Roy Moore accuser admits writing part of yearbook inscription, had a motive to accuse the Senate hopeful

Reported here:

During her original press conference with Allred in November, in which she made her original accusation, Nelson read aloud and attributed the entire inscription to Moore, including the date and location. ... Moore has denied signing the yearbook and said he did not know Nelson at the time. Moore, who went on to become a judge and then the chief justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, later ruled against Nelson in a 1999 divorce case.

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg says Hillary lost in 2016 because of sexism, doesn't mention why Hillary lost in 2008

Black sexism, the hate that dare not speak its name.

Here:

CBS’s Charlie Rose asked Ginsburg at an event Tuesday night if she thought sexism contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Trump in 2016. “I have no doubt that it did,” she replied. Ginsburg said that while there were many elements that led to Clinton’s loss, sexism “was a major, major factor.”

"No free speech for fascists" is incoherent and Orwellian

Charles C. W. Cooke, here:

“No free speech for fascists” is an incoherent, almost Orwellian, position. Happily – and on a routinely “bipartisan” basis – the Supreme Court concurs.

Supremes intervene again to uphold Trump right to ban 24,000 refugees awaiting entry

From the story here:

The high court on Wednesday blocked Watson’s order as it applies to refugees, but not the expanded list of relatives. The justices said the federal appeals court in San Francisco should now consider the appeal. It’s not clear how quickly that will happen.

In the meantime, though, up to 24,000 refugees who already have been assigned to a charity or religious organization in the U.S. will not be able to use that connection to get into the country.

If an Hawaii judge can ignore the Supreme Court, Trump can ignore the Hawaii judge

Supreme Court to hear Trump travel ban case in October, lifts injunctions giving Trump a big victory

From the story here, nineteen lines in:

The action by the court is a victory for President Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency so far.

Mark Levin lies again, says Obamacare was passed under reconciliation when it wasn't

As if it's germane anyway. Levin is just trying to appear to respect the tradition of the Senate.

Well, Harry Reid did away with that by going nuclear on appointments.

And Mitch McConnell went nuclear on Gorsuch.

Two blows to tradition right there.

Like tits, if you've seen one you might as well see the other.

So, Mitch just needs to keep going nuclear.

The Republican Senate should simply jettison the filibuster rule, and pass repeal with the clean Republican majority.

Trump's instincts on this are correct on spending, which means on Obamacare as well, and on every bill which might come the Senate's way.

Then we can focus our attention on Paul Ryan, who hides behind the Senate's filibuster rule like a little boy hides behind his mommy's skirts to restrain what he does in the House.

US drone captures Afghan men having their way with a couple of goats

And you thought retired US Supreme Court Justice David Souter was a goat-fucking child molester.

We should have blown these sick bastards to kingdom come 16 years ago and not wasted one drop of American blood on them.

Video here.

The false question remains "Why did Trump win?"

Two examples from today.

Liz Peek of FOX reassured Steve Gruber this morning on his radio program in Michigan that Trump won in 2016 primarily because the voters were most concerned to ensure we had a Supreme Court seat filled by a Scalia clone.

And then Josh Brown assures his readers in the line up at Real Clear Markets that the most important reason was class warfare: a tax cut for the middle class and a big tax increase on rich speculators.

It's been five months since the election and we still can't agree about the political state of the country. Hint: libertarians don't agree about very much.

One could go on. Ann Coulter would tell you it was the promise of The Wall and an end to indiscriminate invasion by illegal aliens. Independent small business owners and self-employed people would tell you it was the promise of repeal of Obamacare. Veterans . . . veterans' affairs. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

These various opinions tell us more about the values of the individual coalitions Trump cobbled together to win, not why he won.

Meanwhile the narrow character of Trump's victory in key states, the result of former Democrat voters boycotting Hillary by the millions, goes underestimated by the winners . . . and the losers.

That's fairly typical, even for otherwise prudent presidents.

George Herbert Walker Bush thought victory in Kuwait made him golden, promptly raised taxes after we read his lips, and was shown the door.

The same will happen to Trump if he doesn't deliver on his program.

And because his program is a Duodetrigintapus, the question is really "How many of my twenty-eight legs can I get away with chopping off and still have enough left to strangle my opponent with in 2020"?

He's already cut off three. Repeal of Obamacare has failed. DACA has not been reversed (what, did they run out of pens in the White House?), and suddenly we have to burn $100 million worth of cruise missiles because someone used a politically incorrect weapon.

What's next, an assault weapon ban?

There's still plenty of time for Trump to prove that he isn't some suicidal sea monster.

But at the rate he's going he'll be a legless jellyfish by Christmas.

Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court 54-45

The roll call vote is here.

3 Democrats joined the Republicans in confirming despite the changing of the filibuster rule.

1 Republican did not vote.

The way to Obamacare repeal is through repeal of the filibuster

Harry Reid's fateful end of the filibuster in 2013 for lower court and executive branch nominees looks set to be ended also for the higher court.

Once accomplished, nothing in principle stands in the way of removing the filibuster rule for legislation.

And that means Obamacare can be repealed with a simple majority of Republicans.

From the story here:

And now, with political polarization at an extreme, the Senate is on the verge of killing off the Supreme Court filibuster, the one remaining vestige of bipartisanship on presidential appointments. For now the filibuster barrier on legislation will remain, though many fear it could be the next to go.

Those who lament this development should look to themselves.

Popular election of Senators from 1913 has made the Senate little more than a Super House, where the filibuster ended in 1842. The continuance of the filibuster in the Senate is thus an anachronism and a farce in an age of rule by 535 demagogues.

If anyone wishes to imbue the Senate with the supposed august character of its past, start by rescinding the popular election of its membership, thus making the Senate once again the creature of the states the constitution meant it to be.

For such a Senate the filibuster might once again become appropriate, but not for this one. 

Five 9th Circuit judges say fellow 3-judge panel usurped Trump's constitutional presidential rights

Here:

Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s [sic] abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

The Tell: The RNC fundraised me today on the Gorsuch nomination . . .

. . . not on the American Health Care Act.

Always fundraise on the winner.

Robert Barnes: Obama and his team face jeopardy if they got a FISA warrant by withholding information

From his carefully presented state of the case here at Lawnewz:

and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.

Supreme Court ruling in 2011 requiring releases from Calif. prisons to ease overcrowding results in officer slaying on Monday

The story is here.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented here, called it "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation's history": 

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation's history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

What? Roe v. Wade, which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents, was less radical? Overturning millennia of marriage law and the statutes of 30 states was less radical? Obliging people to engage in health insurance commerce was not a repudiation of centuries of contract law? 

Antonin Scalia was right to dissent in this one, but come on, Solomon he was not.

Hillary would have turned the entire federal judiciary into the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Michael Goodwin, here:

The activist judges who based their ruling on their liberal politics instead of the Constitution are the same kind she would appoint to the Supreme Court and all other federal courts if she were in the Oval Office.

Revulsion Election Update: Kansas City Star survey discovers revulsion for Hillary top reason people voted for Trump

Told ya.

Here:

Last week, I asked those who cast their vote for President Donald Trump to explain their choice in their own words. And respondents weren’t shy in the least. I was inundated with thoughtful replies — almost too many to read. It was Wednesday before I could come up for air.

It would be a serious understatement to say readers offered a wide variety of reasoning, but three general schools of thought stood out:

It’s the Clintons, stupid

Ron Gullickson put readers’ No. 1 reason most succinctly: “Let’s be clear. My vote was not a vote for Trump, but it was a vote against (Hillary) Clinton. Shame on both parties.”

Nancy McDowell wrote, “I voted for Donald Trump because I couldn’t stomach the Clintons back in the White House. ..."

Bryan Bauermeister wrote that he voted Trump “because I did not want Hillary Clinton as president of the United States. That’s what it boils down to. …"

Jan Bentley’s reasoning was varied . . . "I did not want to vote for him but the choice was horrid, so I voted against Hillary. Because I want the next Supreme Court justices to be conservatives. Because of Clinton fatigue. The Clintons are far too ethically challenged.”

Mike Henggeler . . . "So why did I want to stop the Clintons so badly? I was born in 1954, raised by staunch Democrat parents and, until a few months ago, was registered as a Democrat (now independent). The Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to what it used to be. It doesn’t stand for anything except itself and what it thinks it needs to do to win. And right there you have the Clintons, who have shown time and again that they will say anything and steamroll anyone who gets in their way.”

Jean Atwell cited Hillary Clinton’s reaction to her husband’s affairs. “I might have considered Clinton if she hadn’t stayed with a man who publicly humiliated her and her daughter,” she wrote. “She tells women that it is all right to stay with a man if it can possibly get you further in politics.”

The Courts had and have absolutely no business ruling on the president's travel ban, wrote FDR's former attorney general

Noted here:

Writing for the Supreme Court in 1948 (in Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman), Justice Robert Jackson — FDR’s former attorney general and the chief prosecutor at Nuremburg — explained that decisions involving foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are “political, not judicial” in nature. Thus, they are

wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.

John Hinderaker takes Gorsuch's reported "demoralization" comment seriously

Here.

So does Pat Buchanan, here, calling Gorsuch "a wimp". You can take the brawler out of the bar . . ..

Trump to issue new immigration order, defend previous one but not before Supremes

Reported one hour ago, here.