Packing the Supreme Court: A last-minute gambit by the left?

H/T Fox News.

Packing the Supreme Court has been a liberal wet dream since the days of Emperor Franklin the first.

With President Trump planning to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, many on the left fear a Supreme Court that will regularly rule against them, even reversing landmark decisions like the one rendered in “Roe v. Wade.”

Thus, they’re using whatever means are available to prevent this.

One of the more extreme plans is court packing — that is, creating more positions on the Supreme Court to change its political balance.  The idea has been suggested by, among others, the liberal New Republic magazine, Harvard Law fellow Ian Samuel and David Faris, associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and author of “It’s Time To Fight Dirty.”

Packing the Supreme Court, legally speaking, isn’t that tricky. As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano notes, while the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, “it is silent on the number of justices.” Therefore, changing the number of judges who sit on the high court “would be just like any other legislation: It would require a majority in both houses of Congress and the president’s signature, or enough votes to override the president’s veto.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. President Trump is moving swiftly to present a nominee for the opening on the bench.  (AP, File)


But, politically, it wouldn’t be easy. In the first 80 years of the Supreme Court’s existence, Congress played around with the number of justices quite a bit — often to help or hinder the president in getting the court he wanted.  Thus the court first had six members, then five, then seven, then nine, then 10, then eight, finally settling on nine with the Judiciary Act of 1869.  It has been nine ever since.

In the 1930s, however, President Franklin Roosevelt had a plan.  Known as the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, it would have allowed for the president to appoint up to six more justices to the Supreme Court.

As Judge Napolitano explains, “the true reason was the persistent rejection on constitutional grounds of New Deal legislation” — that is, FDR was unhappy with the Supreme Court’s rulings, so wanted to appoint his own justices to change that.

In general, the public opposed the bill, and it died without getting a vote in Congress.  Around the same time, however, Justice Owen Roberts switched his position in favor of New Deal legislation; some believed he was trying to stave off FDR’s plans for the court. Roberts’ change became known as “the switch in time that saved nine.”


Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president, contemplated some significant tinkering with the composition of the high court.  (AP, File)


Ever since FDR’s plan failed, however, the very idea of court packing has been considered radical. But at present, it seems some on the left want to be radical.  The trouble is, at the very least they’d need the Democrats to take back the House, the Senate and the presidency.  And once that happens, they’d need to convince the party to take what would likely be a highly unpopular step with the general public.

The other problem is, two can play at that game.  After all, right now it’s the Republicans who hold Congress and the White House.  Not that court packing would be any more popular if they tried it than if the Democrats made the attempt.  As Napolitano notes, “if the Republican Congress wanted to give Trump 10 more appointees, they could increase the court to 19, [but] I would think there’d be a comparable outcry to when FDR attempted to do this.”

Further, he notes, with court packing “you’re going to end up with a Supreme Court that looks like a legislature at some point — [both sides will] keep expanding it in order to overturn what the previous court has done.”

So what should those on the left do?  Well, try to win more elections, of course.  But also, perhaps they — as well as those on the right who support court packing for their side — could take the longer view.  As Napolitano explains, the Supreme Court “is a pendulum that swings back and forth.  In the Eisenhower and JFK and LBJ years, we had the [more progressive] Warren Court.  It’s just the nature of the system — power shifts.”

He also notes no one knows what will come up in the future, and “just because there are conservatives on the court, there’s no guarantee how things are going to turn out.”

Napolitano says he understands there are “progressives impatient to reverse what happened in the Trump years,” but believes “thoughtful people who understand history” would never support changing our system this way.

But those who back court packing believe Americans are in danger of losing fundamental rights, so they see extreme action as necessary.  As The New Republic puts it, “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

So will this idea gain any traction?  Perhaps it depends on how desperate people get.

Mueller’s Reported NRA Tax Probe Should Widen Rift with Informed Gun Owners

H/T AmmoLand.

It is time to shut down Robert Mueller along with his band of miscreants and their ever-expanding wich hunt down.

USA – -( “Robert Mueller’s Democrat investigators likely acquired NRA tax filings in expanding witch hunt,” Gateway Pundit reports. He’s commenting on an assessment by “legal experts” published by McClatchy that “it would be routine for Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators, who are looking at the NRA’s funding as part of a broader inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections, to secretly gain access to the NRA’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service.”

That would be a surprise no one, at least to those who have kept an eye on Mueller’s decisions over the years.  What’s clear is that the self-proclaimed “Republican” is a creature of what is now being called the “Deep State.” His regard for the Constitution, and particularly for the Second Amendment, seems to be that they are inconveniences to be disregarded or obstacles to be gotten around.

“Does that only apply to a U.S. citizen that’s overseas, or does that apply to a U.S. citizen that’s here?” Rep. Kevin Yoder asked then FBI Director Mueller about an order from Attorney General Eric holder authorizing the assassination of Americans fighting on the side of “terrorists.”

“I’d have to go back, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller replied. Watch for yourself.

Think about that and what it means about any orders he – or those working for him whose careers depend on carrying them out – would not obey. It makes it fair to ask if the so-called “Deep State” succeeds in its coup against the duly-elected president and if patriots refuse to accept that, does Mueller think assassinating them would be Constitutional? And do his supporters think his hedging was in any way excusable?

Also seemingly not an issue (at least with the media): As head of the FBI, Mueller was a key Obama administration player during Operation Fast and Furious.  The Bush appointee was asked to stay on beyond his 10-year term just as things were starting to heat up on investigations by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Significantly, Mueller made it clear he did not approve of the Heller decision, telling the media the Supreme Court ruling “may harm efforts to deter violent crime in communities and college campuses.”

Apparently believing himself more qualified than the Founders to determine what is “necessary to the security of a free State,” Mueller instead endorsed so-called “gun-free” campuses and asserted “I tend to believe weapons harm people and more often than not they harm the people carrying them.”

But not, of course, if they are in the hands of the “Only Ones” approved by “monopoly of violence” beneficiaries like himself. Mueller offers nothing to substantiate his absurd bias, because it’s not founded in reality.

When you think about the power Mueller has commanded and now holds, that’s unacceptable.

And it’s no surprise his “brother in arms” James Comey, is coming out against the right to keep and bear arms. Does anyone really believe trying to drag NRA into the “collusion” conspiracy theory is simply a coincidence?

Schumer privately asked Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

H/T The Hill.

I do not expect that President Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

No matter what Schumer was to say about unifying the country the left will not be appeased until they destroy President Trump and drive him from office.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) privately urged President Trump in a phone conversation to nominate Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee from 2016, to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A person familiar with the conversation said on Thursday that Schumer told Trump in a phone call that lasted less than five minutes on Tuesday that the move would help unify the country.

The Democratic leader also warned the president against nominating a potential justice to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, stating that such a move would be “cataclysmic” and damaging to Trump’s legacy, according to a person familiar with the call, which was first reported by The Washington Post.

The source added that the call between Schumer and the president “seemed more like a check the box call than meaningful consultation” because it came after Trump had already begun narrowing his short list and interviewing candidates.

Schumer previously wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that a potential nominee’s position on abortion rights could likely be a deciding factor in their Senate nomination battle.

“The views of President Trump’s next court nominee on these issues could well determine whether the Senate approves or rejects them,” Schumer wrote.

Senate Republicans declined to consider Garland’s nomination in March 2016, citing the impending presidential election and stating the need for the American people to weigh in on the nomination.
Despite Garland meetings with several key Republicans, his nomination failed to gain any traction. Trump would later nominate Justice Neil Gorsuch to the seat formerly held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump has said he will announce his second Supreme Court nomination on Monday, telling reporters that he has narrowed the list to about five candidates, including two women.
“We have great people,” Trump said of his short list. “Highly talented, brilliant, mostly conservative judges.”
Trump has previously pledged to nominate “pro-life judges,” but the White House says he is not asking his potential picks for specific policy opinions.

How Facebook Is Fact-Checking Conservative Sites into Oblivion

H/T PJMedia.

Rush Limbaugh exposed Snopes as a fraud on his radio program noting the site was run by husband and wife that are big-time DemocRat supporters.

I knew they were frauds when the started singing the praises of Obamacare.

Facebook announced last year that they will be using third-party fact-checkers to root out “fake news” on their platform. At the time of the announcement, conservatives sounded the alarm about how some of the fact-checkers they’re using are left-wing hacks like PolitiFact and Snopes (who recently, with straight facesfact-checked a piece of satire from The Babylon Bee).

A recent warning that accompanied an article I wrote for PJM highlights the fallibility of Facebook’s fact-checking program.:

Why a Canadian outfit is fact-checking U.S. news is anyone’s guess, but they clearly flagged my article in error. [It was brought to my attention after this article was published that AFP Canada is part of France’s state-run Agence France-Presse, so let me rephrase that question: Why has Facebook chosen a state-run French news outlet to fact-check U.S. news?]

You can read the article in question here. Facebook deprioritized my article after AFP Canada reported this:

No, it is not illegal to take a shower and do laundry on the same day in California


Many of the articles in dispute cited an analysis here that an American uses on average 17 gallons of water and another 40 gallons for a load of laundry. Therefore, according to the analysis, people who do this and exceed the 55-gallon allotment in California will be breaking the law.

The analysis cited figures from, a site developed by the Alliance for Water Efficiency, a nonprofit organization that promotes efficient water use.

However, the same site also states that there are water efficient devices, which means individuals can easily have a shower and do their laundry using far less than 55 gallons.

The analysis concluded that Americans on average use 80-100 gallons of water per day:

  • A bath uses around 36 gallons of water
  • A 10-minute shower uses 50 gallons
  • Washing clothes takes 25-40 gallons of water, depending on the machine’s efficiency
  • Toilets normally use 1.6 gallons per flush (if you’re using a low-flow model)
  • Shaving, brushing your teeth, and washing your face take a gallon each

Using that information I extrapolated out the following:

As you can see, it’s not difficult to use 55 gallons of water in the course of a normal day. California residents who opt for a shower will only be left with enough water to brush their teeth and perhaps flush the toilet a couple of times before they run afoul of the new state law.

Ok, fine. I didn’t include the caveat that Americans were free to purchase expensive energy-efficient appliances that often don’t even work very well (see: low-flow toilets, where you have to flush two or three times to get the job done).
So, you tell me. Did I report fake news? Or a “mixture” of truth and falsehoods, as AFP Canada concluded — a decision Facebook agreed with? Or did AFP unfairly report that my article was untruthful? Obviously, it’s the latter.
Lauren Svensson from Facebook Communications told PJM that Facebook has an appeals process in place when there is a dispute. She suggested we contact AFP directly to get it sorted out. (At the time of publishing, AFP had not responded to PJM’s request for an explanation and a review of their decision to spike the article.)
Svensson also explained Facebook’s third-party fact-checking process: “We use various signals to predict which stories may be potentially false or misleading,” she said. “Disbelief comments (‘no way this is real!’) are one signal that helps inform our prediction, and one of the most valuable signals is  feedback from our community when people mark something as false news.”
In other words, Facebook users who don’t think a story is factual — or don’t like it for whatever reason — have the power to get an article fact-checked. If enough people complain about an article, it gets kicked over to the fact-checking team.
“These news stories are then reviewed by independent third-party fact-checkers certified through a non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network,” Svensson explained. “These fact-checkers review the stories, check their facts, and  rate their accuracy. If a fact-checker rates a story as false, we show it lower in News Feed, significantly reducing its distribution.
And that’s exactly what happened with PJM’s article on the new California water law. Only, Facebook’s crack fact-checking team either didn’t do their homework or they decided they didn’t like the article and flagged it so it wouldn’t get more traction. (Prior to the article being flagged by AFP it had more than 50,000 shares on Facebook.)
Incidentally, I would rate Facebook’s statement that the fact-checkers are all “non-partisan” as “Pants on Fire.” That’s clearly not the case with PolitiFact. The Federalist complied a detailed report about their fact-checks and determined that they’re much harder on Republicans than Democrats. In fact, their ratings seem to indicate that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the most honest people in politics — more truthful than Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. They also do this funny trick where they claim that something a Republican said is “factually true” but then they rank it as “mostly false.” So in PolitiFact’s world, you can tell the truth and still get branded a liar.
A 2013 study at George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs ruled that “ has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama’s second term, despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.”

In fact, during the 2016 primary, PolitiFact called Ted Cruz a liar because he dared to say that boys can’t be girls and vice versa during a debate about the transgender bathroom controversy. Capital Research explained:

PolitiFact ruled it objectively false to describe a person by his or her birth sex if that person identifies with another sex. The ruling came in response to an attack ad launched by then-Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz against frontrunner Trump, who said he opposed the North Carolina law. On the famed “Truth-O-Meter,” PolitiFact determined that Cruz’s ad was “mostly false.” But not because it falsely accused Trump of anything. Rather, PolitiFact adopted a radical position in vogue in academia and declared, “it’s not accurate to say that transgender women are men.”

So I don’t have much faith that Facebook isn’t putting its thumb on the scales by partnering with fact-checking organizations that have a clear bias against Republicans and conservative values.
Facebook outlines in greater detail what happens when a post is flagged:

First, that content’s distribution is reduced. It will appear lower in News Feed, and will be accompanied by Related Articles from fact-checkers. If people try to share the content, they will be notified of the additional reporting. They will also be notified if content they have shared in the past has since been rated by a fact-checker.

Second, in order to more effectively fight false news, we also take action against Pages that share, and domains that publish, content which is rated “False.” Such Pages and domains will see their distribution reduced as the number of offenses increases. Their ability to monetize and advertise will be removed after repeated offenses. Over time, Pages and domains can restore their distribution and ability to monetize and advertise if they stop sharing false news.

Publishers who issue a correction or dispute a rating may contact the fact-checker. If their correction or dispute is successful, the strike against them will be eliminated. Note that simply deleting a post or removing a URL is not sufficient to eliminate the strike against the domain or Page.

Again, I ask, who’s checking up on the fact-checkers? Facebook’s response indicates that they are taking a hands-off approach. If there’s a dispute, your only recourse is to contact the fact-checkers and hope they do the right thing. (Incidentally, handing off responsibilities to third parties is what got Facebook in trouble with the Cambridge Analytica scandal. You’d think they’d have learned their lesson on what happens when a company shirks its responsibilities.)

Facebook is already under fire for picking winners in the news wars — deprioritizing news altogether and giving special considerations for MSM outlets — and conservatives are rightly concerned that processes already in place are ensuring that their content won’t be seen by the Facebook Community.

This incident highlights the dangers of letting the “Facebook Community Mob” and a bunch of allegedly “independent” fact-checkers (many of which lean left) determine what you see and don’t see. There’s clearly something wrong with the process Facebook is using if factual and well-sourced articles like mine get flagged. It doesn’t bode well for the future of conservative media.

Chuck Schumer Fail: 62% of Americans Want New Supreme Court Justice Before Midterms

H/T Breitbart’s Big Government.

Little Chucky Schumer is not going to like these numbers.

Little Chucky Schumer will say “Damn the numbers we are going full bore with the DemocRat policy of obstruction of anything President Trump wants.” 

Americans want the President to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, a new Supreme Court justice before the 2018 midterm elections — by a staggering 2-to-1 margin, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll:

More than six in 10 Americans, or 62 percent, said Trump’s nominee, who will be announced on Monday, should be confirmed or rejected before the elections in which control of the House and Senate are at stake. About three in 10, or 33 percent, said the Senate should wait until after the elections, the poll found.

The vast majority of Republicans surveyed, 85 percent, said the Senate’s vote on the nominee should take place before the election. Roughly six in 10 Independents, or 61 percent, agreed. However, more than half of Democrats, 55 percent, believe the voting on a new justice should wait.

Many Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have argued that President Donald Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court justice in an election year, and should wait for a new Congress to be seated in January.

They have cited a bogus version of the rule Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) applied in 2016, when he said the Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year.

Kamala Harris


Given the stakes of this Supreme Court seat, which will determine the fate of fundamental constitutional rights, the American people, who will vote in less than 4 months, deserve to have their voice heard. We shouldn’t vote on confirmation until they have voted at the ballot box.

Sen Dianne Feinstein


4 months away from an election, there should be no consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until the American people have a say. Leader McConnell set that standard when he denied Judge Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard now.

McConnell, in fact, had cited a “rule” created by then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in 1992, the last year of President George H.W. Bush’s first term. Schumer himself sought to block President George W. Bush from appointing a new Supreme Court justice in 2007 — though Bush had more than a year left in office.

The practical effect of the rule Democrats are seeking to apply would bar Supreme Court appointments in even-numbered years.

But the new poll suggests that the public is decidedly against them, and they barely have majority support among their own voters.

Democrats may be more astute than their leaders. Given that the party has 23 (or 25, including independents) Senate seats up for re-election, ten of which are in states Trump won, versus eight seats for Republicans, it is entirely possible that the new Congress could be more Republican, meaning Trump would feel greater freedom to choose a more conservative nominee in 2019.

The poll also notes that the Supreme Court battle could be at least a modest factor in the election results: “Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans said Trump’s nominee would be an important factor in their vote in the midterms. However, less than half of independents, 46 percent, said it would be on their mind when casting their November ballot.

The poll also shows Trump’s approval rating improving to 48% approve / 50% disapprove, and Republicans climbing to within 3% of Democrats on the generic congressional ballot.

Steve Kornacki@SteveKornacki

NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll conducted after Kennedy SCOTUS announcement has Trump approve/disapprove at 48/50% and Dems +3 on the generic ballot:

Facebook flags Declaration of Independence as hate speech

H/T The Washington Times.

Mark Zuckerberg is a leftist loon.


In the week of America’s Independence Day, the algorithms of Facebook decided that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech.

The Liberty County Vindicator, a community newspaper between Houston and Beaumont, had been posting the whole declaration in small daily chunks for nine days on its Facebook page in the run-up to July 4. But the 10th excerpt was not posted Monday as scheduled, and the paper said it received an automated notice saying the post “goes against our standards on hate speech.”

Part of the standard notice, Vindicator managing editor Casey Stinnett wrote, included a warning that the newspaper could lose its Facebook account, on which it depends for much of its reach, if there were more violations.

The offending passage?

It was part of the document’s “Bill of Particulars” against Britain’s King George III: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Mr. Stinnett dryly replied in an article about the rejection, “Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as ‘Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development’ that would have been better. Unfortunately, Jefferson, like most British colonists of his day, did not hold an entirely friendly view of Native Americans.

He noted that the newspaper wanted “a means of contacting Facebook for an explanation or a opportunity to appeal the post’s removal, but it does not appear the folks at Facebook want anyone contacting them. Or, at least, they do not make it easy.”

Within a day, Facebook had paid heed, allowing the posting and sending the Vindicator an apology.

“It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action,” Facebook wrote back, the Vindicator reported.

Reason magazine pointed out how Facebook’s actions were “silly” but also the inevitable logic of massive social-media sites trying to police millions of messages, a task that cannot be done by humans.

“They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies, which is that a robot trained to spot politically incorrect language isn’t smart enough to detect when that language is part of a historically significant document,” wrote Christian Britschgi, an assistant editor at the libertarian magazine.

Mr. Britschgi went on to note a perverse result of allowing the Vindicator’s first nine excerpts from the Declaration but not the tenth, exactly because of what he called “clearly racist” language.

The phrasing “serves as another example of the American Revolution’s mixed legacy; one that won crucial liberties for a certain segment of the population, while continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves. But by allowing the less controversial parts of the declaration to be shared while deleting the reference to ‘Indian savages,’ Facebook succeeds only in whitewashing America’s founding just as we get ready to celebrate it,” he wrote.

Mommy Blogger Freaks After GOP State Rep’s ‘Threatening’ Joke

H/T Bearing Arms.

The blogger Scary Mommy needs to change her name to a Scared Mommy that wets her panties over nothing.

One surprising fact about anti-gunners is how, despite having so many alleged comedians among their number, so many of them completely lack anything approaching a sense of humor. I’m not talking even about finding things funny, necessarily, but even lacking the ability to see how someone else might find something funny.

You see, Idaho Republican state Representative Priscilla Giddings shared a photograph of herself with some anti-gun activists. The caption she gave the photo, however, has some people worked up.