“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche

---

.

.

.

.

GIVE ‘EM THE BAN HAMMER, SCOTUS

.

.

I try to temper my excitement about anything dealing with the judiciary these days, but I’m feeling pretty good about this one.

 

The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold PDT’s travel ban, as the swing-vote justices who could have made this thing interesting to begin with asked very skeptical questions of Neal Katyal. the communist lawyer challenging the policy on behalf of the state of Hawaii. 

As a quick refresher, this case is the appeal of the ruling put out by Obama’s buddy in Hawaii, Derrick Watson. The SCOTUS has already ruled against it once, at least in part, allowing for the injunction to be lifted and the ban to go in place until a more permanent ruling can be issued. This is that ruling.  It will render the definitive decision on the constitutionality of the policy. 

If we win this, the coochie caps are poop outta luck. 

.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has definitely had his own commie moments (see Obamacare ruling), doesn’t buy the argument that the ban was unconstitutionally tainted by Trump’s campaign call for a Muslim ban at the border. Roberts injected some common sense into the discussion, asking whether the “Muslim ban” comments would prevent a president from taking the advice of his military staff to launch an air strike against Syria.

“Does that mean he can’t because you would regard that as discrimination against a majority-Muslim country?” Roberts asked Hawaii’s lawyer, Neal Katyal.

It’s called logical consistency; not exactly a forte of the modern Left.

---

“Your argument is that courts have the duty to review whether or not there is such a national exigency,” Kennedy said with a tone of incredulity. “That’s for the courts to do, not the president?”

HOLY CRAP. I NEVER THOUGHT I’D FIST PUMP TO SOMETHING ANTHONY KENNEDY SAID.

Kennedy went on to interrogate Katyal about the actual facts of the policy, because contrary to widespread belief among Trump haters, those do matter. He suggested the travel ban was more flexible than opponents contended, pointing to a provision in the most recent version that requires officials to revisit it every 180 days. “That indicates there’ll be a reassessment and the president has continuing discretion,”he correctly pointed out.

He also tore into Katyal about his absurd contention that the policy had no clear end, injecting more common sense into the debate:

“You want the president to say, ‘I’m convinced that in six months we’re going to have a safe world,’” Kennedy said.

Why can’t Kennedy be like this all the time?

Ahh, that’s right. The power trip of being the deciding vote on just about every major issue before the SCOTUS is just too tempting. 

---

.

AND NOW FOR THE COOCH PORTION OF THE SHOW:

.

Fear not, the #Resistance was represented at today’s hearings, though not well.

Justice Sonia “I’m wide because I’m Latina” Sotomayor said Congress had already enacted a visa waiver process that required heightened vetting in some cases.

“Where does the president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?” she asked.

I’m no Constitutional lawyer., but I’ll take a stab at it. The POTUS derives that power from the Constitution, which gives the Commander-in-Chief broad leeway in matters of national security, assuming rights aren’t being trampled. If the POTUS can demonstrate reasoning for national security actions, he can ban anyone he damn well pleases.

But I know, I know. You had to ask something.

.

.

Then there was Justice Elena Kagan, fresh off a softball game or porch-building or whatever it is butch lesbians do, raising a hypothetical issue of a president who had made anti-Semitic remarks and whose administration found security reasons to recommend a ban on travel from Israel.

“This is an out-of-the-box kind of president in my hypothetical,” she said, drawing laughter from the courtroom.

“We don’t have those, Your Honor,” U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco fired back, adding that he doubted that any national security reasons could justify a ban on such a close ally.

“The question is, what are reasonable observers to think given this context, in which this hypothetical president is making virulent anti-Semitic comments,” Kagan said.

---

 

The always brilliant Justice Samuel Alito soon came to the rescue to ensure common sense would again win the day. He noted that the travel ban affects only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims.

“It does not look at all like a Muslim ban,” he said. “There are other justifications that jump out as to why these particular countries were put on the list.”

He’s correct. Listen folks, if this were an actual Muslim ban, you’d know it, because I would be renting planes to fly “Hooray! No Muslims!” banners all over America. 

---

 

.

GOOD NEWS:

.

Due to widespread interest in the case, the court posted an audio recording of the argument on its website this afternoon. It’s the first time this term the court has released same-day audio.

We should have a decision soon, possibly tomorrow.

It’s looking good for us, Trumpers!

.

---

.

.

.

.

RONNY UNDER FIRE

.

.

Dims continue to go all out against PDT’s pick to take over Veterans Affairs, Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson. 

Dims on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee put together a document of “explosive” allegations against the doc. It lists a range of allegations that they say were detailed by 23 current and former colleagues of Jackson, though none of them have been substantiated and are still under investigation, which is probably good enough for the NeverTrump gang. Anything to hold up the administration.

IT’S ABOUT TIME, GOP

.

.

The GOP suffered a rare bout of usefulness today as they put the rules committee to work solving the issue of Democrat #Resistance to all Trump nominees.

Basically, they’re about to speed up the process.

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee passed a resolution on a party-line 10-9 vote  from Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) that would substantially cut down on the amount of debate time needed for hundreds of nominations. Because Republicans have a one-seat advantage on the committee, they were able to pass the proposal without any support from Dims.

The change is necessary because Democrats are using the Senate’s rulebook to slow-walk Trump’s picks. As it stands now, Senators are allowed an extra 30 hours of debate time for each nominee even after the initial vote is held, and even if there is ample support for the nominee to pass. Obviously, the stupid ass Dims aren’t actually using this time for debate. Like their welfare cheat voter base, they’re playing the system because they can.

Time to end that BS.

---

.

 

Lankford’s proposal would cut that debate time down from 30 hours to 8 hours and would further cap post-cloture debate time for district court nominations at two hours.

The proposal does have major exemptions: Most Cabinet-level nominees, as well as Supreme Court nominees and circuit court nominees, would still be subjected to the full 30 hours of debate.

Now, unfortunately, this baby goes to the full Senate, where Republicans will need 60 votes to pass the damn thing, meaning they’ll require the support of at least nine Dims. There is a good chance of flipping some Trump-state Dims, but even so we’d likely still eb short, even assuming we have all Republicans on board, which we all know is far from certain. By my count, our best case scenario is 58 votes.

---

.

There is hope, though. A group of GOP senators want Turtle McConnell to go “nuclear” to implement the rules change, a procedure that would let Republicans change the rules with only a simple majority, which would cut Dims out of the equation completely.

McConnell hasn’t publicly weighed in on the option. And Republicans would have little room for error if they wanted to play hardball.

With Cooter McCain absent and likely to vote against the thing even if he were there, the GOP majority is effectively limited to 50 votes, leaving no wiggle room at all. And guess what — Undocumented Democrat Susan Collins has already said she opposes further changes to the Senate’s rules, though she shown herself to be malleable in the past depending on what she can get her greedy hands on in backroom negotiations. 

.

---

.

BIG PICTURE:

.

Passage of the rules change isn’t out of the realm of possibility but it’s going to take some serious maneuvering by Turtle McConnell. 

First off, he needs to have the balls to do it, which is always a tricky proposition with RINOs, to be charitable. He did it for the SCOTUS nominee but his head would have been on a stick if he hadn’t. If the White House can launch an effective public relations campaign to articulate to the base what is being done to Trump’s nominees, that pressure could be mostly duplicated. But frankly, the White House communications team has been less than impressive during PDT’s tenure.

.

It must be noted, however, that PDT often steps on the important message of the day with whatever he tweets. I can understand their struggle. 

.

Assuming Turtle can be prodded to go nuclear, it will then likely be a matter of promising Susan Collins something in future legislation, but that could be an uphill battle considering no major legislation is on the horizon.

If I had to guess, I’d say it doesn’t happen.

Here’s to hoping that Turtle surprises me.

 

---

.

.

.

.

COHEN TAKES DA FIF

.

.

PDT’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, plans to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the lawsuit filed against him by opportunistic floozy Stormy Daniels.

“Based on the advice of counsel, I will assert my 5th amendment rights in connection with all proceeding in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York,” Cohen said in a court filing today.

Cohen said the thuggish FBI raids earlier this month on his residence, office and hotel room — and the ongoing criminal probe they represent — are behind the decision not to offer testimony in the California lawsuit. Cohen is reportedly under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

---

.

Meanwhile, Cohen and Trump’s lawyers are still locked in a legal battle with the DOJ over the items seized during the FBI raid.

Their attorneys are urging the judge in the case to appoint a so-called special master, or a neutral third party, to examine the materials and determine what is covered by attorney-client privilege and can’t be viewed by prosecutors.

The Justice Department says they have a “taint team” in place that could conduct the same review. Based on the judge’s shady history as a Trump-hater, I don’t have high hopes for how that battle will turn out. 

---

.

.

BOTTOM LINE:

.

The Left are going to portray this as some sort of damning indication of guilt, but the truth is pretty much anyone would take the Fifth at this juncture, considering the Southern District of New York are trying to find anything and everything to nail him on and will use any statements from the trial toward that end.

The pros of talking are far outweighed by the cons. It’s legal common sense.

But that won’t slow the wave of coochie-cap indignation that’s sure to follow.

Just tune it out.

 

---

.

.

.

.

THE JOYS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

.

.

The Left laughed at Sarah Palin when she noted how government control of healthcare would inevitably lead to “death panels.” Parents in the UK don’t find the point humorous at all.