PowerLine -> John Hinderaker ➳ Richard Painter Plumbs New Depths + John Hinderaker ➳ Immigration: A Loser For the Democrats

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

PowerLine -> John Hinderaker ➳ Richard Painter Plumbs New Depths + John Hinderaker ➳ Immigration: A Loser For the Democrats

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Daily Digest


  • Richard Painter Plumbs New Depths
  • The Liberal Crackup
  • Immigration: A Loser For the Democrats
  • Dave Begley: Dems Belong Together in Omaha
  • Washington Post takes aim at Supreme Court candidate Kavanaugh
Richard Painter Plumbs New Depths

Posted: 01 Jul 2018 10:29 AM PDT

(John Hinderaker)How crazy is the Left? Minnesota Senate candidate and former pretend Republican Richard Painter shows the way:

The circumstances of Justice Kennedy’s resignation must be investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee before any replacement is considered. The Constitution does not give Trump the power to use underhanded means to induce Supreme Court resignations.https://t.co/S6m5oLg9mV

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) June 30, 2018

What a lunatic! Sadly, though, in today’s Democratic Party he has plenty of company.

I’m sure Chuck Grassley will be all over Painter’s suggestion.

Via Twitchy.

  

The Liberal Crackup

Posted: 01 Jul 2018 08:26 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)Forget, for the moment, our long-running “Civil War on the Left” series. That civil war is essentially over, and the radical “progressive” left has won. Notice how fast the left and the media is rushing to embrace their shiny new object, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young (and presumably wise) Latina who knocked off the incumbent number four-ranked Democratic House member Joseph Crowley (who, admittedly, I had never heard of before last week). Never mind for now Ocasio-Cortez’s radical views; her newfound celebrity status is likely to be a disaster for her personally, and probably for Democrats, too.

Time again to recall the apocryphal remark of Mark Twain that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Sure enough, my sense that Democrats are going through another “McGovern Moment” that will culminate in a far left nominee and landslide loss to Trump in 2020 is gently—ever so gently—entertained in the New York Times today:

But some Democrats see the moment in even more sweeping terms, akin to the era following the Vietnam War and Watergate, when the reaction to a controversial Republican president triggered a moderate and liberal backlash. That movement delivered dozens of new seats, but it also unleashed a generational changing of the guard that jolted party leaders.

(If you click through to the complete story, this is where you cue up . . . Gary Hart! Another sign of the exhaustion of the liberal establishment. But I’ll pass over the easy laughs here.)

Meanwhile, cast your gaze over to Europe, where left-of-center parties are collapsing everywhere. A harbinger for Democrats in the U.S.? Probably, especially when you take note of the fact that the leading issue in Europe—much more so than the United States in fact—is immigration.

With that preface, take in this reporting from the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

A stricter approach to illegal migration in the Mediterranean region agreed at a summit on Friday marks a fundamental shift for the European Union, which three years ago had to deal with the arrival of more than a million people from Africa and the Middle East.

The shift, which drew protests from human-rights campaigners, envisions sending most asylum seekers who attempt to reach the bloc’s shores back to transit zones in North Africa and placing the ones who make it to EU territory in closed centers in countries such as Greece and Spain.

The deal, which still lacks many details, was reached thanks largely to frantic efforts by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is under pressure politically, and Italy’s new anti-immigrant government. French President Emmanuel Macron brokered a compromise among roughly a dozen countries willing to help Italy under the condition that migrants be detained to ensure they don’t leave for other countries. . .

The concept is inspired in part by the model long used by Australia, which turns back all migrant boats and sends them to third-country centers run by local authorities. This tough policy has prompted international outrage, said Ms. Collett. But the measures have curbed mass migration and prevented people from drowning at sea while trying to reach Australia, she added.

I think Trump ought to say something along the lines of “The United States should adopt the immigration control practices of our major allies in Europe,” and watch liberal heads explode, since for liberals, Europe=Enlightened and Humanitarian Social Policy. Though some other time, I’ll work through the argument that it is precisely high rates of low-skilled immigration here that make impossible their dream of European-style social democracy. It’s a matter of simple math, really. But for now, I’ll just let this original meme do the heavy lifting. I have a flight to catch.

P.S. Trump is rising in the polls. Apparently among Hispanics. Cue liberal panic in three, two, . . .

  

Immigration: A Loser For the Democrats

Posted: 01 Jul 2018 07:08 AM PDT

(John Hinderaker)Yesterday the Democrats organized pro-illegal immigration rallies across the country. The demonstrations were putatively addressed to the separation of illegal immigrant families at the border–never mind that President Trump has already issued an executive order addressing that issue–but the real agenda was open borders, i.e., no national sovereignty. Come one, come all.

This was most plainly expressed by the “Abolish ICE” theme that permeated the demonstrations:

I think everyone understands that “abolish ICE” means no enforcement of immigration laws. The Democrats obviously think they can make hay with the immigration issue, but I don’t understand why. Granted, it will fire up elements of their base. But it motivates the Republican base, and especially Trump voters, too. But the more fundamental point is that broadly speaking, the Democrats’ positions on immigration are unpopular.

This Harvard-Harris poll that was released on Thursday is, I think, typical:

Although American voters are sympathetic to immigrant families being separated at the border, they demand stronger border security and immigration enforcement. Voters do not believe that families ought to be separated when they cross illegally (88%), and they support the Trump administration’s late policy reversal, allowing families to stay together (71%), even if it was done unilaterally through an executive order.

A majority of voters want immigration reform (73%) and secure borders (76%). Voters also want stricter enforcement of immigration laws (70%). Voters support prosecuting immigrants who cross the border illegally (53%) and sending these immigrants home (64%). A majority (55%) also stand against so-called “catch and release” policies.

So 76% want secure borders, and 70% want stricter enforcement of immigration laws–the opposite of “abolish ICE.” These are overwhelming majorities. I frankly cannot understand why the Democrats want to make unpopular positions on an important issue the centerpiece of the midterm elections. All I can say is, I hope they keep it up.

  

Dave Begley: Dems Belong Together in Omaha

Posted: 01 Jul 2018 06:58 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)Nebraska attorney Dave Begley is the only guy I know who attended one of the Families Belong Together rallies across the country yesterday protesting the Trump administration’s enforcement of immigration law. Writing from the Omaha rally — contrast Dave’s report with the Omaha World-Herald’s cheerleading — Dave reports:

Wisconsin law professor emerita and blogger Ann Althouse is a severe critic of anyone who uses children for political advantage, but they weren’t playing to her prescriptions at the Families Belong Together rally in south Omaha yesterday. The festivities commenced with three cute kids singing along to an original song inspired by Cesar Chavez. The songwriter apparently didn’t know that the late union leader opposed illegal aliens working in this country.

The rally had the aspect of fantasy. Every word spoken to the crowd was translated into Spanish even though 95 percent of the crowd of about 600 appeared to have English as their native language. The Hispanics of Omaha appeared to be missing in action. Another aspect of the fantasy imputes all evil to Trump. If it was admitted that Trump had issued an executive order to remedy the immediate problem of family separation, it wasn’t good enough or wasn’t being implemented fast enough. Open borders are the true goal.

The saddest part of this whole issue is the injection of religion. Many religious people of goodwill feel that Obama’s enforcement policy also erred, but they remained silent when a Democrat was president. A nun (who will remain nameless) informed us that the 2013 election in Honduras was stolen from the people by the United States government; she didn’t tell us that Obama was President at the time. The nuns at my grade school didn’t teach idiots.

I was informed by one in attendance that a group of Catholic bishops is headed to a Texas detention center to protest. This a grave mistake by the Catholic Church. It needs to stay out of politics and stick to its last. The bishops convey the message that anyone who respects the rule of law is no longer welcome in the Church. With the sex abuse scandals that they have mishandled — see the multimillion-dollar settlement of abuse claims recently announced in the Twin Cities — the bishops have still to get their own house in order. I am Catholic myself an am sickened by the lack of common sense at the top.

The head of the Nebraska Urban Indian Health Coalition told us to “vote blue in November.” The true purpose of this rally was really manifested itself in opposition to Trump and enlistment of new Democrat voters. The official Nebraska voter registration application was available. In order to register to vote, a person need only have a driver’s license or state identification number. The prospective voter then signs the application declaring that he is a citizen “to the best of my knowledge and belief and under the penalty of election falsification” that all of the statements are true. Illegals can easily sign up.

A 19-year-old college student told us that his parents – although still living – made the “ultimate sacrifice” by bringing him to this country illegally at the age of five. It really is remarkable that illegal immigrants today brazenly proclaim their status and have no fear of deportation. If the law was enforced, ICE would show up at his parents’ house tomorrow and deport them to Mexico.

The master of ceremonies was a community organizer and activist Ben Salazar. Salazar graduated from law school (not Creighton!) but, according to his LinkedIn profile, he has never practiced law. He did, however, sue the NCAA and the College World Series for racial discrimination when he was kicked out of free seats given to him as a member of the Press. Case dismissed.

The rally took place a few blocks from the home of my great-grandfather Michael Begley. He died working in a packinghouse at the age of 63. Michael Begley’s father was born in County Kerry, Ireland; he moved to Nebraska shortly after statehood. I don’t know if he brought any minor children with him to the United States but I do know that his immigration to America was entirely legal.

My great-grandfather raised nine children in a tiny house. One of those was John P. Begley. My great uncle John was one of the first CPA’s in Nebraska, he earned a doctorate, he passed the Iowa bar exam even though he never attended law school and he taught accounting at Creighton University for 50 years. His brother Leonard owned Begley GMC truck. It drives me wild when people assert that America is a nation of immigrants with no reference to legality. If this country doesn’t follow the rule of law we have no future as a sovereign nation.

  

Washington Post takes aim at Supreme Court candidate Kavanaugh

Posted: 30 Jun 2018 09:10 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is said to be one of the five or so jurists on the short-list for nomination to the Supreme Court. The Washington Post is concerned that Kavanaugh would try to shield President Trump from the Russia investigation and its various non-Russia related offshoots. That concern gives rise to this piece by Michael Kranish and Ann Marimow called “Top Supreme Court prospect has argued presidents should not be distracted by investigations and lawsuits.”

The basis for the Post’s attack on Judge Kavanaugh is a 2009 law review he wrote about criminal investigations of, and lawsuits against, presidents. Kavanaugh would be entitled to find irony in this attack.

He had been a member of Ken Starr’s team in its investigations of President Clinton. Yet, Kavanaugh’s 2009 law review article was sympathetic to Clinton.

The judge argued that given the burden investigations like Starr’s place on a president, the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations that “ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.” And he specifically acknowledged that the public interest was not well served by Clinton having to respond to Paula Jones’ lawsuit while still in office.

Naturally, Kavanaugh didn’t say the Starr investigation was improper. Rather, he contended that the statute Starr operated under was “badly flawed.”

It’s unlikely that anything in Kavanaugh’s article bothered Democrats at the time of publication or for a goodly period thereafter. His piece was, as I said, sympathetic to Clinton. Moreover, Barack Obama was in the White House, the potential beneficiary of any relief for the president from investigations, lawsuits, etc.

But in 2018, the left is obsessed with investigating, suing, and eventually impeaching the current Republican president. Thus, Stephen Vladek, a law professor quoted by the Post, is obviously correct in saying that the views Kavanaugh expressed in the 2008 law review article “will be a very central topic of questions from members of the Senate” if Trump nominates him. In fact, these views will make the heads of some Democratic Senators explode.

Here’s another irony, though: Kavanaugh is not among the most conservative nominees under consideration by President Trump.

Before Chief Justice Roberts declared the Obamacare penalty a “tax,” Kavanaugh had described it as such in a case challenging the individual mandate. The Obama administration cited Kavanaugh for this proposition and the notion carried the day before the Supreme Court.

In addition, Kavanaugh has declined to join conservative dissenting opinions in a few high profile cases. One was the minor illegal immigrant abortion case, Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (2017). Another was a suit challenging Obamacare’s requirement that faith-based nonprofits and other religious ministries facilitate access to contraception and abortifacients for their employees, Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of HHS, 808 F.3d 1 (2005).

Kavanaugh dissented from the liberal outcome in both cases. However, he did not join a strong dissenting opinion by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson in the first case and by Judge Janice Rogers Brown in the second.

To be clear, I think Kavanaugh would be a good Supreme Court Justice. But he is not the left’s worst nightmare. Or he wouldn’t be if the left weren’t so obsessed with hounding President Trump out of office.

  

Leave a Reply