History was full of important figures who made a difference in the world. Some even led revolutions made huge scientific discoveries or were part of prestigious royal families. While most people likely remember these figures for their achievements‚ they may not remember just how beautiful they were to look at. During their young adult years‚ history's own Amelia Earhart‚ Buster Keaton... Source

Ever since losing control of the Supreme Court to a nominally conservative majority‚ many of the same liberals who have brazenly called for “packing the court” are now just as brazenly seeking to unpack it. If ever there was proof that the Left views the Supreme Court as just another legislative body to lobby for their agenda‚ it’s their shameless efforts to pressure liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor‚ 69‚ to retire before the presidential election in November so President Joe Biden can nominate a younger—and equally or more liberal—replacement. According to a pair of March 27 articles in The Huffington Post and at AboveTheLaw.com‚ two leftist law professors are among the loudest voices calling for Sotomayor’s resignation. “I would love to see Sotomayor retire‚” one of them‚ Lucas Powe Jr.‚ a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “I would love to trade her for a 50-year-old justice.” That’s because the Left supports what I’ve dubbed “outcome-based adjudication” (akin to outcome-based education). They view an unelected Supreme Court majority—as few as five votes—as a superlegislature for enacting their radical agenda‚ most of which it can’t get through Congress. (The foremost example of that was the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015 in which a 5-to-4 majority—including Sotomayor—by judicial fiat legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.) The Left’s outcome-based adjudication is also reflected in how Sotomayor and the two other current liberal justices‚ all appointed by Democratic presidents‚ vote in utterly predictable lockstep on all of the most controversial and consequential issues that come before the high court. Just as an aside‚ the same cannot be said of the six moderate and conservative justices‚ who from time to time stray off the reservation and vote with the liberal bloc—to the consternation of the Right. For example‚ it was an appointee of a Republican president‚ then-Justice Anthony Kennedy‚ who gave the four lockstep liberals on the court at the time the fifth vote in Obergefell. Similarly‚ Sotomayor—a 2009 appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama—replaced David Souter‚ who regularly sided with the court’s liberals‚ much to the chagrin of the GOP president‚ George H.W. Bush‚ who appointed him. But I digress. The Left’s push to bully Sotomayor into retirement was inspired by the fear of a reprise of then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s unwillingness to resign amid a long-running battle with cancer‚ which she ultimately lost. A far-left feminist‚ Ginsburg refused to step down before the end of Obama’s administration. She was reportedly holding out to be replaced with a like-minded uberliberal justice to be appointed by what she hoped would be the first female president in Hillary Rodham Clinton. That miscalculation backfired bigly‚ with Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump. Ginsburg then sought to outlast Trump’s presidency. After Ginsburg died at age 87 at the height of the 2020 presidential election campaign‚ Trump got to replace her with another woman‚ albeit one much less liberal in Amy Coney Barrett. (That Barrett has been praised for her “surprising independence” by liberal Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is further proof that justices appointed by GOP presidents are far less likely than their liberal counterparts to vote in lockstep.) Trump’s getting a third pick was more than the Left could bear‚ especially after then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell‚ R-Ky.‚ four years earlier had refused to allow a Senate confirmation hearing or vote on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland as the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement in 2016. (Though they criticized McConnell for doing that‚ had the situation been reversed‚ Senate Democrats surely would have done the same thing.) To put the Left’s “Sotomayor must go” campaign in further context‚ there was no comparable effort by the Right to pressure conservative Justice Clarence Thomas‚ then 72‚ to resign during the 2020 campaign—or even during the lame-duck period of Trump’s presidency—even though at the time Republicans still controlled the Senate and could have gotten a younger conservative replacement confirmed and seated. “Sotomayor has been an outstanding justice‚ but the Ruth Bader Ginsburg precedent ought to be extremely sobering‚” University of Colorado at Boulder law professor Paul Campos was quoted as saying by The Huffington Post. “The cost of her failing to be replaced by a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate would be catastrophic‚” Campos added‚ making all too clear where he falls on the ideological spectrum. To date‚ no Senate Democrats have joined the calls for the self-styled “wise Latina” to step aside—at least not publicly. But that might be only because they dread being hoisted on their own intersectional identitarian political petards. “[T]hey’ll have to get over their fear of being called racist or sexist or ageist‚” wrote Josh Barro in a March 18 article for The Atlantic with a title indicating he has no such qualms: “Sonia Sotomayor Should Retire Now.” As of now‚ the only other thing missing in the pressure campaign to get Sotomayor to step down is a version of the Left’s ubiquitous‚ inane rhyming couplet chants—in this case‚ “Hey‚ hey&;#33; Ho‚ ho&;#33;/Justice Sotomayor’s got to go&;#33;” In the final analysis‚ whether Sotomayor stays or goes could come down to two factors: whether she regards herself as irreplaceable as Ginsburg apparently did—and who wins in November. If it’s Biden‚ Sotomayor would have the luxury of stepping down at anytime in the ensuing four years. If‚ however‚ Trump is returned to the Oval Office and if Democrats lose control of the Senate (which the odds favor this cycle)‚ she could try to outlast his term—or she could quit the court in November‚ while a lame-duck majority leader‚ Sen. Chuck Schumer‚ D-N.Y.‚ could still get her replacement confirmed by the lockstep liberals in his Senate caucus. Originally published at WashingtonTimes.com The post ‘Unpacking’ the Court: Why the Left Wants Sotomayor Gone appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After the revelation of flyers at a Mexican shelter reminding unlawful border crossers “to vote for President Biden‚” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas couldn’t tell Congress on Tuesday how his department could safeguard U.S. elections from illegal voting by foreigners.  “We do not oversee the election enrollment process‚” Mayorkas told the House Homeland Security Committee. “What we do is enforce our borders.” The House voted to impeach Mayorkas in February for failure to enforce border laws. House members delivered the two articles of impeachment Tuesday to the Senate‚ where the Democrat majority wasn’t expected to hold a trial.   Late Monday‚ The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project posted the content of the flyers using video of copies displayed by a nongovernmental organization called Resource Center Matamoros in Tamaulipas‚ Mexico‚ and discovered by the news outlet Muckraker. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.) These flyers were discovered by @realmuckraker throughout the Resource Center Matamoras (RCM) location including on the walls of port-a-pottiesThey also appear to be handed out when illegal aliens use the RCM for assistance in coming to the USA pic.twitter.com/hvlkwOI5Xs— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) April 16‚ 2024 It’s not clear whether Resource Center Matamoros authorized the flyers or did anything to remove them from the shelter for migrants. RCM Executive Director Gaby Zavala didn’t respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this report.  Resource Center Matamoros describes itself as “a leading non-governmental organization providing trauma-informed care.” Translated from Spanish‚ the Oversight Project notes‚ the flyers posted at Resource Center Matamoros say: “Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States. We need another four years of his term to stay open.”  During the hearing held Tuesday by the Homeland Security Committee‚ Rep. Dan Bishop‚ R-S.C.‚ asked about the Oversight Project’s findings‚ with a cardboard cutout behind him showing the contents of the flyer.  How do we know the election won’t turn on the votes of illegal aliens&;#63; We don’t.I demanded answers from Mayorkas on the NGO flyers encouraging illegals to vote revealed by @OversightPR. pic.twitter.com/3IZnTUfECi— Rep. Dan Bishop (@RepDanBishop) April 16‚ 2024 RCM has disputed the authenticity of the flyers‚ Bishop said‚ and asked Mayorkas what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to ensure that foreign citizens aren’t illegally voting in federal elections‚ considering the millions of illegal border crossers encountered by the Border Patrol plus about 2 million known “gotaways.”  “Congressman‚ individuals who are not citizens of the United States cannot vote in federal elections‚” Mayorkas answered.  “That’s not what I asked‚” Bishop said. “I asked what actions DHS is taking to ensure that that doesn’t occur.” Mayorkas said it’s up to local governments. “I believe that it is state and local election officials that monitor the eligibility of individuals‚” Mayorkas said. “We do not oversee the election enrollment process. What we do is enforce our borders.” Not satisfied‚ Bishop followed up again.   “How can Congress and the American people have confidence that the outcome of close elections will not turn on the votes of noncitizens who have registered and voted unlawfully&;#63;” Bishop asked.  Again‚ Mayorkas didn’t have a direct answer. “Congressman‚ election security is one of our priorities in the distribution of federal grant funds to state and local jurisdictions‚” Mayorkas said. “We have made election security a priority.” Federal law prohibits foreign nationals‚ or non-U.S. citizens‚ from voting in federal elections. On Friday‚ former President Donald Trump endorsed legislation proposed by House Speaker Mike Johnson‚ R-La.‚ that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in elections. On its website‚ Resource Center Matamoras describes itself as a six-unit office complex that is “the home for HIAS‚ which is providing legal assistance and assistance with obtaining formal documents for job search and integration into the city of Matamoros [in Mexico] as they wait to access the asylum process in the U.S.” Secretary Mayorkas worked with dark money NGOs to finance the illegal alien invasion of America.This is an act of treason.The House already impeached Mayorkas‚ but Chuck Schumer must hold the trial to REMOVE him from office.Mayorkas should not serve in our government. pic.twitter.com/pJsHHUJCHp— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene&;#63;&;#63; (@RepMTG) April 16‚ 2024 HIAS‚ which originally stood for Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society‚ was founded more than 100 years ago to help Jews fleeing persecution in Europe.  Mayorkas is a former board member of HIAS‚ as The Daily Signal reported Monday night. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ R-Ga.‚ brought up his involvement during the House hearing‚ calling it a “bombshell report.” “They are telling illegal aliens‚ noncitizens‚ to come vote for Joe Biden‚” Greene said. “This is corruption at the deepest level. As a matter of fact‚ I would call it treason.”   In a separate House Judiciary hearing‚ Rep. Andrew Clyde‚ R-Ga.‚ asked Attorney General Merrick Garland about the flyer urging illegal aliens to vote for Biden. Clyde held up the flyer. “That’s what this poster says;[it] reminds illegal immigrants to vote for President Biden‚” Clyde said. “So‚ is the Department of Justice concerned about illegal aliens voting in elections&;#63;” AG Garland claims that he’s never seen the startling flyer encouraging illegals to vote for Joe Biden.Now that he has‚ it’s time for the DOJ to investigate.NO illegal alien should EVER vote in the United States of America. pic.twitter.com/kBLeSf9w4Y— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) April 16‚ 2024 Garland replied that he wasn’t familiar with the message to illegal immigrants to vote for Biden. “The Department of Justice is concerned about any illegalities concerning voting‚” the attorney general said. “I’ve never seen that poster. I’ve never heard of that poster. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard anybody mention that poster.” Clyde responded‚ “Well‚ now you have.” The post After Discovery of ‘Vote for Biden’ Flyers in Mexico‚ Mayorkas Can’t Say How to Stop Illegal Aliens From Voting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra refused on Tuesday to condemn or even distance himself from abortions of unborn babies who are ready to be delivered. During a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday‚ Becerra repeatedly told Sen. John Kennedy that he supports the abortion limitations that were encompassed in Roe v. Wade‚ which the Supreme Court overturned in June 2022‚ when asked if he supports aborting babies up until the moment of birth. Kennedy‚ R-La.‚ pressed Becerra: “Would you support making it illegal to abort a baby‚ if the mother is healthy‚ and the baby is healthy‚ on the day before that baby is scheduled to be born&;#63;” WATCH: .@SenJohnKennedy to HHS Secretary Becerra: &;quot;Would you support making it illegal to abort a baby‚ if the mother is healthy‚ and the baby is healthy‚ on the day before that baby is scheduled to be born&;#63;&;quot;Becerra refuses to directly answer. pic.twitter.com/uSuX9RO1NI— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 16‚ 2024 The HHS secretary would not directly respond to the question‚ claiming that no one wants to get abortions so late in pregnancy. “I certainly would support the reestablishment of Roe v. Wade‚” he responded‚ adding‚ “Senator‚ if you talk to any woman‚ she’ll tell you that she uses common sense in making her decisions.” Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt similarly pressed the HHS secretary on Kennedy’s line of questioning. “If Roe v. Wade were the law of the land‚ and a woman wanted to take the life of her child the day before her child was due‚ or the day after her child was due‚ then you support her ability to do that&;#63;” She followed up on this by adding: “There’s seven states in this country‚ and the District of Columbia‚ that allow you to take the life of a child the moment before a child is born‚ so clearly you support a woman’s right to choose to do that&;#63;” Becerra told Britt that the example she gave was “fiction.” “Can you give me a particular example&;#63;” he asked. “If it actually is fiction‚ then why not say no&;#63;” she asked. “That that is out of the realm of possibility&;#63;” WATCH: HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra refused today to condemn the abortion of a baby that is about to be born: “The example you gave is fiction.”@SenKatieBritt: “Then why not say no&;#63;” pic.twitter.com/kLQFnZl1HS— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 16‚ 2024 Britt then went on to passionately describe a graphic abortion procedure in which the abortionist crushes and dismembers the unborn baby‚ delivering the baby breech‚ opening the baby’s head with scissors‚ and sucking out the baby’s body. “If that child is then delivered alive‚ do you believe that the child on that table‚ that we should be able to save that child‚ or do you believe that our taxpayer dollars give this woman the right to say‚ ‘don’t save my child&;#63;'” she asked. Becerra is among many officials in President Joe Biden’s administration who refuse to specify what abortion restrictions‚ if any‚ that they support. Becerra did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal. The post WATCH: HHS Secretary Won’t Condemn Abortions Up Until Birth appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union—like most communist parties—came to power as the great defender of workers. In reality‚ the Soviet Communist Party didn’t give a hoot about Russian workers. The party was nothing more than a totalitarian organization that used workers to gain power—and then suppressed the proletariat‚ just as it suppressed every other group. One of the first things the Soviet Communist Party did after attaining power was disband independent labor unions and prohibit workers’ strikes. Yes‚ the “workers’ party” banned strikes. The one major exception was the Chinese Communist Party‚ which came to power as the great defender of peasants. And the CCP slaughtered about 60 million of them. This has been the modus operandi of every left-wing group everywhere: Claim concern for some group‚ and use that group to fool people—specifically‚ naive liberals‚ who share few values with the Left‚ but have frequently served as useful idiots for the Left. Liberals do so to this day. Teachers Unions Teachers unions are nothing more than left-wing groups that use alleged concern for students to attain and retain power. The reality‚ however‚ is while they care about teachers‚ they harm students far more than they help them. One example is teachers unions’ opposition to school choice. Those who actually care about students support the right of parents to choose their children’s schools—just as many teachers do when they send their own children to schools of their choice. A second example is teachers unions’ making it nearly impossible to fire incompetent teachers. A third example was teachers unions’ demands that schools lock down for nearly two years during the COVID-19 era. The unions did so despite there being no scientific evidence in support of school lockdowns and despite ample warnings that many children would suffer intellectually‚ scholastically‚ emotionally and psychologically. Moreover‚ wrote John H. Cochrane of the Hoover Institution in The Wall Street Journal‚ “When schools went remote‚ parents found out what was actually going on inside the classrooms. Teachers were coaching students to hate themselves‚ their country and their religious traditions‚ and sexualizing young children.” The last point brings us to a fourth example: Teachers rob young students of their sexual innocence with premature talk of‚ and books that deal with‚ overt sexual activity‚ and the infamous use of drag queens to perform in front of children as young as 6 years old. Just how left-wing teachers organizations are was made clear by the sympathetic left-wing magazine The Nation in January: A rank-and-file campaign inside the National Education Association is demanding the president stop “sending military funding‚ equipment‚ and intelligence to Israel.” … But the rank-and-file campaign goes beyond [that]. … Members want the [National Education Association] to revoke its endorsement of Joe Biden for the 2024 presidential race until the president … stops “sending military funding‚ equipment‚ and intelligence to Israel.” That was only two months after Oct. 7. Civil Rights Organizations Most civil rights organizations are also essentially left-wing groups. They use alleged concern for blacks to attain and retain power‚ but they harm blacks considerably more than they help them. A glaring example is the near-universal opposition of civil rights groups to school choice‚ despite the fact that black Americans overwhelmingly support it. According to a 2023 RealClear Opinion Research poll‚ 73% of blacks support school choice—2 percentage points more than whites. They do so because large majorities of black students in public schools perform far below grade-level standards. The reason the largest civil rights organization‚ the NAACP‚ opposes school choice has nothing to do with concern for blacks. It is that the left-wing position—again‚ the NAACP is a left-wing organization—on school choice is dictated by teachers unions. Other civil rights organizations’ positions that harm blacks include labeling as “racist” the most effective solution to racism‚ widespread colorblindness; supporting separate dorms and graduations for black college students; and support for lowering academic and professional standards to facilitate black advancement. Feminist Groups Feminist organizations are additional examples of essentially left-wing organizations. The group they use to attain and retain power is women. Just as other left-wing interest groups‚ they harm the group on whose behalf they allegedly fight—in this case‚ women—far more than they help them. The most obvious example is the support of major feminist organizations for men who say they are women participating in women’s sports. From the website of the National Women’s Law Center: The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) unequivocally supports the inclusion of trans women in women’s sports. And if you call yourself a feminist‚ you should‚ too. From the website of The Women’s Sports Foundation (WSF): The Women’s Sports Foundation supports the right of all athletes‚ including transgender athletes‚ to participate in athletic competition. In 2022‚ the WSF wrote a letter to the NCAA protesting any diminution of the right of biological males who say they are females to participate in women’s athletics. The letter was co-signed‚ as expected‚ by LGBTQIA+ organizations‚ but also by two major feminist organizations in addition to the Women’s Sports Federation: the National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. Damaging women has been the primary legacy of organized feminism for the past half-century. That there are more depressed women‚ especially young women‚ today than at any other time in modern American history is directly attributable to left-wing influence generally (no religion‚ no country‚ no future) and to feminist doctrines specifically: Career is more important than marriage and family‚ and women can do just fine without a man to love and be loved by. LGBTQIA+ Organizations Perhaps the ultimate example of left-wing contempt for the groups they claim to represent is “Queers for Palestine.” Palestinian queers have no rights. They face persecution and even death if they expose themselves to their society. Israeli queers are by far the safest‚ happiest‚ and freest in the Middle East. But hating Israel is the left-wing position. At any cost. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post How Left-Wing Organizations Betray the Groups They Claim to Represent appeared first on The Daily Signal.

America can’t move on from what happened during the mass government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. That was the message Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Liberty‚ Tyranny‚ and Accountability: COVID-19 and the Constitution.” Judiciary Chairman Chip Roy‚ R-Texas‚ said the government response to the pandemic triggered “some of the most aggressive usurpations of freedom [that] modern Americans have experienced.” The Texas Republican recounted a long list of repercussions from the official reaction to the pandemic‚ including trillions of dollars spent‚ lost jobs and businesses‚ lost confidence in public health officials‚ and general damage to society. An “apology” from the institutions that failed American society isn’t good enough and won’t change the irreparable harm done to the country‚ Roy said. “Our rights are not to be negotiated. No matter how much they try to change the subject or rewrite history‚ we should never forget what they did to us‚” he said. “We must not be the victim of another government science experiment ever again.” &;quot;Our rights are not to be negotiated. No matter how much they try to change the subject or rewrite history‚ we should never forget what they did to us.&;quot;&;quot;We must not be the victim of another government science experiment ever again.&;quot; #COVIDAccountabilityNOW pic.twitter.com/ATMubNOnKN— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) April 16‚ 2024 Harmeet Dhillon‚ a constitutional lawyer who is the founder and CEO of The Center for American Liberty‚ explained to lawmakers how guardrails provided by the U.S. Constitution were broken in the name of safety during the pandemic‚ which originated in China. She said the greatest threat to American civil rights in her lifetime arose from the “use of the so-called COVID emergency to eviscerate America’s most cherished‚ constitutionally protected freedoms.” Under the guise of a public health emergency‚ government officials used unlimited executive fiats to “rule and curtail every aspect of our lives‚” Dhillon said. She said these actions were not narrowly tailored or based on credible science. “The government closed our schools‚ locked down our houses of worship‚ destroyed our small businesses‚ criminalized our free speech‚ banned travel‚ kept us from our loved ones at their most desperate hours‚ even shut down the beaches in Orange County and the skateparks‚” Dhillon said‚ referring to the California jurisdiction. She said elected officials of both parties engaged in an unprecedented curtailment of liberty in America. Congress now must examine what happened during the pandemic and ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself‚ Dhillon added. Under the guise of the pandemic‚ the government closed schools and houses of worship‚ destroyed small businesses‚ and criminalized speech.&;#63;: @pnjaban's powerful testimony at today's hearing on government tyranny during the Covid-19 pandemic. pic.twitter.com/ejms7oCbwZ— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) April 16‚ 2024 Beanie Geoghegan‚ cofounder of the organization Freedom in Education and visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum‚ explained how school lockdowns derailed the education of countless young Americans‚ including her son’s. Geoghegan explained how K-12 students who suffered learning loss and other social maladies due to the extended lockdowns foisted on schools. “Public schools sent functionally illiterate and innumerate young people out into the workforce or world of higher education‚ woefully unprepared to thrive or flourish‚” she said in a written statement. “Too many young people today‚ especially young men‚ do not feel prepared to take on adult responsibilities or the challenges of college life.” Geoghegan also said that the way to move forward is not to reward institutions that failed students‚ but to give parents other options for educating their children.  “The solution to this problem was and is to allow families‚ not the government‚ to choose the best learning environment for their children‚” she said in the written testimony. “The families who had that choice during COVID-19 are mostly free from this fallout because their schools stayed open or reopened much more quickly than public schools.” The post Apologies for Government Response to COVID-19 Not Good Enough‚ Witnesses Say appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday of the government’s broad reading of a statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants‚ as well as former President Donald trump. The defendant in the case Fischer v. United States argued that the statute he was charged under‚ Section 1512(c)(2)‚ was expanded beyond its intended purpose of targeting crimes of evidence tampering. Multiple conservative justices pressed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on whether the government’s interpretation of the statute‚ which enabled it to charge Joseph Fischer and others for obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 election‚ would sweep in a range of other protest activities. “Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify&;#63;” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify or at the State of the Union address&;#63;” The statue threatens to levy up to 20 years in prison against anyone who corruptly “obstructs‚ influences‚ or impedes any official proceeding.” The Supreme Court’s decision could impact not only hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants‚ but also Trump’s election interference case. Two of the charges in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump center on the statute. Smith’s indictment argued that Trump employed “knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected‚ counted‚ and certified.” Multiple Jan. 6 defendants charged under Section 1512(c)(2) have already been granted early release in light of the Supreme Court taking up the case‚ including Kevin Seefried‚ Alexander Sheppard‚ and Thomas B. Adams Jr.‚ according to The Washington Post. Gorsuch asked whether pulling a fire alarm before a vote would also qualify for 20 years in prison under the statute‚ a likely reference to Democratic New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s September decision to pull a fire alarm before a House vote on a GOP funding package to prevent a government shutdown. Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of D.C. code related to the offense in October. Prelogar said “multiple elements of the statute” might not be satisfied by Gorsuch’s scenarios‚ noting the government would need to prove the defendant acted corruptly and with the intent of obstructing the proceeding. &;#63;&;#63;&;#63;&;#63;&;#63;&;#63;Justices Gorsuch and Alito just annihilated the entire foundation of Biden’s DOJ case against J6 protesters.They dunk on the US solicitor general with examples of unhinged leftist psychos disrupting official proceedings‚ and ask why those protesters were never charged.… pic.twitter.com/ovEMZqBbmZ— Meara (@MillennialOther) April 16‚ 2024 Justice Samuel Alito similarly questioned whether the statute could be used to charge someone in the courtroom who shouted during oral arguments‚ delaying the proceeding by five minutes. “We don’t think that 1512(c)2) two picks up minimal‚ de minimis minor interferences‚” Prelogar said. Of nearly 1‚387 Jan. 6 defendants‚ over 353 have been charged with “corruptly obstructing‚ influencing‚ or impeding an official proceeding‚” according to the DOJ. Justice Clarence Thomas asked when the government has applied the statute to other protests in the past. Prelogar said the Justice Department has not limited the statute’s use solely to crimes of evidence impairment‚ but noted she is not aware of a similar circumstance “ever happening prior to Jan. 6.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed amenable to a more middle-of-the-road solution. Barrett questioned whether the statute could be used to charge defendants for trying to “obstruct the arrival of the certificates arriving to the Vice President’s desk for counting‚” noting they would still be interfering with evidence in that hypothetical. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likewise suggested the government may still be able to charge defendants if they limited the statute in this manner‚ clarifying that it applies to conduct that would obstruct an official proceeding “insofar as it is directed to preventing access to information or documents or records or things that the official proceeding will use.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared more sympathetic to the government’s position. Kagan noted there has never “been a situation like this with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently.” “So I’m not sure what a lack of history proves‚” she said. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Biden DOJ’s Broad Use of Statute to Charge Jan. 6 Defendants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It Was All Propaganda: Bonobos MORE Aggressive Than Chimps

Grab Your Emotional Support Rabbit: Columbia's President to Testify About Anti-Semitism on Campus

Are the Mullahs Worried About a Revolt After Attack on Israel&;#63;