Connect with us

Politics

Democrats’ Meltdown Over Trump Immunity Case Proves SCOTUS Is Right To Hear It

Published

on

On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court agreed to review former President Donald Trump’s argument that he is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump.

The justices will hear the argument the week of April 22, and a decision is expected by the end of June. Despite there having been no noted dissents from the Supreme Court’s order, anti-Trump legal analysts seethed over the decision. Special Counsel Jack Smith had urged the justices to review the case in December and to bypass any decision by the appellate court. MSNBC pundit Elie Mystal referred to six justices as “six Republicans in robes.” Vox’s Ian Millhiser fumed that the court had “just handed Trump an astonishing victory.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow characterized the decision as “bullpucky.” Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard expressed the fear that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Many other leftists lambasted the ruling, but Tribe’s attack illustrates the reason why these individuals are so irate. Suppose Trump were not a candidate for the presidency. It is highly unlikely that Smith and his fellow anti-Trumpers would be flailing about desperately in an attempt to bring this case to

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Leftist ‘Voter Guide’ Group Pushes Its Way Into Universities

Published

on

A left-wing “voter guide” group is contacting professors, attempting to place biased content in universities. The group claims its content is “nonpartisan.”

“We have made it simple to incorporate our guides and resources into your existing curriculum,” wrote Claire Adams, campus and youth programs director for Guides.Vote, in an email to a professor, obtained by The Federalist. “We hope you’ll check out our guides and use our resources to help your students vote.”

Adams apparently emailed college professors on Sept. 12, pitching content from Guides.Vote for use in the classroom. Youth Service America is the “fiscal host for the Guides.Vote initiative,” YSA Vice President of Partnerships Michael Minks told The Federalist. According to InfluenceWatch, YSA is a left-wing group that mobilizes youth to “influence elections.”

“With Higher Education in mind, our FREE resources have been created to be easily embedded in Canvas, or any other LMS [Learning Management System],” Adams wrote. “We would love to support you, your students, and your campus voter engagement efforts.”

She advertised “printable guides” and an “interactive quiz where students can guess where the presidential candidates really stand.” 

While the group claims its voter resources are “nonpartisan,” the guides indicate a clear bias in favor of left-wing candidates.

Promoting Democrat Candidates

Guides.Vote offers a guide contrasting former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris for November’s election.

One issue is “How to ensure effectiveness and fairness in law enforcement?”

The group said Trump thinks “police are ‘under siege.’ Cut back active federal oversight of

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Election Integrity Advocates Can Inspect South Carolina Voter Rolls, Federal Judge Rules

Published

on

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled Wednesday that an election integrity advocacy organization has the right to review the state’s voter rolls for ineligible voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr., an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) could not block the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) from reviewing the Palmetto State’s voter rolls, despite it being an out-of-state organization.

Because voter rolls are a matter of public information under federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the SEC could not block PILF from reviewing its Statewide Voter Registration List (SVRL), the court’s opinion explained.

“South Carolina’s prohibition on the distribution of the SVRL to only eligible South Carolina voters conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that all records concerning maintenance and accuracy activities be made available for ‘public inspection,’” Anderson wrote. “Because adherence to South Carolina law would frustrate application of the Federal mandate, the state law must yield.”

The SEC, South Carolina’s executive agency responsible for administering elections, argued that state law would prohibit PILF from obtaining the voter records because the group is not a “qualified elector” in South Carolina. It therefore blocked PILF’s initial request for the data in February.

PILF is not a South Carolina voter, but “describes itself as a ‘public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity’ which ‘protects the right to vote and preserves the Constitutional framework of American elections through litigation, investigation, research, and education,’” the opinion noted.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. To Appeal Decision Letting Michigan’s Secretary Of State Keep Him On The Ballot

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said today he will appeal a federal court’s decision allowing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to keep him on the ballot despite his withdrawal from the presidential race. 

Judge Denise Hood, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denied Kennedy’s attempt Wednesday to keep Benson from adding him to the ballot. According to The Detroit News, Kennedy notified Hood today that he would be appealing the ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy announced last month he would drop out of the race, withdrawing his name from the ballot in swing states like Michigan in hopes of helping former President Donald Trump defeat Vice President Kamala Harris. 

But Benson refused to take Kennedy off the ballot, citing concerns that the Natural Law Party — with which Kennedy was running — could not nominate another candidate before November, as The Federalist previously reported. Since then, Kennedy and Benson have been battling in court. Similar obstacles to Kennedy’s withdrawal have cropped up in other states. 

“The harm incurred by Defendant, the Natural Law Party, and Michigan voters outweighs that felt by Plaintiff if he is prohibited from withdrawing,” Hood wrote in the latest ruling. “Plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Michigan is approaching election deadlines. According to the Detroit Free Press, county clerks must deliver absentee ballots to local clerks by Saturday, and “absentee ballots must be available to the general public by next Thursday.”

The Ruling

Kennedy asked the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending