Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
Biden climate advisor Gina McCarthy: "We're actually going to do 100 rules this year alone on appliances."
The airlines are "gonna be out of here" if they don’t follow Biden’s Green New Deal-style rules. pic.twitter.com/AKI7InJDBw
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 4, 2022
https://twitter.com/LakovosJustice_/status/1522001676508581889
OHIO PRIMARIES TURNOUT
Republicans: 1,069,000 (68%)
Democrats: 510,000(32.5%)Republicans turnout INCREASED by 13% since 2018 Midterms
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) May 4, 2022
“…The bad news for unpopular President Joe Biden continues to roll in, the latest from a new survey that shows likely voters, by a 2-to-1 margin, do not want him to run again.
Even more embarrassing for the Democratic president is one of the largest gaps yet between him and former President Donald Trump in a 2024 matchup. In the survey previewed by Secrets, Trump is up 50%-36%.
“A majority of voters think President Joe Biden shouldn’t seek reelection in 2024, and he would lose a rematch with former President Donald Trump by double-digit margins,” read the early analysis of the Rasmussen Reports poll sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
“Sixty-one percent (61%) of likely U.S. voters believe Biden should not run for a second term as president in 2024. Only 28% say Biden should seek reelection, while another 11% are not sure. If the next presidential election were held today, and Biden were running against Trump, 50% would vote for Trump while 36% would vote for Biden,” according to the Heartland/Rasmussen survey...”
“…So what is behind leaking Supreme Court drafts of impending opinions, or seeking to pack the Supreme Court with 15 justices, or ending the Senate filibuster, or adding two more states to the 60-year-old, 50-state union, or curtailing states’ rights to set their own balloting procedures, or trashing the Constitution’s Electoral College?
The answer to those questions also applies to Joe Biden’s promise to cancel millions of contracted federally guaranteed student loans simply by a pre-midterm election executive fiat.
And how can Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas openly negate federal immigration law? How can he welcome millions to cross illegally the southern border?
The answers are obvious.
The hard Left has detoured from the mainstream of American voters onto a radical trajectory. So it will never find 51 percent public approval for any of its current extremist and crackpot initiatives.
Instead, it sees success only through altering the rules of governance or changing the demography of the electorate—or both.
Still, leftists should be careful about what they wish for.
Latinos are historically transforming en masse into conservative voters.
Leftists are also greenlighting powerful precedents for the next Republican president. He may follow their lead by simply changing any rules, laws, customs, and traditions anytime he deems them inconvenient…”
Dr. Naomi Wolf: The basis for Pfizer to declare the COVID vaccine ‘safe and effective’ for pregnant woman was a study with 44 rats in France. Every doctor making that call either worked for Pfizer or held stock in companies profiting from the vaccine.
https://t.co/VGpkc7zTNB— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) May 4, 2022
WATCH: Dr. Naomi Wolf shares details about the latest court-ordered #Pfizer trial data released May 2022
———@RealAmVoice https://t.co/tGq5ULaHNY— Te𝕏asLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) May 3, 2022
Hi Eric, my name is Wesley Hunt, I’m a Republican nominee in a Congressional District that is 70% white. I’m black, I’m in an interracial marriage, and my wife and I have two biracial daughters. Republicans are celebrating diversity while white liberals like yourself race-bait. https://t.co/r7bSNlskVp
— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) May 3, 2022
Today I questioned @SecMayorkas. We work our issues out by debating them, not by making the government the arbiter of truth.
"I want you to have nothing to do with speech…You think the American people are so stupid, they need you to tell them what the truth is?" pic.twitter.com/Tq6mtzluSe
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 4, 2022
The Biden Administration has told us over and over that the greatest threat to our country today is white supremacists. Is that true, or is that projection? Is there any evidence that a significant fraction of the society believes in white supremacy? If there is, I have not seen it.
The liberal paper referred to expectant mothers as ‘pregnant people’ and ‘pregnant individuals’
Woke stupidity does not improve on stupidity its just a new subset.
David French:
“…We do not know if Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health represents the current consensus of a majority of the Supreme Court. We certainly don’t know yet if it’s a preview of the Court’s actual ruling. Decisions are not final until opinions are issued, and dramatic history exists of a Supreme Court justice changing his mind on abortion during deliberations. In 1992, The Washington Post reported that Justice Anthony Kennedy initially voted to reverse Roe v. Wade when deciding Planned Parenthood v. Casey but later switched his vote to affirm Roe, “a flip attributed in court circles to liberal constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe’s pulling strings backstage.”
Even so, Alito’s draft is consequential. It not only represents a potential preview of one of the most significant Court decisions in a generation, but also articulates a compelling understanding of the nature of liberty and the role of the judiciary in American constitutional law…”
Worth clicking over.
“…Ginsburg firmly supported abortion, but she lamented the court’s decision to unilaterally create a new ‘regime’ on the subject…
…Ginsburg warned against major judicial shifts in a 1992 lecture at New York University, citing Roe as an example.
“Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”
Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case.
“Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” she said. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.” . . .
Ginsburg went on to contrast the court’s landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down “a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex.”
Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, “the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government.”
“In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions,” Ginsburg noted. “The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate.”…”
WATCH: @TimRyan refuses to say if there should be any limits on abortion THREE TIMES. pic.twitter.com/O0Xdt40f2l
— NRSC Rapid Response (@NRSC_Rapid) May 4, 2022
“…Democrats in Congress are calling on their colleagues to “codify Roe” in federal law. The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) in June 2021 would do just that. Here’s what you need to know. . . .
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the Supreme Court, even the liberal justices noted the awkwardness of arguing over whether hamburger meat crossing state lines meant a restaurant such as Ollie’s BBQ in Alabama had to allow Black patrons to sit at the counter, or whether an Atlanta hotel near an interstate highway had to allow Black guests because its travelers moved between states. Still, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Civil Rights Act, giving the green light to Congress to use its commerce power to enforce civil rights.
This time around, Congress would again define access to abortion as a case of interstate commerce. People travel across state lines to procure abortion services; medical equipment that provide abortions all moves in interstate commerce; and licensing, training and education for abortion providers all involve interstate travel and commerce. Proponents hope that by codifying Roe in this way, a new federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion would survive the Supreme Court’s inevitable review.
But the Supreme Court has narrowed Congress’s commerce power significantly since the mid-1990s. . . .
It’s possible that the Supreme Court would choose to uphold a WHPA, if passed and signed. Even with these unfavorable rulings, there is ample Supreme Court precedent to support Congress’s regulating abortion through interstate commerce, as law professor Julian Mortenson outlines.
But there is another reason that Democrats in Congress may not want to codify Roe through legislation.
If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has the power to protect abortion through legislation, Congress also would have the power to prohibit abortion through legislation. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously concluded in an 1824 Commerce Clause case, the power to regulate necessarily includes the power to prohibit.
Ultimately, any victory for abortion rights the Democrats might claim with the WHPA would be temporary, lasting only until Republicans regained control…”
Democrats don’t have the votes in the senate anyway. No matter how much screaming and how many declarations of righteous anger they make on television.
