Hey, remember how your Democrat friends all told you what a wonderful, fair, cerebral, non-partisan judge Merrick Garland is supposed to be? – Yeah, he’s just another leftwing partisan Democrat who refuses to honestly answer questions in a congressional hearing:
The Honorable Merrick Garland doesn’t know pic.twitter.com/XHr5CKwH4h
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 22, 2021
“I don’t know…I don’t know…I don’t know…I don’t know.” He’s the perfect attorney general for this sock puppet presidency.
We are so screwed.
Today’s Short-Term Memory Reminder. – I’m old enough to remember when it was Donald Trump who was supposed to be a totalitarian. But hey, that was always a lie – everyone with functioning synapses in their cranial cavities knows it is the Democrat Party that has always striven to take our country down the road to despotism, and today’s Democrats are no exception to that 200-year rule.
Yesterday, we discovered that congressional Democrats are now trying to bully cable/streaming companies into dropping news networks that they do not approve of. Take a look:
It’s just a fact that the people who spent the last 4 years claiming to be so very worried about authoritarianism are absolutely committed to using their new power as the majority party to censor their adversaries off both the internet & cable using bullying tactics like this: https://t.co/aycybk9Uvx
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 22, 2021
Hilariously, these authoritarian Dems pretend to base their efforts at censorship on “moral or ethical principles”:
It’s absolutely surreal. You could never make this stuff up if it didn’t already exist.
Speaking of authoritarians… – Congressman Ro Khanna served as campaign manager for The Commie, Bernie Sanders, for a very good reason: He’s a commie, too.
You don’t have to believe me – just listen to him talk to some fake journalist on CNN about his desire to put any business that can’t afford to pay a $15 minimum wage out of business:
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 21, 2021
That’s pure communism. You either redistribute your wealth exactly the way the government demands you do it, or you don’t stay in business. Profits don’t matter; your business’s value to the community doesn’t matter; the fact you’d have to fire half your employees in order to pay that hourly wage doesn’t matter; you either do as your government masters tell you to do or you don’t do business.
And Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders and 2/3rds of the congressional Democrat caucus will the thrilled to see you and your jobs go. Despicable.
How about this walk down memory lane? – Check this out as China Joe Biden tells David Letterman that he was arrested for going into the U.S. senate chamber and taking over the presiding officer’s seat, just as that nitwit in the viking horns did on January 6:
Biden claims he stormed the Capitol and sat in the presiding officers chair and was arrested before the shaman did it on the 6th. pic.twitter.com/ArKl4UhLkc
— @amuse (@amuse) February 22, 2021
Now, there’s little doubt Biden’s lying here, given that he lies with the regularity that most people urinate, but man, what a thing to admit to doing. Just another inconvenient little video for the Democrats and their mindless voters.
Right on cue, the Supreme Court betrays the American people one more time. – I warned you all a few weeks ago that the decision by the Supreme Court to schedule a day to consider whether to formally hear three of the Trump election challenges in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan would likely end badly for us and the Constitution.
Many were excited because they labored under the misimpression that the Court had agreed to hear these three cases, but in reality all it was doing was trying to decide whether or not to put any of them on the docket. I also told you that it was almost certain that the Court would refuse to hear the Georgia or Michigan cases, but that it should hear the Pennsylvania case since it so clearly involved a stark constitutional violation in which the state’s courts changed voting rules by judicial fiat. But I also warned you that the justices would find some technical excuse not to hear that case as well.
All of that came to fruition on Monday, as the Court refused to hear any of the three cases:
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct:
"These cases provide us w an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, & to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable." https://t.co/tSPB4HlbIM
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) February 22, 2021
From the story at National Review:
Few things are worse for public confidence in elections than having the rules changed in the middle of the game (or after it). An epidemic of late-in-the-day changes to the rules was particularly corrosive in 2020. Courts are ill-equipped to referee those changes when partisan tempers are running hot. The Supreme Court just threw away its last opportunity to remedy that problem before the next election cycle.
The Court this morning turned away the remaining challenges to the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. Some of these challenges were legally meritless, and none of them offered any legitimate grounds to change the outcome of the presidential election, but the Pennsylvania case in particular raised a serious, recurring issue of election law: whether state courts or state executive officials can use the general, open-ended terms of state constitutional provisions to throw out specific rules passed by state legislatures governing federal elections. Articles I and II of the Constitution reserve to state legislatures the power to set rules for federal elections.
That’s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania supreme court used the Pennsylvania Constitution’s general guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” as an excuse to invalidate the state legislature’s explicit deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. That deadline was enacted in 2019 and left untouched in revisions to the mail-in ballot rules during the pandemic in 2020. The Court should have heard the case before Election Day, in order t0 ensure that the rules of the road were set in advance. Refusing to hear the case either before the election or after the election guarantees that the issue remains unsettled for the next election.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a dissent blasting the Court for repeatedly ducking this issue (Alito added his own dissent). Normally, federal courts will not hear cases once they are moot, and that would normally be the situation here: Justice Thomas noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Pennsylvania deadline extension changed the result of any federal election…
[The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable. . . . An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.
That does sound familiar, doesn’t it? Thomas detailed why contests involving mail-in ballots, which were once treated with skepticism even by the New York Times and election-law experts, were more complicated to litigate quickly, and thus presented even greater mootness problems: “Five to six weeks for judicial testing is difficult enough for straightforward cases. For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible.” He specifically noted the compressed timeline imposed in presidential elections by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. And Justice Thomas warned of the particular problems the Court faces in trying to handle politically charged cases in the middle of voting, pointing to a South Carolina case where the Court ended up ordering one rule for ballots cast after its decision, and another for ballots already cast.
Note that two of President Trump’s three nominees for the Court ruled against the American people and the Constitution in this decision, and you see how screwed we all really are.
Be careful out there.
That is all.
Today’s news moves at a faster pace than Whatfinger.com is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge, and deserves to become everyone’s go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.