

---

Hat tip to Ace, who adds, “You know, the gay couple could simply find another photographer. No, by all means, let's use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people's lives instead of just telling the gay couple to ‘Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.’”

About “Newt’s War on the Courts”

There has been not a little unhappiness among conservatives about Newt Gingrich’s recent statements about holding federal judges accountable. Hot Air even dubbed it “Newt’s war on the courts”.

However, I am not among those who are unhappy. Although I, too, may disagree with details of what Gingrich has said on the subject, I am actually heartened by his boldness.

For the problem in recent decades has not been Presidents and Congresses confronting the Judiciary, but the unwillingness of Presidents and Congresses to do so. Federal judges have again and again disregarded and undermined the Constitution with impunity. And the other branches of the federal government have done next to nothing.

That is not the way constitutional government should work.

Under our Constitution, the three branches of the federal government are to check and balance each other. And the Executive branch has done that to Congress, and the Congress to the Executive, and the Judiciary to both.

But who has checked the Judiciary and kept it in balance? Federal judges have acted like dictators in black robes, even nullifying elections without Constitutional backing, and have not been held accountable at all.

There are constitutional means for Presidents and Congresses, as well as Governors, to put rogue federal judges in their places. But they rarely, if ever, do so even when outrageous rulings cry out for it.

So when a candidate expresses the willingness to actually defend our Constitution against judges who care not a wit for it, I am that much more inclined to support said candidate. When one branch goes rogue and disregards and even attacks our Constitution, it is the sworn duty of other branches to defend the Constitution.

Now, can this be taken too far? Can one branch so suppress the power of another branch that it is dangerous and unconstitutional? Can checking the power of federal judges go too far? Yes, and FDR, for one, did take things too far.

But since FDR, that has rarely if ever been the problem. The problem has been federal judges who tear down the rightful power of the other branches, of the states, and of the people, and have disregarded the Constitution without let or hindrance. And the future of our constitutional republic demands that such judicial arrogance be put in its place.

Good on Newt Gingrich for the courage to express the willingness to do so.

Absurd DADT Ruling Provides an Opportunity

Yesterday, Californicate Federal Judge Virginia Phillips told the U. S. military how to run the armed forces by declaring Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) to be unconstitutional and issuing an injunction against the policy. What next? Will she require all battle plans to be cleared by Her Highness?

Whatever one thinks about DADT, this is an absurd assertion of judicial power that is itself unconstitutional, so absurd it provides an opportunity.

For far too long, state and federal authorities have bowed down to each and every order from the judiciary, no matter how much it exceeds proper judicial authority and subverts constitutional democracy. Usurpation of power by the judiciary has gone unchecked leading us close to a dictatorship of black robes. This is far from what our Founding Fathers intended and erodes our constitutional democracy. They set up the branches of government to check the power of each other. But no one of late has been checking the power of the judiciary. And the judiciary is stuffed with miniature dictators who care not one whit for the Constitution except to be sown into fig leafs to disguise their naked power.

But here we have a ruling so absurd and divorced from constitutional authority that it invites a much needed slap-down. Her Honor is wearing “Slap me down NOW” on her robes. This begs a president to politely say, “I appreciate the concern of Her Honor. But last time I looked, I am the Commander-in-Chief, not her. She has exceeded her authority with her ruling. And I will therefore consider it of no effect and carry on accordingly.”

It would not be the first time a President has told judges what to do with their rulings. But it has been way too long since a President has done so. We desperately need a victory, however small, against heretofore unchecked judicial power.

But with our current President, I am not holding my breath.

By the way, Phillips was appointed by Bill Clinton. That President also did great damage to our judiciary.


UPDATE: The Obama Administration is appealing the ruling. It’s not a slap down, but it’s better than nothing.

Is Obama Selling an Appeals Court Seat for an Obamacare Vote?

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) is one of several swing congressmen Obama is pressuring to vote for Obamacare. So is it not quite the coincidence that the Dear Leader has now nominated Jim’s brother, Scott, for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Now I don’t presume to know whether this is a bribe or the post-modern equivalent of simony.

But you can guess what my opinion is – brazen Chicago-style corruption taken national.

I’ve long had the gut feeling a big Obama scandal is coming sooner or later. Could this be it?

“Not true”, Obama.

Many of my good readers are aware that Justice Alito shook his head and quietly said, “Not true” when Obama accused the Supreme Court of opening the door to election campaign contributions from foreign corporations.

Alito is right (And he should know!). As Law Professor Bradley A. Smith points out, the Citizens United ruling in question did not affect the prohibition against foreign nationals and foreign corporations from making U. S. political campaign contributions. He concludes that Obama’s smear “is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.”

There is a time and a place to confront the Supreme Court. But I heartily agree that to tell a big lie about them to their faces in a State of the Union address, no less, is out of bounds.


MORE: Prof. Bradley goes into more detail on the relevant law.

STILL MORE: Obama owes the Supreme Court an apology.

Double Standards and Sotomayor

As Mona Charen well notes, the vetting of Sonia Sotomayor and past judicial nominees reveals a number of double standards. Like Ms. Charen, I doubt Sotomayor is a racist. However . . .

If a white male nominee had been discovered to have said something similar -- that he was better situated to judge due to his background and life experiences than a Latina woman -- he would be cashiered so fast as to induce whiplash.

Gosh, you think?

And Sotomayor, with her past statements and current associations, particularly her membership in La Raza (i.e. “The Race”), she has far more marks of racism than any number of past white male nominees attacked on the pretense of supposed racism. Charen reviews the Charles Pickering episode as one despicable example of such Democrat double standards and outright slander:

. . . Judge Pickering had been a friend to civil rights throughout his career. To its credit, the New York Times actually quoted longtime associates of the judge and members of the black community in Pickering's hometown who "overwhelmingly support his nomination . . . and admire his efforts at racial reconciliation." The black chairman of the city council told the Times, "I can't believe the man they're describing in Washington is the same one I've known for years." They recalled that as a young prosecutor in 1967, Pickering had endangered his career (and perhaps more) by testifying in court against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He was known for hiring black staffers at a time when few white Mississippians did. Pickering encouraged the chancellor of University of Mississippi to form the Institute for Racial Reconciliation and served on its board for many years. . . .

Yet, without blushing, John Kerry transmogrified Judge Pickering into "a forceful advocate for a cross-burner."

Yet these same Democrats are about to give a pass to the Supreme Court to a woman who openly thinks she can make better decisions than a white male because she is a Latina.

Second Thoughts on Opposition to Sotomayor

Last week I counseled Republicans to be very careful about opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

I’m having second thoughts about that.

Of course, I don’t think Republicans should be reckless or nasty in opposing her, especially when the “mainstream” news media is so eager to lie twist the words of those in opposition.

But it has become clear that, even if she is not a racist as Rush Limbaugh has proclaimed or a sexist, her own words make it clear she cannot and should not be trusted to be fair in matters where race or gender crops up.

She said what she meant, and she meant what she said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
No white nominee could get away with that statement's corollary in which a wise white man comes to better conclusions that a Latina. Nor should he.


And that fact is already resonating to the point where Obama has felt compelled to spin it. People don’t like racism no matter where it comes from, and Obama knows it.

I am also alarmed by her membership in La Raza. That’s Spanish for “The Race”, people. And, yes, that organization is as racist as it sounds. What if a white nominee belonged to a white power group called “The Race”?

So here we have the irony of a Black president appointing a Supreme Court justice based on race and gender. And that Latina nominee has shown the disposition to be racially biased and strengthen the racial spoils racket just after the election of said President has blown away the need for it.

The irony of that is already sinking in and Republicans should run with that. Obama’s nomination is brazen and certainly not “post-racial”, and, although he will succeed in getting her on the court, it should be opposed, and Obama should be made to pay a political price.

And, thanks to Sotomayor’s own words and choices, Obama can be made to pay a political price.

Two Thoughts on the Murder of George Tiller

Actually I have three thoughts. To get the first one out of the way, the murder of George Tiller is wrong. As evil as Tiller’s mass late-term abortions were, killing him was wrong.

Second, this killing is the sort of thing that subverting constitutional democracy invites. One reason we have our constitutional democracy is so that heated issues can be dealt with by political means. We want to resolve issues like abortion by the ballot box and by the deliberation by those we elect, not by the gun.

But when those democratic means are cut off by unconstitutional judicial fiat, as in the case of elective abortion, the motivation to resort to the gun increases. And a few unstable people likely will do so. It is no coincidence that anti-abortion violence increased after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. Hope to combat abortion by democratic means was dashed. So a few people felt compelled to resort to violent means.

I’m not inside the head of the man who killed Tiller. And one should not extrapolate too much from one incident. But if you arbitrarily cut off the constitutional democratic process on a heated issue as the Supreme Court has on abortion, then violence is a likely outcome. And the election of Obama certainly reduces hope of overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion issue to the people and their representatives, making this another likely time for violence.

Third, it is right that pro-lifers are almost unanimously condemning the murder of Tiller. But as for those who defend elective late-term abortions, allow me to save them the trouble. If you defend elective late-term abortions, you have less moral judgement than a dog. Any outrage from you over Tiller’s killing or over just about anything is worth less than said dog’s bark. So you need not bother.

You’re welcome.

Why did Bush the Elder appoint Sotomayor?

An argument you will hear again and again is that Sonia Sotomayor is really a moderate – after all George H. W. Bush appointed her.

Don’t buy that for a minute. Bush’s appointment was a political horse trade and nothing more:

. . . in 1992, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.



By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.



And at that moment, in 1992, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."

Not to mention Bush the Elder’s judicial choices were not exactly stellar. He appointed Souter, after all.

Republicans, Be Careful About Sotomayor

I am sure it will not surprise my kind readers that I am not thrilled over President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But, given my combative nature, my council to Republicans may astonish – do not expend too much political capital in opposing her.

Yes, her qualifications are questionable. Yes, her commitment to the Constitution is highly questionable.

But Obama can do worse, believe me. And it is unlikely he will do better in picking a Supreme Court Justice. (Heck, it wouldn’t shock me if she proved an improvement over Souter. That's not saying much, but hey . . .)

It is also unlikely this nomination can be stopped. And – the main reason I council caution – her story is endearing. Even such a mean sado-conservative as myself finds it hard to dislike her. I do not think heated opposition to her would prove fruitful, but would instead backfire.

There are many battles to be fought against the audacity of Obama. This is not one of them. Republicans would do well to keep their opposition scrupulously polite and principled.

Sen. Leahy Trying to Rubberstamp Obama’s “Moderate” Judge

Sen. Leahy of Vermont is trying to pull an April Fools stunt – rush April 1st hearings on Obama’s just nominated “moderate" judge, David Hamilton.

Funny, Leahy has a long record of taking . . . his . . . time with judicial nominees by Republican presidents, all while being insufferably self-righteous about it. From Ed Whelan at The National Review:

To put this rush in context: During the Bush 43 administration, the average time from nomination to hearing for federal appellate nominees was 138 days overall, and 197 days while Leahy was chairman. No federal appellate nominee other than Clinton renominee Helene White (the beneficiary of a special deal) received a hearing in less than 30 days. And of President Bush’s first batch of nominees, the first to receive a hearing waited 62 days.

No double standards here. Nope. Let’s rush those “moderate” Obama judges through.

Obama Nominates “Moderate” Judge

President Obama has made his first major judicial nomination, David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and, mirabile dictu, he’s a “moderate”! Yes, he’s a “moderate” past ACLU board member, a “moderate” past ACORN operative. He’s also been very “moderate” in attacking freedom of religion, parental rights and the right to life from the bench, so much so that less “moderate” judges have publically taken him to task for doing so.

But I am very reassured, by both the Obama Administration and the mainstream news media, that Obama is being very “moderate” in appointing judges who will be so “moderate” in tearing up upholding our Constitutional rights.

No wonder defense attorneys think so highly of him.

I, too, can rest easier. I guess my concern that Obama and his judicial appointees would undermine our Constitution and the rule of law was just paranoia.