Connect with us

Politics

Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS Tenure Has Been Disappointing (So Far)

Published

on

Many conservatives and constitutional legal scholars were excited when Amy Coney Barrett was elevated to the Supreme Court nearly four years ago.

Having clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, the Catholic mother of seven seemed like the perfect fit to replace leftist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Speaking of her former boss, Barrett once said, “His judicial philosophy is mine too: A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

Combined with her fairly solid track record while on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, these facts made it appear that Barrett’s jurisprudence would align with that of originalist Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In the years since joining the nation’s highest court, however, Barrett has produced a judicial record more akin to that of a moderate than a true originalist. In several high-profile cases, she’s abandoned originalism and sided with the court’s Democrat appointees in legislating from the bench — so much so that she’s now viewed as a swing vote on contentious matters before the court.

In Barrett, conservatives hoped they were getting another Thomas or Alito. What they got instead is a female version of Chief Justice John Roberts or Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Recent Cases

Finding cases documenting Barrett’s disappointing SCOTUS record doesn’t require much digging. Her abdication of originalist jurisprudence was very apparent during the high court’s 2023-2024 session.

Barrett authored the majority opinion in Murthy v.

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

Politics

Report: 647K Noncitizens Convicted Or Suspected Of Homicide, Other Crimes Are Not In ICE Custody

Published

on

More than 647,000 illegal immigrants convicted or suspected of sexual assault, homicide, and other heinous crimes are roaming free in the United States, federal immigration authorities confirmed on Wednesday.

The revelation came in a letter sent to Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director Patrick Lechleitner. The data disclosed by the agency showed that as of July 2024, there are 425,431 noncitizens convicted of criminal offenses, many of them serious, and 222,141 noncitizens with pending criminal charges who are currently not in ICE custody.

According to Fox News, “Those include 62,231 convicted of assault, 14,301 convicted of burglary, 56,533 with drug convictions and 13,099 convicted of homicide,” as well as “[a]n additional 2,521 [with] kidnapping convictions and 15,811 [with] sexual assault convictions.”

Those with pending charges are facing allegations of similar offenses.

In his communique to Gonzales, Lechleitner contended that the Department of Homeland Security “removed or returned more than 893,600 individuals” from the United States from “mid-May 2023 through the end of July 2024” and that the “majority of all individuals encountered at the Southwest Border over the past three years have been removed, returned, or expelled.”

The acting agency head also took an apparent swipe at Democrat-run “sanctuary cities,” writing that “‘sanctuary’ policies can end up shielding dangerous criminals, who often victimize those same communities.”

As noted by Fox News, the Biden-Harris administration has released many illegal aliens “who came to the

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

Continue Reading

Politics

NY Judges Scrutinize ‘Troubling’ $450 Million Penalty In Trump Fraud Case: ‘No One Lost Any Money’

Published

on

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered in February former President Donald Trump to pay an approximate $450 million penalty in a civil fraud case in which there were no victims. Now, a New York appellate court is raising questions regarding the “troubling” penalty and Attorney General Letitia James’ justification for bringing the case in the first place.

James accused Trump of inflating his personal wealth to get better loan terms. Trump, for example, valued his Mar-a-Lago estate at between $427 million and $612 million, Forbes reported. Engoron, however, cited a one-off local Palm Beach County appraiser who valued the property as low as $18 million. Some experts have reportedly valued the sprawling property in the hundreds of millions.

As my colleague Mark Hemingway explained earlier this year, “Trump took out loans over several years, as real estate moguls are wont to do. For him to get approved for those loans, the banks did their own due diligence about Trump’s finances and ability to pay back the loans and decided to give them to him. Trump paid back the loans, and everyone made money.”

Enogoron ultimately ordered Trump to pay $354 million plus an additional $100 million in interest. Trump posted a $175 million bond in April and appealed the ruling.

[READ NEXT: Judge Engoron’s Inflation Of Trump’s ‘Ill-Gotten Gains’ Is The Real Financial Fraud]

Trump’s team argued on Thursday before the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department that the case was a “clear-cut violation of the statute

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Washington Post’s Incurious Philip Bump Says The Media Should Just Give Kamala The ‘Benefit Of The Doubt’

Published

on

Because the national news media can’t be bothered to actually scrutinize Kamala Harris’ campaign — they’re trying to help her win, after all — they instead choose to scrutinize anyone else who tries.

That’s why rather than sincerely look into Kamala’s relatively new biographical claim that she once slung Happy Meals working at a McDonald’s, The Washington Post’s most willfully obtuse writer, Philip Bump, decided that this week his energy was best spent belittling anyone who questions it — most notably, Kamala’s opponent, Donald Trump.

“Since Trump has been saying that the McDonald’s story isn’t true,” Bump wrote Thursday, “a lot of his supporters are saying it too, rushing to prove that Harris was being dishonest about her McDonald’s employment with the same intellectual rigor that they applied to uncovering voter fraud and pet eating.”

To the extent that Bump had any interest at all in the unsubstantiated “french fries and ice cream” tale Kamala relays to make herself seem humble and relatable, it was to prove that he couldn’t prove whether it’s true even if he wanted to. “Over the course of this week,” he wrote, “I spent some time looking into the story myself — not because I doubted Harris’s claim (since there’s no real reason to doubt it) but because I was curious if it was provable.”

This is what the national media do anytime a Republican or right-leaning news publication raises a legitimate issue that might be politically harmful to voters of the Democrat Party. They dismiss the controversy

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

Continue Reading

Trending