Winning elections means nothing if you cannot or will not do the right thing while in office. The whole point of winning is to use your power to do the right thing.
Raymond Kethledge, the federal appellate court judge whom Trump has reportedly interviewed for the Supreme Court, is a man of faith and fierce defender of a religious liberty, a former appellate clerk for Kethledge writes.
Now that Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired, President Trump owes it to us to continue keeping his promise to appoint justices in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia, a promise that likely got Trump elected.
Barring extreme circumstances, my employment is guaranteed, yet I cannot receive any performance-based raises or bonuses.
If Kavanaugh’s views were adopted by other courts, then other frivolous claims attacking religion in the public square would have a better chance of being heard in federal courts.
As a result of their shared philosophies, Ray Kethledge and Neil Gorsuch are staunch defenders of religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the separation of powers.
It is not news that the Left wants to shut us up. But now the leading publication of the mainstream Left is openly coming out against the First Amendment.
If you’re under the impression that the system exists for your partisan agenda, it’s not surprising you believe it’s broken every time you lose an election.
The powerful defense of free speech Kennedy delivered in one of his final cases shows a path forward for a nation struggling with severe partisan divides.
Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.
They underscore the right not to be compelled to worship at the government’s altar, speak the government’s message, or join the government’s associations.
The Left expected Anthony Kennedy to not only write and join progressive decisions, but also to chain himself to his chair like a protester until a Democrat won the presidency.
Which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will? Kavanaugh did both.
In an opinion article posing as a news story, The New York Times launches an illiberal and wrongheaded attack on free speech. At least we know where they stand.
If judges are a vindication of Trump, are they also a vindication of Mitch McConnell? And if so, does a good Supreme Court really compensate for a lousy Congress?
‘Nationwide injunctions mean that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can freeze a law or regulation throughout the country — regardless of whether the other 599 disagree.’
Ten particularly outstanding candidates from the list come to mind: five from the South; four from the Midwest; and one establishment pick from the Beltway.
Despite—or perhaps because of—Alliance Defending Freedom’s strong record of legitimacy at the U.S. Supreme Court, SPLC has ridiculously dubbed it a ‘hate group.’
Justice Kennedy’s vote, so often featured in 5-4 decisions, changed the country in fundamental ways. Now Trump will have a court-redefining legacy.
Some on the left have already called the Supreme Court’s ruling an endorsement of discrimination. But people who make such accusations clearly didn’t read either the original executive order or the court’s opinion.
- Just Like Obama, Trump’s Russia Policy Speaks Louder Than His WordsFormer president of Russian target Georgia: After a lifcontinue reading >
- What To Learn From The Social Justice Warrior Who Was Eaten By His Own MobMob compliance is a vicious and deadly cycle. The only continue reading >
- Pushed Hard Left By Their Base, Are Democrats Self-Destructing?The November midterms should be an easy win for Democracontinue reading >