Posts Tagged ‘clinton’

Rule of Law: Why this election is a MUST WIN

Friday, October 7th, 2016

OCTOBER 7, 2016 31 Comments

By Aimee Pontier, Editor

The current presidential election is the most important one in decades, and it has little to do with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

It’s about the rule of law. And if Clinton wins, liberals will forever change the law of the land.

The Supreme Court, which began its 2016 term on Monday, has had a conservative majority since Richard Nixon landed in the Oval Office in 1968. During Nixon’s presidency, he appointed four conservative justices. Since that election, there has been no other president that has had the opportunity to completely alter the American legal landscape for decades.

Until now.

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left the Supreme Court at a standstill with eight justices; four conservatives and four liberals. The Court is waiting to hear multiple cases where constitutional rights are in question.

Whomever is nominated to break the current split will be a huge decision maker for years to come. But it doesn’t end there.

While Justice Scalia’s seat is currently the only one open, that will likely change in the very near future. There are three sitting justices that are 78 or older, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 83; Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80; and Justice Stephen Breyer, 78. This makes the chance of Supreme Court retirements in the next four years highly likely, at which point the sitting president would nominate replacements.

Nearly 50 years of unbroken conservative control of the Supreme Court is what is at stake in November. Should the Supreme Court become a liberal majority, things will never be the same.

Monumental cases are making their way to the high court for decisions that could either defend our constitution, or spit on it. It all depends on who is wearing the robe – conservative, or liberal — when the cases arrive.

Voting Rights

The court will hear an appeal during its 2016 term of a lower court’s ruling that the Texas law requiring photo identification to vote is discriminatory toward minorities and the poor. The court could also hear appeals in similar cases from North Carolina and Wisconsin. A vote that, with liberal majority, will definitely side with the lower court’s ruling, and an ID will not be required to vote, meaning voter fraud will be easier than ever to get away with.

Religious Freedom

The court has yet to schedule its hearing of the noteworthy religious case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, but it is on the docket for the current term. The church is appealing a decision which stated, due to separation of church and state, the government should not provide the church a grant to make playgrounds safer by using recycled tires. The church argues that the grant is for a completely secular purpose that would help the entire community, but the Missouri constitution forbids public money used, “in aid of any church.”

Public Restrooms

The Supreme Court is still deciding if it will hear an appeal to a lower court ruling in Virginia that says the school district must allow transgender use of the bathroom that matches the individual’s gender identity. If the court agrees to hear the appeal, the decision’s only hope of being overturned is a conservative majority court.


In Lynch v. Dimaya, the court will decide whether the federal law that requires deportation of non-citizens convicted of felonies involving “substantial risk” of violence is unconstitutionally vague. It’s a case that could allow convicted felons who aren’t U.S. citizens to remain in our country, and continue to disobey our laws.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a request from President Obama to appeal a 4-4 ruling in United States v. Texas,which rejected a proposal which would have shielded 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. The case could still return to the court in a later term.

Following the original ruling, Obama whined that the ruling would’ve been in his favor had Congress approved Merrick Garland for the court – only further affirming the importance of the upcoming justice pick.

A look at future cases to be heard highlights the importance of each member of the court. With one seat currently vacant and the high possibility of upcoming retirements, our next president could have an incredible amount of power in nominating justices. With either candidate, it’s safe to assume the court will take on a majority that falls in line with that nominee’s party.

The majority of the Supreme Court will last for generations, influencing our nation’s laws more than any president can influence in a single term.

This election is bigger than the two candidates, it’s about the entire landscape of lawmaking in this country for years to come.

— Aimee Pontier is the Editor of The Horn News

What do Lester Holt, James Comey and Loretta Lynch Have in Common?

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016

Answer? They are all in the tank for Clinton….

NBC News’ Lester Holt had his “Candy Crowley” moment at the first debate of the 2016 presidential election on Monday night, bowing to pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the liberal media by “fact-checking” Republican nominee Donald Trump on the question of his support for the Iraq War.

Holt lived up to the expectations of his peers. But he lived down to the worst expectations of conservatives, who routinely see Republican candidates treated unfairly by debate moderators.

Again and again, Holt asked Trump tough questions that were straight from the Clinton campaign’s talking points, and which were obvious set-ups for Clinton to attack (and for fact-checkers to pounce on whatever Trump asserted in his own defense).

Here are the five worst examples.

Tax returns. Holt never asked Clinton about her e-mail scandal, about Benghazi, or about the Clinton Foundation and its dubious dealings. But he did ask Trump about his tax returns, arguing — not asking — that there might be questionable information in them that the American public deserved to hear.

Birther conspiracy theory. Holt never asked Clinton about her past record of racist statements, including her “super-predator” remarks as First Lady, or her explicit appeal to “white Americans” in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama. Yet he asked Trump about the Birther conspiracy theory and cast it as racist.

Stop-and-frisk. After an exchange between the candidates over the policy of “stop-and-frisk,” Holt interjected to bolster Clinton’s point by stating, erroneously, that stop-and-frisk had ended in New York because it had been declared unconstitutional by a court. Trump countered, correctly, that the new mayor had canceled the policy before the litigation was over.

“A presidential look.” Towards the end of the debate, Holt asked Trump about what he meant by saying Hillary Clinton did not have “a presidential look.” He did so after noting that Clinton had become “the first woman” to be nominated for president by a major political party, thus setting Trump up as a sexist. As Trump answered, Holt interrupted him, then gave Clinton a chance to respond with her talking points about Trump’s past comments on women.

Iraq War. The question of whether Trump supported the Iraq War or not has been widely debated. What is beyond doubt is that Hillary Clinton voted for it. Holt only represented one side of the debate about Trump, and never asked Clinton about her own vote.

In addition, the audience repeatedly interjected — almost always in Clinton’s favor — and Holt did not stop them, though it was against the rules. He only stopped the audience when there were cheers for Trump calling for Clinton’s emails.

Bow again, Lester Holt. You did your job.

Trump vs. Clinton on Gun Rights

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

A fifth liberal Justice could kill the individual right to bear arms.
May 24, 2016 7:22 p.m. ET

Donald Trump is famous for his flights of political exaggeration, but every so often he lands on the truth. Witness his claim to the National Rifle Association on Friday that “the Second Amendment is on the ballot in November” and that Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

This has offended Mrs. Clinton’s media bodyguards who claim she merely favors background checks and minor regulation. Mrs. Clinton took to Twitter to claim that Mr. Trump is “wrong,” and “We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence.”

Let’s go to the audiotape.

If Mrs. Clinton “gets to appoint her judges, she will, as part of it, abolish the Second Amendment,” Mr. Trump told the NRA. He added that Mrs. Clinton had rebuked the Supreme Court for its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller establishing that the Second Amendment included an individual right to bear arms.

At a private fundraiser last year Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court for being “wrong on the Second Amendment.” One of her policy advisers, Maya Harris, tried to muddy that position this weekend by telling Bloomberg Politics that Mrs. Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

But that is a fudge. Heller explicitly allowed that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion did not sort through every possible regulation, but it did say that the individual right covers guns that are “in common use for lawful purposes.” And it overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. By implication Heller would also disallow the Clinton Administration’s ban on semi-automatic rifles used for hunting. That ban has since expired, though Mrs. Clinton supports reinstating it.

The question Mrs. Clinton is ducking is whether she agrees with Heller’s ruling that individuals can bear arms. The political left has long held that such a right under the Second Amendment belongs only to a “well regulated Militia.”

This distinction matters because Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller on precisely this point about an individual right. And apparently they still do. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a “future, wiser court” overturn Heller.

Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter in 2009, but she joined the liberal bloc on guns. The Supreme Court has over the years applied the Bill of Rights to the states as relevant cases presented themselves. Once Heller established an individual right to bear arms, every Court precedent called for applying it to the states in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. The vote should have been 9-0. Yet the four liberals still dissented in McDonald—confirming Justice Ginsburg’s Harvard boast that they are waiting to overturn Heller.

Justice Elena Kagan (who replaced John Paul Stevens) hasn’t had a chance to rule on the individual right to bear arms, but don’t expect her to be different. If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals will get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.