No Servers Crashed, but News Broke.

THURSDAY, February 8, 2024 may be one of the most consequential and intense news days of my life, with stories breaking, developing, and resolving in rapid succession. 

In Trump news, with little time to have even fully digested the appeals court ruling on Trump’s presidential immunity claim from earlier in the week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the 14th Amendment argument by Colorado to keep the 45th president off that state’s ballot in November. It should be an easy case, but one of first impression, so who knows how it will go. The justices, even the liberal ones, seemed highly dubious of ruling for Colorado, however. Then Trump gave a presser at Mar-A-Lago afterward. Usual Trump silliness, but no one’s perfect.

Later, the Virgin Islands finished its caucus which Trump won with 74% of the votes and 99% counted. Neither G.O.P. presidential candidate went to the V.I. to campaign, though Haley worked the territory hard and did virtual appearances. She came in second with 26% of the vote. 

The day before, Wednesday, Haley had lost the primary in Nevada, which is holding both a primary and caucus for reasons previously articulated. She lost there, too. Not only did she lose, she lost to “none of these candidates.” Trump wasn’t in the primary: he chose to participate in the caucus, instead, which is where the delegates were assigned. 

Nevada began its caucus later on Thursday, and again, Trump won. The lines to caucus were reportedly literally a mile long with two hour waits in some precincts. Turnout broke records. People waited their turn even though it was cold. These were voters who were told in no uncertain terms, and who instinctively understood, Trump would need to win by a landslide to prevent cheating in the general election. The final tally was 98.8% for Trump, giving him 26 delegates, though no one else of consequence was on the ballot. It seems some voters voted twice, and it wasn’t all that clear they couldn’t legally, which is as weird as holding both a primary and a caucus is.

Then at 6 p.m. EDT, Tucker Carlson’s highly anticipated two-hour interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin was cast on his website and on X, formerly known as Twitter. It was a smashing success—no servers crashed that I know of—and fascinating. Despite American predictions to the contrary, Putin is still alive and looked well.

Putin talked extensively about Russian history, what went wrong in Ukraine (nazification of the Donbas, Ukraine being supported by NATO); why the ‘limited military engagement’ hasn’t been quelled (no security insurances for Russia); and who derailed the proposed Turkish settlement (Boris Johnson, per Biden). Also of note were his comments on the Nordstream pipelines, and who was responsible. (Who has an interest and who has the capability? Fill in the interstitial blanks…). Carlson asked about the Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershovich, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty editor currently imprisoned in Russia. Putin claimed Gershovich was engaging in espionage, but could foresee sending him back home, but the negotiating teams on both sides needed to iron things out. 

After, Carlson said he also met Ed Snowden while in Russia. One would presume Snowden was interviewed, as well, and we can hope to see it, hopefully sooner rather than later. He also met with Tara Reade, who had accused Biden of sexual assault, though why she was there was admittedly not known to me. Turns out, she had defected to Russia last year because the U.S., she claims, isn’t safe for her because of Biden. Who knew?

Then there was the release of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s mishandling of classified materials. (Read it here.) It was found he “willfully retained and disclosed” classified information, but will not be charged with wrongdoing because it was concluded he was a “well-meaning elderly man with poor memory” so a jury would not convict him. Cited as examples of his poor memory in the report were that he did not remember when he was vice president, or when his son died. Never mind he wasn’t an elderly man when he purloined the classified dox, and he disclosed the materials for money—he shared them with the ghostwriter of his biography.

Biden held a press conference after the release, too, if you could call it that. It was more an embarrassing and inarticulate temper tantrum with many misspeaks. He was clearly senile and substantiating that fact in his responses. He blamed the records being in his home on his “staff.” He became angry at Hur, yelling “How the hell dare he!” Before the presser was over, he made another embarrassing gaffe he is notorious for: he confused Egypt with Mexico. The press suddenly had questions, even though he’s had major gaffes for many months. These aren’t small errors. He has a tendency to name the wrong foreign leaders or get undisputed historical facts wrong. This is a not just an American embarrassment, it’s also a potential national security peril. 

Next, Just the News reported Biden used a private email address and fake names (RobinWare456@gmail[dot]com) since at least 2010 as he was conducting White House business asVice President, and shared the communications with sons Hunter, Beau (of late), and younger brother James. None had authorization to receive such communications which are said to be some 82,000 pages, only about 60 which have been received by JTN thus far. 

This has been a problem since the Clinton days, making archiving or retrieval for legitimate government purposes exceedingly difficult. These documents could be vital to provide historians and negotiators with accurate records of national importance. Nonetheless, just because the Clintons got away with it doesn’t mean ignoring the rules can go on in perpetuity. Either one can do this or not, and, regardless of party, should apply to all similarly situated. 

Last, the U.S. Senate advanced a ‘clean’ foreign-aid-only bill for Ukraine ($61b), Israel ($14b), and Taiwan ($5b), costing over $95 billion. Seventeen Republicans joined the Dems. Final passage is possible, but not assured over the weekend. Yet, Volodymyr Zelensky has fired Valerii Zaluzhnyi, his top military commander. The U.S. border crisis, however, remains out of control.

Trippin’ in the Mile-High City

FOUR ‘MILE-HIGH CITY’ JURISTS made complete asses of themselves on Tuesday when the state Supreme Court ruled that 45th President Donald Trump was ineligible to be on the 2024 Colorado ballot because in some sort of bad acid trip they apparently had, Trump had committed “insurrection.” In their judgment, §3 of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution therefore barred him from not only taking the office if elected, but prevented him from even being on the ballot in the first instance. Yes, four of the seven Dem jurists were that high. 

The decision wasn’t a surprise, however. By whatever means necessary (à la Malcom X), Trump cannot ever set foot in the Oval Office ever again according to this ilk, and it is just the latest gambit before the unthinkable happens, if necessary.

The absurdity of it all is beyond embarrassing. The court held Trump not only had incited, but led an “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol. He did nothing of the sort, and no one in their right mind has ever even bothered to charge Trump with “insurrection,” meaning further that no jury has ever even considered convicting him of such. 

And it’s not as if there has been any dearth of prosecutors asses champing at their bits to attempt it, not even hostile and determined bulldog bullshitter Special Counsel Jack Smith. Nor could the Senate in their second impeachment hoax of President Trump because, it turned out, they just couldn’t prove the claim. 

The 14th Amendment’s §3 was drafted post-Civil War to prohibit the Confederacy from causing further mischief and mayhem. It was never contemplated to be resurrected for denying a technically qualified and largely beloved man from holding office because bureaucrats, administrators, and possibly compromised politicians fear that man would rain on their patriotically deficient parade. 

Even if §3 of the 14th was relevant today, it wouldn’t be applicable to Trump as a president because presidents aren’t even mentioned in it and they take a distinct pledge from the elected officials who are named. It seems like a highly unlikely oversight or omission by the drafters. Indeed, it seems like a specific act of admission that §3 does not apply to presidents.

Don’t even mention the First Amendment. It’s just put first so you can skip over it more easily. And I’m not sure what to make over a state court ruling on this specific issue, anyway. 

But even before reaching these arcane questions of law, how on Coloradan earth did the lower state court get to be the fact-finder in a case or controversy where there was so much at stake for a party never tried? (Final Order here.) How does the state’s highest court uphold this egregious error? 

For this embarrassment of a court, the ‘facts’ it found were merely pronouncements by activists and partisans in the press—what some might generously call ‘lay opinions.’ Or they were Democrat propaganda and ‘talking points,’ which are not admissible in any properly held trial. 

Or they were the product of the equally inane Jan. 6th Committee formed by then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her appointed hacks, who held so-called hearings on the matter and then apparently destroyed the evidence. (The state Supreme Court ridiculously claimed the Committee couldn’t have erred because there were two nominal Republicans on it, hand-picked by Pelosi for their anti-Trump biases.) 

All this means is that, once again, Trump has been denied due process by a party that once considered itself a proponent of, and accused the G.O.P. of being opponents of it. Once he was denied due process, he was subjected to archaic and inapplicable law. 

The decision can be read here. It’s off to the U.S. Supreme Court where there may be some adults left in that courtroom. Meanwhile, a stay is in effect until SCOTUS rules, or the deadline for when ballots must be printed, whichever occurs first.  

Harvard constitutional law professor emeritus (and Democrat) Alan Dershowitz called the Colorado decision “so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional, it is absurd,” adding, “The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong.” Jonathan Turley concluded the 14th Amendment simply didn’t apply because there was no insurrection. They are both adamant the SCOTUS will overrule this ruling.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton called it “incoherent,” which may be generous. Newsmax conservative reporter, Grant Stinchfield, urged President Trump to rally ASAP in the Centennial State to signal he will not be deterred (and to troll his opponents there).

Coming Attractions at the U.S. Supreme Court

BEFORE MANY HAVE EVEN digested this term’s Supreme Court’s greatest hits, we have the following oral arguments (among others) as coming attractions in the Court’s 2023-2024 term, beginning in October.

In CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, the CFPB’s funding mechanism is challenged. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously found that funding the CFPB through the Federal Reserve was a violation of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress the sole “power of the purse” in appropriating taxpayer money. The appellate court’s decision should properly be upheld.

In Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, the Court will consider whether an Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester’ has standing to sue a hotel, like 600 others that she never visited, for failing to offer disability accommodations. It’s difficult to see why a ‘tester’ would have standing when so many defendants in real cases and controversies have found to be lacking it despite having suffered actual damages.

In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court is asked by G.O.P. lawmakers to decide whether the lower court “disregarded the publicly available election data” and failed to examine the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent in this case alleging racial gerrymandering. 

My most anticipated Supreme Court decision (already argued here) will be in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service issuance of a rule that would require fishing companies to pay for those who observe their fishing practices for compliance in a political regulatory or agency  capture scenario.

The rule is seemingly self-serving, in that it keeps the government from bearing those costs, but also builds in inherent bias in the agency that could improperly influence its fair and impartial application of the rule.

That said, the case sets up an opportunity for a more conservative Court to overrule or at least continue to unwind the judicial principle from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case which delegated tremendous powers to administrative agencies to adjudicate disputes, based on the notion that these bureaucrats are experts and should therefore be deferred to when there is ambiguity in a statute. Known as the “Chevron Deference,”many unfortunate decisions have been reached by relying on it.

A bête noire of mine, with the Third Party Doctrine!

“Disagreement Isn’t Discrimination.”

FRIDAY WAS A BIG DAY for the U.S. Supreme Court. Aside from its highly watched student loan decision, it decided a gay website case. It was a set up, of course. It wasn’t about serving a gay person (or couple) a meal at a restaurant or allowing them to stay in a hotel room. It wasn’t even about decorating a generic wedding cake for a couple of this protected class. It was about speech.

Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic designer of websites, believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws required her to do her designs, including creating art and writing for same-sex weddings, if she wanted to work in her field at all. The Alliance Defending Freedom represented her in a case before the Court which asked, “Can the government compel an artist to create custom artwork or speech that goes against the core of who that artist is?”SCOTUS said no, 6-3, and ruled that Colorado could not force Smith to create art that offended her religious beliefs. 

“The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, holding for the majority. The usual suspects dissented: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

ADF C.E.O. Kristen Waggoner said in a statement:

“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it. Lorie works with everyone, including clients who identify as LGBT. As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it. The ruling makes clear that nondiscrimination laws remain firmly in place, and that the government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.”

Many in the liberal press or MSM didn’t quite grok the decision, of course, claiming it somehow discriminated against LGBTQ persons rather than celebrated the First Amendment right of free speech, we all, LGBTQ and ‘cis-gen,’ enjoy.  The decision in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, is here.

Why would any LGBTQ person seriously hire someone like Smith, anyway? Wouldn’t you rather have someone in simpatico design your website? It was a set-up for litigation. No one was actually harmed. They were just making a point in a far-reaching agenda.

It’s for the 70%.

PERHAPS SCOTUS TEASED the decisions announced Friday on Thursday when it ruled, correctly, that affirmative action violated the Equal Protection Clause—a return to the wisdom contained in our Constitution by the Court. Friday held two widely anticipated rulings, one of which concerned the obviously unlawful scheme of the Biden regime to ‘cancel’ student loans of some 40 million borrowers who voluntarily undertook the financial obligation to pay them back in exchange for their higher educations. It was the climax of the Court’s term. 

The case was Biden v. Nebraska, and the majority, 6-3, opinion was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts. It reversed and remanded a case arising from the Eighth Circuit.It held that the Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 to create a student loan cancellation program, which, in this case, would eliminate about $430 billion in debt principal, and affect almost all borrowers. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred and Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The opinion is here; the Writ of Certiaori, here.

The Education Secretary was Betsy DeVos under the Trump administration when the federally-guaranteed student loan payments were originally suspended at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, passed immediately after 9/11, which allowed the secretary to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” so borrowers would not be penalized financially because of the emergency. When the Biden regime took over, it was decided to permanently ‘cancel’ up to $20,000 in loans to fulfill a campaign promise he made. Federal courts in Missouri and Texas decided to do some cancelling themselves and placed the program on hold in 2022, but the regime took the matter to the Supreme Court. Ultimately six states challenged the regime arguing the scheme violated the terms of the HEROES Act and other federal laws. 

Naturally, as a matter of jurisprudence, the Court had to determine if the states and two representative borrower class members had standing, or a legal right to sue at all. Standing is perhaps the best safeguard the government has in litigation today. Standing makes many an otherwise good case fall flat on its metaphoric face. The individuals were found to not have standing (and that would be correct, IMO), but a state did, according to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals (also correct). Essentially, the costs to the states were significant and would limit its ability to continue its higher-education programs. SCOTUS upheld that ruling, and on the merits, ruled the scheme did not comply with federal law. 

Roberts analogized the “modification” of the scheme under Biden to the French Revolution, which, he said, “‘modified’ the status of the French nobility—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.” Roberts also emphasized the question was not whether something should be done, but who had the legal authority to do it. He looked to the so-called “Major Questions Doctrine,” which is the notion that if Congress wants to delegate decisions of consequential economic or political significance to an administrative agency, it must expressly state so in the statute, which, here, it did not. (He also took a subtle jab at the Biden  regime by observing the tendency to say the Court exceeds it authority when one simply disagrees with the decisions, but I digress…)

Barrett concurred, saying the Major Questions Doctrine only reinforced, but was not necessary to reach the decision which vastly exceeded what “Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted in the HEROES Act.” 

Kagan’s dissent rested on standing, which she did not think existed, meaning the Court should not have ruled on it at all. Instead, she said, the state higher education authority had standing and should have sued instead. (As a practical matter, it should have joined the State to ensure the argument would not be the basis of the decision of the Court’s majority. Still, it’s hard to see how this wasn’t an outcome-based decision on her part, because it would have been so easy to remedy.) 

Regardless, she claimed the text of the Act authorized the scheme, otherwise, the Act was rendered inconsequential. As for the Major Questions Doctrine, she said Congress delegated frequently, and the Court shouldn’t second-guess it because it is a “major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too” because when the Court intervenes, it “becomes the arbiter — indeed, the maker — of national policy.” (That’s right Elana, the Court is an arbiter because it is one of our democratic republic’s three co-equal branches of government—it is its job. Oh, and BTW, at no time did Congress step in and amend the statute here.)

As for Biden, he wasted no time doing exactly what Roberts noticed—he called the Court’s decision “wrong” and vowed to continue to fight for it and take further steps, whatever that means. I bet he will. Apparently, over 70% of young voters were motivated to vote for him due to his ‘fight’ for ‘free money’ in ‘cancelling’ student debt. It was, in true Biden fashion, a bribe and corrupt to the core.

Affirmative Action Is Affirmatively Discriminatory (But Sometimes Okay)

ON THURSDAY, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT issued its opinion in two cases, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (from the Federal District Court for the Middle District of N.C.), and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit), holding, in both cases, that the admissions departments at both schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because of its affirmative action programs. A link to the U.N.C. decision is here and writ of cert here; Harvard, here and here. The cases were consolidated for judicial economy but argued separately. Justice Jackson participated only in the UNC case due to a conflict from having been on Harvard’s board of overseers.

By a vote of 6-3, the Court found the Equal Protection Clause was violated in these schools’ use of affirmative action programs in their admissions decisions that denied highly qualified Asian students while accepting lesser qualified black or other minority students. 

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts effectively, but not explicitly overruled a 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (read here), clarifying that admissions departments can consider race only as to permit an applicant to explain how race may have affected their character in a fashion that would have a concrete effect on the school, but “a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.” Roberts notably emphasized the important fact that admissions are zero-sum propositions, and affirmative action could use race in a “negative” manner. “[D]oing away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race,” he wrote, reflects the Clause’s “core purpose.” Grutter had held race could be considered “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” 

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment imposes “a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.”  He added that by placing less qualified students in more competitive programs, it can have an undesired effect of making those students less likely to succeed. And finally, he observed that they may be harmed by the stigma that they obtained their degree because of race rather than merit, something he said he experienced in his memoir. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also wrote a concurrence where he stressed the role of federal and state civil rights laws going forward. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor, a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School, had once described herself as “the perfect affirmative action baby.”

Immediately after the decision was announced, so-called progressives were fit to be tied. Race-baiting is, for many of them, their stock and trade. A state of perpetual victimhood is good for business for some, too. (Try being a straight, white male in 2023 and you’ll see why there is, at this late date, sympathy fatigue.

In fact, today’s decision is hardly radical. Roberts expressly stated race could be considered on a case-by-case basis (as when an applicant discussed ‘how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise’.” , and in any event, there will surely be covert preferences by some admissions departments because they are governed by a hierarchy which likely reached its levels through affirmative action themselves. 

Furthermore, the colleges and universities will be watched closely and their admission decisions scrutinized to ensure there is no bias against minority students. If there is, or perceived to be discrimination, bet your life it will be litigated (and judged under the rather un-elucidating standard enunciated on Thursday. There were nearly 100 amici filing briefs in these cases.

Indeed, is is quite possible, especially in our ‘woke’ world, that, in an ongoing effort to outdo one another, the opposite will happen. The schools will be wanting to signal their virtue to be ‘celebrated’ for their commitment to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’   (See, e.g., here.) In fact, schools now offer degrees in the soft pseudo-science of socialist-inspired DEI, where students applying will surely be able to thrust race into the forefront of their applications under Roberts’ latest edict.

Of note, the decisions only apply to higher level educational institutions, not to workplaces. Nor does the decision affect service academies such as West Point or the U.S. Naval Academy.

Free Speech ≠ Free Migration

ON FRIDAY, The U.S. Supreme Court denied, 7-2, a challenge to a long-standing immigration law that prohibits the encouragement or inducement of an illegal alien to enter or reside in the country. The case is U.S. v. Hansen. The challenge before the Court was that the word “encouraged” in the statute was overly broad and could be unconstitutionally be applied in situations where, for example, a family member “encouraged” an illegal relative to come, or an advocate wrote in favor of illegal migration. Predictably, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

To be sure, the facts in the case were extreme and cases like that can result in legal extremes. Here, a man located in Sacramento, Helaman Hansen, charged almost 500 illegal aliens, with no documentation, up to $10,000 to help them become citizens—something he couldn’t possibly do legally. All told, he took in almost $2 million from his scheme. He was charged with 15 counts of fraud and two counts of encouraging and inducing unlawful immigration “for private financial gain,” and was ultimately sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The Court didn’t buy it. Writing for the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said there was no evidence the law was being used in the manner complained of, and the “string of hypotheticals…failed to identify a single prosecution for ostensibly protected expression in the 70 years since Congress enacted [that specific] clause.” Instead, she said it was being used narrowly to prohibit “criminal solicitation” of illegal immigration who make promises to get illegals into the country for a fee. 

Statutes, of course, can be nullified when, for example, they are overly broad, and there is good reason for that. Here, however, Barrett seems to suggest the law is simply for illegal aliens’ own protection, rather than to protect the country and its taxpayers from illegal entry of unauthorized persons and those that encourage them. I haven’t read the opinion yet as it isn’t available, but if this is accurate, while I’d agree with the outcome, I don’t agree with the rationale for the holding.

A better ruling would be to interpret the statute as a proscription against aiding and abetting a federal crime (period), clarifying it is not a proscription against lawful protected First Amendment speech or free press. The law may protect illegals, but it should, in the first instance, protect Americans from the effects of the underlying illegal act.

But Are The Crows Black or White?

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS is loathed by the woke. For one thing, he’s black and conservative which is, I suppose, sort of like being a wolf and a vegan to them. The combination isn’t supposed to exist. Yet somehow, it does. This is because black people, remarkably, don’t like being treated like helpless, unproductive, and unintelligent people who must rely on a beneficent government simply to survive. The woke are also ‘triggered’ by the fact that Thomas has not recused himself on cases involving political questions )think abortion) or that his conservative wife, Ginni, may have taken a position on in her personal capacity. Dem Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) has called for Thomas’ impeachment.

The radical left has managed to push through an astonishing number of the Biden regime’s initiatives, albeit, at a huge cost to the nation’s highly mortgaged future. A big item that remains, however, is a nice Supreme Court nomination to push through more woke agenda items well into the future. Towards that end, a story not-so-mysteriously broke that Thomas has an ethics problem. Specifically, on Thursday, it was alleged he illegally received lavish gifts from a G.O.P. donor. Who is/are the donor(s)? Harlan and Kathy Crow. They happen to be “among our dearest friends…for over 25 years,” said Thomas in a statement released by the Court,” adding, “As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than a quarter century we have known them.” Crow is a conservative businessman. The trips involved flights on his private jet, trips on his yacht, or stays at his properties, according to ProPublica, which reported the story. 

Thomas did not report these trips as gifts. According to Thomas, he sought guidance early on about whether there was any reporting requirement and was told that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable,” adding that he has “always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.” Given justices have to file disclosure forms annually concerning gifts, this seems likely. He also said that the disclosure guidelines were going to be changed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and will then include a requirement to disclose some, but not all free travel. He added, obviously, he intended to comply with the guidelines. 

Obviously, Thomas has an affirmative duty to comply with ethics rules. Ignorance isn’t an excuse for anyone, especially a judge, but assuming he sought guidance, as he maintains, Dems should be estopped from politically interfering in the judiciary. 

Beware the Military-Industrial Complex. Beware the Corrupt Joe Biden.

THE FACT Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell even had to be told this is appalling, but a coalition of senators had to write him a letter urging him to ignore requests by Democrats to pass their massive omnibus spending bill before the new G.O.P.-controlled House is sworn in in January. Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Rick Scott (Fla.), and Mike Braun (Ind.) sent the letter on Wednesday. The letter is here.

Essentially, they said that nothing but a short-term Continuing Resolution funding the federal government until Jan. 2023 should be passed so that the new House can weigh in. There should also be no additional spending and no additional “policy priorities” included. If it’s claimed to be urgent, it must be considered on its own merits. Failure to do so, they say, disregards the wishes of the American public. 

Not that Republicans are looking out for the taxpayers’ monies: they’re very keen on upping defense spending and aid to Ukraine, which has been nothing but demanding and parasitic since their dispute with Russia. The Dems, on the other hand, are looking to increase discretionary spending to $1.6 trillion. It’s enormous. Where on Earth do they the money is coming from? Never mind, the new I.R.S. agents will stick taxpayers up for the new long-range weapons, and wealth transfers to rebuild Ukraine, its infrastructure and power grid, along with a $400 million package Biden approved from U.S. stockpiles earlier this month. Lucky us.

“I think it makes absolutely no sense for a lame-duck Congress to pass Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s appropriations bills,” said Sen. Cruz. “[I]f a handful of Senate Republicans decide their outgoing act is to rubber-stamp Nancy Pelosi’s spending priorities, that would be a gross abdication of responsibility and also an affront to the voters who just voted to give Republicans a majority in the House.” 

He’s right. But it’s the second time in a week the G.O.P. has coalesced around Dems in a uni-party fashion, so figure it will happen. The first was the passage, aided by the G.O.P., of the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which codified same-sex marriage into federal law. Regardless of where one may fall on the issue, the fact is, marriage has always been in province of the states — most of which have recognized gay marriage without any ‘help’ from Pelosi or Schumer. And in case that’s not good enough, in Obergefell v. Hodges, decided in 2015, the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage lawful in the decision that applies nationwide. 

Will Standing Prevent Adjudication of Biden’s Unconstitutional Student Loan Scam?

THE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to issue an injunction against the unconstitutional student loan bailout plan of Joe Biden’s. WILL filed its emergency application (read here) on behalf of the Brown County Taxpayers Association requesting a temporary stay as the matter weaves its way through the lower-level federal courts. Biden’s One-Time Student Loan Debt Relief plan seeks to “cancel” up to $10,000 in student loans ($20,000 for Pell Grant borrowers) for those earning under $125,000 as single tax filers, or $250,000 if filing jointly. This means 92% of households would qualify; the other 8% would become liable for the debt. WILL correctly argues that Biden’s plan, potentially transferring “hundreds of billions, or perhaps over a trillion, dollars in debt,” is a “presidential usurpation of the constitutional spending power, which is reserved exclusively for Congress.” 

The plan does so by transforming a law originally meant to benefit military personnel and first responders who were disadvantaged by their response to a discrete national emergency, known as the HEROES Act (read here), enacted into law after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Biden contends his authority arises from the pandemic, even though loan payments were suspended for all during the emergency, even for those who had no hardship. But Biden’s scam was never enacted by the legislature. Nor was the epidemic an act of terrorism (that we know of) or an act of war. Nor were any, or most students ever declared “heroes” or even “disadvantaged” in any way. Nor does the epidemic even exist, inasmuch as Biden declared the it over weeks ago on “60 Minutes.” Despite lawsuits, the Biden regime has nonetheless “re-declared the emergency,” and already beta tested its software to administer the scam. Some 8 million have signed up as of Monday.

“What Constitutional power does Biden have to take John Q. Public’s money and pay Jane Q. Public’s school loans?” BCTA President Rich Heidel said in a WILL press release. “Why not her mortgage, why not her car loan? How did the college-educated caste become the lucky ones? When and how does this stop? This nonsense not only defies the US Constitution – it defies common sense,” he added.

This follows a dismissal for lack of standing at District Court, but remains on appeal at the 7th Circuit. Taxpayer-standing is notoriously challenging to find.