'We are deeply saddened'

It’s difficult to make substantive arguments against the Democrats’ Supreme Court “reform” proposal, since everyone knows it’s just a cynical ploy to delegitimize both the court and the Constitution. Ask yourself this: Would any Democrat support the president’s court-packing scheme if they believed Republicans would win both houses of Congress and the presidency? Of course not. It’s Calvinball all the way down. And it is a court-packing scheme. An unconstitutional one. One imagines the term “court-packing” hasn’t polled very well with the public, so President Joe Biden—or whoever’s running the White House these days—signed off on a backdoor plan. An 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices would, very conveniently, turn a 6-3 originalist majority into a 6-3 “living and breathing document” majority that would overturn many recent decisions, and rubber-stamp a slew of federal abuses. One might argue it’s all just an election gimmick, since the chances of the reform package passing are close to nil. That’s not the point. The Left has normalized the notion that the Supreme Court is both illegitimate and corrupt if it fails to bend to the will of partisans. After all, none of the Left’s objections are grounded in anything resembling a legal argument. The entire case is centered around the specious idea that the court is failing because it does not adhere to the political vision of Democrats. The Left doesn’t even pretend to care about neutrality in law, much less the law itself. The contemporary leftist is a consequentialist with no limiting principles. Speaking of authoritarians, Vice President Kamala Harris contends that packing the Supreme Court is necessary because “there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.” Is there? First off, we find ourselves here because of decadelong attacks on the institution. Wealthy progressive activist groups began cooking up pretend scandals and laundering them through faux journalistic operations. The media can now affix the phrase “plagued by ethic scandals,” or some such nonsense, to every mention of the court. If there is any crisis of confidence, it’s because the Left concocted one. Even still, Gallup finds that 30% of Americans say they have a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court. The number has risen slightly in the past two years. Another 31% say they have “some” confidence in SCOTUS. So, let’s set aside that pesky Article 3 of the Constitution for a moment. If polling is the excuse for stripping the independence of a branch of government, why would we allow Congress, with its 9% confidence rating, to do it? Justices already enforce a code of judicial conduct. There is zero evidence any of them have engaged in unethical behavior on the bench that personally benefited a third party, much less themselves. And there is no evidence justices have deviated from their long-held legal philosophies because they vacationed with a rich friend or any other reason. It’s also worth remembering that Democrats invented a bunch of new standards to smear Clarence Thomas that they would never follow themselves. Most members of the Senate Judiciary Committee leading the charge to delegitimize the court have traded in on their position to enrich themselves, including Sens. Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Peter Welch. Come to think of it, maybe the Supreme Court should be writing ethics rules for Congress. Democrats want to institute their ethics code to create a system that allows partisans—armed with the newest garbage churned out by media—to slander justices in another congressional show trial and bogus investigations. Sorry, the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is free to threaten justices, but they still don’t answer to him. “What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach,” Biden says. The president, whose family became wealthy peddling a shady influence racket, has a 26% confidence rating with Gallup. The media, deservingly, is near the bottom of the list. Americans, in fact, have more trust in the Supreme Court than they do in state-run schools or unions or big business or banks or the criminal justice system. The president is correct in noting that the high court has abnormally upheld the Constitution in recent years. Even then, majority concurrences are quite diverse. And the notion that the textualists walk lockstep more than the Left is a complete fantasy, as the court’s last session showed. Lifetime appointments for justices are meant to shield the high court from the vagaries and fleeting pressures of political debate. That is exactly what bothers the Left the most: the Supreme Court doing its job. If we knew exactly when confirmation votes were going to take place, the process would degenerate into an even uglier partisan mess. That, again, is exactly what the anti-norm leftist desires. Indeed, the Democrats’ plan to pack the Supreme Court, the last properly functioning institution in D.C., is an attack on the constitutional order. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Democrats Promise to Save ‘Democracy’ by Destroying Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris supports reparations, but Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee has yet to publish her plan to get them done. Whatever her plan, it will have to answer a bunch of thorny questions. First, who gets reparations? Harris has left open the possibility of reparations to black Americans for both slavery and what she calls “systemic racism in the system.” Slavery reparations, by definition, may go only to people who suffered because of slavery. Of course, no one alive today has suffered under legal slavery (although human trafficking is a serious problem). So supporters of reparations for slavery say that payments should go to the descendants of those who were enslaved before the Civil War. But how would Harris figure out who those people are? She can’t use the racial category “black” as a proxy for descendants of slaves, because a large and growing percentage of black Americans are recent African and West Indian immigrants or their descendants. What’s more, according to Pew Research, only 41% of black Americans say that their ancestors were enslaved in America. Most of them must base that conclusion on family lore, because we have few reliable family records of slaves from so long ago. To date, no proponent of slavey reparations has provided a good answer to these problems with the idea.  Still, if there’s one thing that’s certain about slavery reparations, it’s that they shouldn’t go to descendants of slaveholders. So what would Harris do about people such as former President Barack Obama, who are descendants of both? No good answers to that one either. Who would get “systemic racism” reparations? To answer that question, Harris first would have to define “systemic racism.” People use a lot of different definitions of that term, all of which have suffered under withering criticism. But set that aside and assume that, whatever it is, systemic racism exists. The next question is: Who has suffered from it? Again, Harris can’t give “systemic racism” reparations to everyone who is black. An African immigrant who arrived here yesterday hasn’t suffered anything. And if we’re assuming that systemic racism exists, are we also to assume that it affects only black Americans? What of Chinese immigrants during the California gold rush who suffered discrimination and segregation? Or Japanese Americans whom President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put into internment camps? While we’re rattling off all these racial groups, just who qualifies for group membership anyway? If reparations go to “black” people, do you qualify if you’re one-half black, or one-eighth, or one-drop? Should the government issue certificates of blood quanta? Do you qualify if you merely “identify” as black, like Rachel Dolezal? No good answers to any of these questions. But let’s assume that reparations supporters such as Kamala Harris do have good answers. The next question is: Can Harris trace the harm that reparations must remedy? Some black Americans whose ancestors were slaves or lived through segregation are poor. Would they be rich but for slavery or systemic racism? Many black Americans whose ancestors were slaves or suffered through segregation are rich. What accounts for the difference?  Likewise, what accounts for the difference between native-born black Americans and African immigrants? These immigrants often arrive in America with close to nothing, but within one generation end up at the top of the socioeconomic chart. Harris must account for these differences if reparations are to go to those who ostensibly deserve them. Proponents of reparations in Harris’ home state of California have suggested that politically liberal organizations claiming to represent black Americans should hand out reparations as they see fit. But that wouldn’t solve any of the problems we’ve identified. These organizations don’t have good answers to who gets the reparations, who has suffered, how much they have suffered, or who counts as “black” or whatever other category is used. To give those organizations the power to dispense reparations would create a system of unaccountable cronyism. Another question that Harris’s reparations plan must answer: How much? Assuming that anyone is entitled to anything, different people will be entitled to different amounts. For example, a black American whose grandparents came to America after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has suffered less than someone whose grandparents lived through segregation. But how much less? No reparations proposal has developed a framework to account for those differences. The next question is legal: How can Harris make a reparations proposal constitutional? Every reparations proposal has failed to give a good answer to any of the questions asked above, which makes all the proposals arbitrary. The Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids arbitrary, race-based programs, so courts would strike down such a reparations plan.   Harris’ rejoinder might be that a reparations plan isn’t based on race, but based on harms. But to support that argument, she would have to identify with specificity the harm and who has suffered it. And she couldn’t use race-based proxies or rough approximations. In other words, she’d be back at square one. The final question is a civics question: Is Harris willing to tear the country apart for this? A racial spoils system—and that’s all these proposals really are—is the surest way imaginable to enflame race hatred in America. The cost would be immeasurable and the benefits imaginary. The post Tough Questions for Kamala Harris’ Reparations Plans appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Just What Is Meant When Israel Is Accused of Killing 'Journalists?'

LA County Has Decided It Won't Comply with Gov. Newsom's Homeless Order

The year 2020, for all the disaster and chaos it ushered in, did give us at least one good thing: “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness” — the Netflix sensation that enthralled Americans with its eccentric cast and big cat drama. The show garnered nearly 35 million views in the first 10 days after its release, but after the star of the show — Joe Exotic — went to jail for his murder-for-hire scheme, the nation largely moved on from Joseph Maldonado. However, in 2023, Exotic somewhat re-emerged in public discourse when he announced his intentions to run for president in 2024. Although his campaign fizzled out earlier this year, he is still watching the race closely. On the last episode of “Normal World,” Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett received a phone call from none other than the Tiger King himself. Joe Exotic Calls in to Talk Kamala Harris & Prison Reform | Ep 157 youtu.be “Were you hoping for a VP spot?” Dave asked Joe. “I’m hoping for a cabinet position,” Exotic responded, adding that he hopes to become the “director of Fish and Wildlife.” “Who is your favorite candidate right now, other than yourself?” Dave asked next. “We have to get Trump in there because Harris is gonna get us killed. Her and Biden’s been in there for almost four years. ... A couple hundred military bases worldwide have been been attacked of ours and we ain't done s**t about it. We're in the middle of Ukraine; we're in the middle of Israel bulls**t. Russia, China, and Iran and ISIS and them will steamroll her. There's no way they're going to take her serious,” Exotic railed. “Do you think it's odd that Biden just all of a sudden stepped down and out of nowhere we're being forced to kind of believe that [Kamala Harris] was always the person for the job?” asked Dave, pointing out the buzz about Kamala being a DEI hire. “I don't think that she was always the person to run. I think [Biden] really wanted to do it himself. I think old age caught up with him a little faster than he thought it would, and I think the only reason that she is even picked to even run as the nominee is because she is black and she is a woman.” “Look, above all else, it don't matter if you're shooting for the economy to straighten up, world peace, or whatever — all they care about is that a black woman becomes president,” Exotic explained, adding that, “in [prison], Trump has every black vote.” “There’s not an inmate in here shooting for Harris or Biden. She spent half of her life putting black people in prison that couldn’t afford to fight the fight,” he continued, noting that Harris and Biden’s promises of “prison reform” came to naught. “With the inmates in there, is that their biggest issue — drug reform? Or do they want prison reform more than anything?” was Dave’s follow up question. “We live like river rats, man — the mold, the broken down facilities, the electrical problems. We have 300 [people] and 6, 7, 8 toilets ... The food is pathetic, the medical care is pathetic,” said Exotic, adding that “there’s more drugs in here than the whole city of Wynnewood, Oklahoma.” “When I get out of here, my goal is to testify in front of Congress about what goes on in here,” he told Dave. As for his Trump endorsement, Exotic claimed that “the best thing [he’s] ever heard come out of Trump's mouth in a long time is if he becomes president he's going to shut down the camps and the halfway houses and send everybody home because if you can qualify to go to a camp, go home and work and support your family. Quit making the taxpayers pay this bill.” To hear more of the conversation, including where the Tiger King is at in his trial, watch the episode above. Want more 'Normal World'?To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

James David Vance, who grew up in Appalachia and Middle America, is used to being underestimated by the elite. Democrats and the media attack him as “weird,” and the far-right hurls racist remarks at his wife. His new boss, Donald Trump, said, “The choice of vice president makes no difference. ... You’re voting for the president. You’re voting for me.” That isn’t entirely true. Here is why JD Vance matters.The Constitution doesn’t give the vice president much to do other than preside over the Senate, and should the vote be equally divided, the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote. Lyndon Johnson was the “Master of the Senate” in 1960 and a man who coveted power, so it baffled many when he accepted the nomination for vice president, the “weakest” seat of power in government. When Clare Boothe Luce asked why he took the job, Johnson famously replied, “Clare, I looked it up: One out of every four presidents has died in office. I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got.”Trump has now surpassed Joe Biden as the oldest person ever nominated for president. The odds that he'll finish his term are stacked against him.And for that reason, the vice president is very important. When you vote for Trump, the oldest presidential candidate nominated by a major party in history, you’re also voting for Vance.History changes fast when the vice president becomes president. When William Henry Harrison died, Vice President John Tyler seized the opportunity to cement his name in history. At that time, some believed Tyler should only be president until a new election was held or Congress decided otherwise. Tyler’s ambitious assumption of the role set what became known as the “Tyler precedent.”Tyler’s political views differed significantly from his predecessor and his party. Tyler advocated states’ rights while the Whig Party supported a larger federal system, which included infrastructure projects and a national bank. He vetoed several bills passed by the Whig-dominated Congress, causing his Cabinet to resign in protest and leading to his expulsion from the Whig Party. But Tyler didn’t let that deter him. His ambition for extending America’s territory and securing states’ rights led to the annexation of Texas through a joint resolution, which kicked off a chain of events that culminated with the Civil War.Tyler isn’t the only vice president to change the course of history. When Andrew Johnson took over after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, he scaled back the ambitious reconstruction project Lincoln and his right-hand man, Edwin Stanton, had prepared. Instead of focusing on rebuilding the war-ravaged country, Johnson and Republicans went to legislative war with each other.Republicans passed the Tenure of Office Act, which restricted the president’s power to remove certain officeholders without the Senate’s approval. Johnson believed the law was unconstitutional and decided to challenge it by replacing Stanton. Republicans in the House responded by impeaching Johnson, passing 11 articles in February 1868. The Senate, however, fell short of convicting and removing Johnson by just one vote.After William McKinley was assassinated in 1901, Teddy Roosevelt took over and turned the tides on big business. McKinley was famously backed by wealthy industrialists (who some described as robber barons). His campaign manager, Mark Hanna, once said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” The trusts that funded McKinley’s campaign were the ones T.R. busted when he became president.When Franklin Roosevelt’s health was failing during the 1944 election, and war was still raging in Europe and the Pacific, administration and party bosses wanted a vice president who would be widely accepted as president and keep the country united. They replaced the progressive Henry A. Wallace with the more moderate Harry Truman. Truman’s steady hand calmed anxious Americans, oversaw the end of the war, and played a vital role in establishing the United Nations to prevent future conflicts.Lyndon Johnson’s bet paid off when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, helping him reach the pinnacle of power he craved. He continued Kennedy’s civil rights policies by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also launched the Great Society, expanded federal government and welfare programs, and escalated the Vietnam War with broad military powers granted by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In 1965, while Johnson was still president, Congress passed the 25th Amendment, codifying the “Tyler precedent” and empowering the vice president and a majority of Cabinet officials to remove the president if he is unfit for office.It’s not surprising Trump isn’t aware how important the vice president is. Like LBJ, Trump is a master of power but often lacks the historical knowledge necessary to wield it effectively for anyone but himself and his interests. Trump has now surpassed Joe Biden as the oldest person ever nominated for president. He’s been impeached twice. He’s had COVID and survived an assassination attempt. The odds that he'll finish his term are stacked against him.Vance is keenly aware of the power of the vice presidency. He has argued that Harris and the Cabinet should invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Biden. “If Joe Biden can’t run for president, he can’t serve as president and, if they want to take him down because he’s mentally incapable of serving, invoke the 25th Amendment,” Vance said last month.Because of the precedent set by John Tyler and others, and concerns about Trump's health and competency, Vance would wield significant power as vice president. If he invoked the 25th Amendment should Trump become ill or unfit for office, it would likely divide the country even further.The key question then becomes: Who is JD Vance, and what does he really stand for? Is he a moderate like Truman, who balanced competing factions, or a radical like Johnson and Tyler, who imposed his policies on the American public through sheer determination and manipulation of power? We need a better sense of the man in the next three months.

WORD SALAD: As Our Savings Crash, at Least Twitter Had Some Fun With #KamalaExplainsTheStockMarket

Kamala Harris Says Like Everybody Has to Stay Woke, Then Cackles

UK Secretary of State Says Citizens Mad About Migrant Violence Will 'Pay the Price' for Speaking Out