Advertisements

A Tale of Two Court Decisions: One Legitimate, One Not

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

The increasingly unreliable Bret Baier led off his evening news report on Monday with a breathless report on a just-released decision issued by a Washington-based federal judge that would, if upheld on appeal, legitimize the Democrats’ fake impeachment process in the House of Representatives and force White House counsel Don McGhan to testify before Bug-eyes Schiff’s clown show committee.

Every corrupt “news” outlet in the fake media establishment followed Baier’s report with breathless reports of their own, all containing headlines or opening statements with some variation of “Judge says McGhan MUST TESTIFY.” The only trouble with those headlines is that is not at all the likely outcome of that case.

You have to read all the way down to the 8th paragraph of the report by Politico which I linked above to discover that the Department of Justice immediately announced it would appeal this ruling, a fact that should be the lead on these stories since the judge in this case – Ketanji Brown Jackson – is just another Obama appointee who has issued just another clearly unconstitutional decision.

Her decision will almost certainly be overturned by the appellate court, and if it isn’t, it will definitely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court early next year. This is because the effort by Democrats to force the President’s immediate advisors to testify is a clear and unambiguous effort to pierce the veil of executive privilege, a blatant violation of the separation of powers between the two branches of government.

The chances of McGhan ever testifying before Schiff’s clown show lie somewhere between slim and none, and Slim just rode out of town.

But there was a second, truly legitimate decision issued minutes after Jackson’s Obama fraud decision, one that is favorable to President Donald Trump (I still never tire of typing those three glorious words). As reported by Axios: [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court on Monday granted an emergency stay blocking Congress from enforcing a subpoena for President Trump’s financial records, which a lower court had upheld in October.

Why it matters: The court didn’t explain its reasoning, but the decision makes it likely that it will take up the case. For now, Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA will not be forced to turn over Trump’s tax returns to House Democrats investigating the president.

  • The justices are giving Trump’s lawyers until Dec. 5 to formally file its appeal of the lower court ruling.
  • Trump is also seeking to have the Supreme Court block a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is investigating hush-money payments that the Trump Organization made to Stormy Daniels in 2016.

Between the lines: A Supreme Court ruling on the case would likely not come until mid-January, AP notes. If House Democrats are planning to vote to impeach Trump by the end of the year, as they have signaled, the tax return investigation will likely not play a role.

As Attorney General William Barr laid out in his glorious speech last week, these subpoenas are nothing but a clear case of unbridled harassment of an executive by Democrats in congress and his former home state of New York. They have no legitimate basis in the constitution or the law, and if the courts legimize the corrupt intent behind them, they will have legitimized open congressional warfare to be conducted against every future president of either party into perpetuity.

This case is a big deal for the country’s future. Pay attention to it.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “A Tale of Two Court Decisions: One Legitimate, One Not

  1. Reply
    Jimmy MacAfee - November 26, 2019

    “…they will have legitimized open congressional warfare to be conducted against every future president of either party into perpetuity.” Nailed it, Dave! Except some of it will be necessary. For example:

    It must be dawning on the Dims that they don’t have anyone without skeletons in their closet; Trump is a choirboy compared to the dirt they own. Imagine if Quid Pro Joe, ol’ Gropey Joe Biden, were to somehow become President! (Try not to throw up at the thought.) He goes from near bankruptcy (actually met the definition) to somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 million? From “book earnings” and “speeches?” Gropey Pro Quo will be under assault constantly. (Someone is waking up to that fact, enter Bloombug, who has skeletons of his own, but not as obvious.)

    So for another example: I’m guessing that the laundered book revenues of al-Bama and others will be traced back to those who ordered it.

    That ladle has been taken out of the gravy bowl – for anyone with any sense, that is. Some, like Bitter Bernie, arrived late to the trough. Little piggies still have green stuff on their snouts.

    So some of the future looks better. We still have a corrupted press to deal with.

    1. Reply
      Gregg - November 26, 2019

      The dims/MSM are not worried about a (fill in the blank) future GOP congress ever investigating a future Dem. president to the degree that Trump has been persecuted, especially if he/she is an minority – that is not how civilized legislators roll; they have a proven record of accepting the vote (will) of the American people.

  2. Reply
    OldGyrene - November 26, 2019

    Just got sent here from Whatfinger and enjoyed reading this common sense piece..
    Loved this: “…somewhere between slim and none, and Slim just rode out of town.”

  3. Reply
    D3F1ANT - November 26, 2019

    You mean “Ketanji Brown Jackson” is an Obama appointee!? No way! Never would have guessed..

    1. Reply
      phineas gage - November 26, 2019

      As soon as you read the name, you don’t have to read any further….

  4. Reply
    elphupphy - November 26, 2019

    No one can be forced to testify in a court of law. They may be charged with contempt of court if they do not, but that goes without saying that most Americans hold the impeachment proceedings in contempt, and the House members running the farce even more.

  5. Reply
    phineas gage - November 26, 2019

    The Kavanaugh confirmation takes on even greater significance now.(assuming Roberts doesn’t go rogue again).

    The Left has, for the next generation, lost their end-run around the legislative process to enact their progressive agenda via judicial fiat.

    Ginsburg’s health may also be failing, as indicated by her recent hospitalization. God speed to her, of course, but this may soon become relevant.

  6. Reply
    Jim1937 - November 26, 2019

    I vote he go for contempt of congress like so many of us who have contempt for the useless b astards!

    1. Reply
      Gregg - November 26, 2019

      Holder was the first AG to be held in contempt of congress and what happened to him? NOTHING!

      Congress, especially when the Dems run it, is rapidly becoming known as the most contemptable organization in government, and that is really saying something!

  7. Reply
    Gregg - November 26, 2019

    Shep Baier has been morphing to the left for quite some time, as has FOX in general. I guess FOX wants to split the < million viewers three ways with CNN and MSLSD and send the several million conservative viewers away to OANN.

    About a month ago Baier was interviewed on air by Rush (a rare event indeed) about a new book he has written about FDR. Baier was so factually wrong in the his description calling the battleship Iowa (that was transporting FDR) a destroyer for example, and there were other incorrect statements during the interview.

    I might have bought the book, but I he can't tell the difference between a battleship and a destroy then what else is going to false?

    I've heard radio news reports today saying the "judge" issued a 200 (TWO HUNDRED) page decision against Trump. How many trees must die an unnecessary death at the hands of all these Dem. hacks?

    That rivals the Mueller report and the Horowitz IG report no doubt. Whatever happened to brevity being the sole of wit? Ever notice that when more is written (especially in NYT articles) the less is said?

    1. Reply
      phineas gage - November 26, 2019

      One of the more dramatic and illuminating consequences of the Trump era is that many so-called ‘conservatives’ have been unmasked as little more than Democrat corporate welfare shills. That would include names such as Bill Kristol, George Will, most of the crew at National Review, and many at Fox News as well. A vast political realignment is underway. Look for most of the above to come out as Democrats as they arrange their new sinecures.

      Re: writing, quantity over quality is a general rule. Truly good writers do not need many words to say what they intend. That includes some of the best SCOTUS justices, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and most recently Scalia. I think the best writer and most original thinker currently on the Court is Gorsuch.

      1. Reply
        Gregg - November 26, 2019

        Kristol lost me (quit his mag. sub.) when I saw him smirking as a conservative analyst on TV during the GOP loss of congress in 2006 as if it was no big deal; in fact, I think he rather liked seeing the GOP become the minority.

        There also seem to be many GOP congress-critters who like being members of the “comfortable caucus”. They get the perks of office, and don’t really have to do much since they are out of power. One thing about the Dems (Pelosi et al), when they get the power, they use it, they lead – lead the country straight to hell – but they lead nonetheless. Bozo Boehner, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Paul Ryan eh, not so much. McConnell is getting better, going from sloth to turtle,

  8. Reply
    Bennie Sprouse - November 26, 2019

    AG Barr should inform the liberdemhacksinblack that they will no longer have ANY jurisdiction other than their area – NO NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS will be enforceable if not issued by the SUPREME COURT! AND the R’s should inform the dems that what they are doing to PRESIDENT TRUMP will be STANDARD PROCEDURE for the next (God forbid) democrat President. They can stop their insurrection NOW or continue, but be advised that WE will do the SAME!!

  9. Reply
    phineas gage - November 26, 2019

    It is the job of CJ Roberts to impart that directive to the lower courts; as of now, at least as far as anyone is aware, he has not done so

  10. Reply
    Gregg - November 26, 2019

    Agree that the court’s jurisdiction needs to be limited, but Barr (executive branch) doesn’t control the courts (judicial branch). Roberts should exert some power or control over the rogue judges/courts, but the way he ruled on Obamacare, and also recently stated that there are no activist Obama judges, or Bush judges, or Trump judges shows he doesn’t think the way the courts operate is a problem. I disagree. I wouldn’t hold my breath, on any judicial reform anytime soon. I am not sure what sanctions he could place on individual judges short of impeachment for a provable crime.. “Judicial Independence” is considered so sacrosanct that no Chief Justice that I know of has ever tried to control the court except through overturning the rulings..

    It would probably take a constitutional amendment along the lines of term limits and perhaps limiting an individual judge’s authority.

    What I would like to see is that any case involving the president must immediately go the supreme court since most ultimately get there anyway, and it must be adjudicated within a two weeks with the court having the right to not hear it and let the president’s order/action stand. If it means an emergency session, so be it. The president should also have the authority to demand his case be heard as in the demands for his tax returns or his assertion of executive privilege.

    Of course if you are a Democratic president you could do what Obama and other Dems often did – Ignore the unfavorable ruling, just like they ignore laws and precedents they don’t like. Also, the courts don’t really have any enforcement power, so they themselves can’t prosecute a rogue president.. If however, Trump were to take similar action, he’d be boiled in oil forthwith, and the deep state would disobey him anyways…

    We are in tough times with two sets of rules.

    The sad fact is that the judges and courts are essentially a club, with all of its members coming from the same factory. Congress is much the same with so many members coming from safe districts or states also having lifetime memberships in their club.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: