The theatrics around Kavanaugh's confirmation were Democrats trying to play the long game, but they overplayed their hand so severely that the sympathy built up for the embattled nominee. Sure, the narrative survived in too many people, but anyone remotely paying attention found themselves disgusted by the Democrats, effectively giving Republicans and Kavanaugh the PR victory.

But while Kavanaugh was and still is technically a threat to the left, Trump's incoming cabinet is one built for one purpose, and that's deconstructing the deep state and exposing the corruption within the government so it can be reduced and its power decreased. The Democrat Party, whose entire concern is maintaining that power and influence, considers this a nightmare scenario. This is a code red situation for them.

As such, I see the Democrats going absolutely overboard in ways that make the Kavanaugh hearing look like an elementary school stage production. The fearmongering they will resort to will be such that future generations will want to study it.

There is no way that the Democrats will want their deepest secrets uncovered, and they will do what they always have done in order to avert losing even an ounce of their power: they will resort to lies, drama, and fear. Schumer's letter confirms this for me, as it sets the tone for the Democrats being "the adults in the room," and as such, any overblown accusations they resort to will be taken with some form of belief by onlookers.

But this won't work this time around. The Kavanaugh hearings came at a time when voter's fatigue with Democrats hadn't reached its height and the orange man effectively passed off as "bad." Now, Democrats are going into these hearings with the public actually behind Trump, and excited about this nominees. Democrats are going to be fighting an uphill battle in both Washington and the public square.

Neither House Speaker Mike Johnson nor soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader John Thune had the power to call a recess and force through a nomination. While they both indicated they would allow that to happen, that was never the question because it wasn't up to them.

Instead, it would have taken a full vote by both chambers to recess. In the House, that can happen with a simple majority. In the Senate, a recess vote can be filibustered, making 60 votes the threshold. What that means is that Democrats and the Republicans who opposed Gaetz could easily block any attempt at a recess appointment.

But what about the theory that Trump could force a recess with executive power? That would have also been precarious because the Constitutional language specifically applies to a disagreement between the chambers on when to recess. To trigger that, you would first need both chambers to vote to recess on different days. That wasn't going to happen. It's also worth noting that three of the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court have already made it clear they believe recess appointments are unconstitutional, which means any challenge would have likely succeeded given the makeup of the court.

On one level, I don't blame the Dynamic Duo for not wanting to show up. The trial of Laken Riley's murderer just wound up (Laken Riley's Family and Friends Give Heartbreaking Impact Statements; Judge Sentences Jose Ibarra), and I can understand why they don't want to talk about immigration. I can also understand that both of these guys know they are leaving office in the next couple of months, and they don't see any use in taking the public beating this hearing would entail.

Paradoxically, this move could boost Trump's upcoming showdown with the Department of Justice, DHS, and the FBI. They are showing themselves to be a pampered, privileged group that doesn't think they have to answer to even a senior senator in the ruling party. I predict this will not work out well when the hammer falls, and they come running to guys like Peters to make the pain go away.

Under House rules, the Speaker has “general control” of facilities in the chamber, giving him the authority to issue the policy surrounding bathrooms.

“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson said. “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol.”

“Women deserve women’s only spaces,” he added. //

Johnson’s ruling, which occurred on the “Transgender Day of Remembrance,” is sure to make liberals’ heads explode. But he is the Speaker, and the Speaker has spoken. //

etba_ss
40 minutes ago
This is good for Johnson. I'm glad to see him step up to the plate and actually lead, using the power he has been given.

The second part is what happens when it is violated. That has to be known and ready to act on it. The left will violate it to see if Johnson is serious or if he is just blowing smoke to keep his spot as Speaker. He better have a plan for action.

The punishment should be the same as what would happen to me if I did it. These men should be treated like any other men who invade these spaces.

The files are all exhibits to a motion filed in a defamation case in Florida related to the sex trafficking allegations levied against Gaetz - allegations the US Department of Justice investigated for 18 months before declining to pursue charges because, sources told the Washington Post, the two main witnesses weren't credible. Some of the exhibits, including deposition testimony from a woman who claims she had sex with Gaetz when she was 17, have been sealed by the judge presiding over that case. //

In reply to ABC's "story," Gaetz said:

"These allegations are invented and would constitute false testimony to Congress. This false smear following a three-year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism.". //

As I wrote back then, after Gaetz blistered Wray over the FBI's harassment of COVID whistleblower and Chinese defector Dr. Yan Li-Meng during a congressional hearing:

Is it any wonder that the entire Democrat/Media Complex is trying to destroy Matt Gaetz? Think about when the questions into his supposedly improper relationships with females started flooding the airwaves and which government organization is “investigating” Gaetz. I’m sure it’s all just a big coincidence and not an attempt to silence or intimidate Gaetz.

Kyrsten Sinema @kyrstensinema
·
What’s the one tool that requires the Senate to work in a bipartisan way?

Oh look, the filibuster.

Burgess Everett @burgessev
Schumer to Republicans: "Take care not to misread the will of the American people"

"Do not abandon bipartisanship. It's the best and most effective way to get things done"
2:22 PM · Nov 18, 2024 //

The less Washington gets done, the better for everyone involved. We don't need a Congress that can make sweeping, dramatic changes to the nation based on winning an election by a few percentage points. That's how you end up with internal unrest under the tyranny of the majority.

It may not be a popular position on the right given we just won a sweeping victory, but strengthening, not removing the filibuster is the right move. There's nothing the government can do for me that is that important. I'd rather the behemoth stay out of my way more often than not, and the moment the filibuster ends, it's never coming back. That'd be very bad news the next time Democrats take power. Republicans should use their current leverage to ensure that can't happen.

Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

A new documentary on the vice presidency gives a fresh perspective on the complications of American governance. //

No constitutional structure can know or predict every possible scenario that leads down the road of autocracy and anarchy. For this reason, Ben Franklin reportedly told a passerby at the end of the Constitutional Convention that the delegates had created “a republic, if you can keep it.” It falls on all of us — each successive generation of Americans — to rise to Franklin’s challenge. //

“The American Vice President” is available on PBS stations (check your local listings) and can be streamed online and via the PBS app.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is facing accusations of unethical conduct after it was revealed that she allegedly had private communications with a key witness in the Jan. 6 investigation using an encrypted messaging app.

The lawmaker, a fierce critic of former President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in the proceedings.

Cheney allegedly exchanged messages with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in June 2022 as the investigation was still in full swing, according to Just the News. It is believed she used Signal, the messaging app, as a back channel to discuss the case with Hutchinson.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee, brought the allegations to light. //

“Our investigation has uncovered unethical back-channel communications between former Rep. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson just before Hutchinson changed her sworn testimony,” Loudermilk said. “Not only is communicating with a witness without their attorney present unethical, it undermines the integrity of an investigation. //

“Clearly, Cheney did not want Stefan Passantino representing Hutchinson; as shortly after Cheney and Hutchinson began communicating, Cheney convinced Hutchinson to fire Passantino, and arranged for a new attorney to represent Hutchinson pro-bono. “ //

The revelation has raised questions about Hutchinson’s testimony – especially her wild claims about Trump.

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November. //

Texas’s firebrand attorney general, Ken Paxton, has been particularly successful in procuring injunctions in certain Texas-based federal courts against Biden’s myriad overreaches. Furious, leftists are now seeking to thwart Paxton by taking away a tool he has utilized to great effect: the single-judge division. //

Push to Randomly Assign Cases

Nevertheless, left-wing activists are now attempting to use the Judicial Conference, the supervisory body that essentially acts as the federal judiciary’s own Deep State, to end the use of single-judge divisions in all cases of injunctions against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” to all the nation’s district courts, recommending that all cases be randomly assigned throughout the district in which they are filed — regardless of the division that actually receives the filing. //

Now, just weeks before a monumental election, leftists have once again ramped up their efforts to ram through a rule in the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference that would make the previously “advisory” guidance outright mandatory, thus caving to the demands of, among others, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference purports to locate such authority in the Rules Enabling Act, the 1930s-era statute that authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules of civil and criminal procedure for the federal judiciary.

But Congress — not the judiciary — has the ultimate power to reject any rule promulgated by the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should not hesitate to exercise such power, should the Judicial Conference succeed in pushing through its single-judge division edict. //

But regardless of the election result, it is crucial to flag the left’s latest effort to decimate long-standing judicial norms simply because leftists are furious that they are not consistently getting their way in case outcomes. This attempt mirrors Justice Elena Kagan’s desperate and ludicrous call for lower federal courts to supervise the Supreme Court when it comes to recusal decisions. The proposal now before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee caves to the whining of leftist commentators upset over politically charged rulings. It is a nakedly political power grab.

Should the Rules Committee adopt the proposal, the Supreme Court needs to put its foot down. Because the justices have been issuing many decisions that leftists detest, the court in recent years has been subject to numerous high-profile political and physical attacks. //

Congress can also act — and has the leverage to do so. Right now, the Judicial Conference wants the U.S. House to pass two separate judge-related bills. One of those bills would authorize about 66 new federal judgeships; the other would extend some temporary judgeships. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to act on either bill until the Judicial Conference agrees it will not alter the case-assignment process through its Deep State committees. Congress should demand that if the Judicial Conference wants changes to case-assignment procedure, it will seek new authorizing legislation so as to not create a conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 137. Congress, which alone writes federal law under our Constitution, must shut down the Judicial Conference’s highly dubious Rules Enabling Act legal theory of delegated power.

It's honestly hilarious how much some of this language mirrors the things Republicans have been lambasted for in the past. Anytime a GOP politician even suggests that they will only certify the results if the election is "fair," they are piledriven by the press as promoting "insurrection." Yet, when Democrats do the same thing, the mainstream journalists give a collective shrug.

Raskin wasn't the only one singing that tune, though. Several others with a history of objecting to the Electoral College also mused that things must go "as we expect it to" for them to certify a Trump victory. //

So are Democrats teeing up a claim that election fraud happened and, thus, certification must be delayed? Because if so, that would break every irony meter in existence.

Expectedly, Axios finished out its piece by defending Raskin and his colleagues, claiming that while both parties have objected to certification, it's different when Democrats do it.

At the center of this debate is a bipartisan group of senators, informally dubbed the "Gang of Six," who are quietly working on potential changes to the 340B drug pricing program. On the Republican side, Senators John Thune (SD), Jerry Moran (KS), and Shelley Capito (WV) have joined their Democratic colleagues, Senators Debbie Stabenow (MI), Ben Cardin (MD), and Tammy Baldwin (WI), in tackling the future of this crucial program.

For those unfamiliar, the 340B program allows hospitals and healthcare providers in low-income and rural areas to purchase medications at discounted prices from pharmaceutical companies. These savings are vital, allowing hospitals to remain financially viable and continue providing services to underserved communities. The discounted drugs are often sold at regular prices to insured patients, allowing these healthcare providers to use the profit margin to cover costs, pay healthcare staff, and maintain operations.

Why does this matter? Because rural states like South Dakota, West Virginia, and Kansas rely heavily on the 340B program to keep their healthcare facilities open. For example, South Dakota, despite its sparse population, has 339 active 340B entities, providing much-needed healthcare access to its rural communities. West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the country, has over 1,060 of these entities, and Kansas has 946. These numbers underscore how essential the program is for ensuring that working-class and rural patients have access to hospital services.

But this isn't just about those three states—it's about the broader picture of healthcare access in rural America. Across the country, rural hospitals are struggling to keep their doors open, and the 340B program is a lifeline. Just in the past month, we’ve seen MercyOne closing its Primghar location in Iowa, the Regional Health System shutting down its Norman Regional Hospital in Oklahoma, and a temporary closure of a 340B facility in rural Ohio. Without 340B, these closures would likely become far more common.

The pharmaceutical industry, unsurprisingly, isn't a fan of the program. They’d rather see these discounts eliminated, arguing that hospitals should rely on government funding or higher taxes to stay afloat. However, the reality is that Big Pharma agreed to 340B in exchange for access to lucrative Medicare and Medicaid markets, and now they want to renege on that deal. If they succeed, rural communities could be left without access to healthcare, or taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for direct government bailouts to struggling hospitals.

When one of the more senior Senate Democrats sounds the alarm bell regarding governmental failures, it says something — particularly if it involves former President Donald Trump (and I don't mean in a way that's critical of him). According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the American people are going to be "shocked, appalled, astonished" when they see the interim report that lawmakers plan to release shortly regarding the July 13 assassination attempt on the former president. //

However, he did say that he believes there needs to be more accountability. "Without accountability, this kind of failure and lapse will happen again." //

Hallen
7 hours ago
Wow. If he's saying that, it means it's bad and there's no way for them to spin it. He's getting out in front of it so the stink doesn't land on him. That means it's the administration's fault which means it's the fault of Democrats.

It's official. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act will indeed be a part of the continuing resolution (CR), which Speaker Mike Johnson introduced on Friday in a 46-page proposal to fund the U.S. government through the 2024 election. And the other side of the aisle is speaking out loudly in opposition to it.

via The Hill:

The 46-page plan would keep the government funded into March 2025, while tacking on language for stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting, setting the stage for a budget showdown with Senate Democrats later this month. //

President Joe Biden has promised to veto any bill that crosses his desk containing the SAVE Act.

OK, that's a lot of text, but the writers raise an interesting point. If they are correct in how this is done, there's potential here that billions - billions of dollars may have been funneled to Democrat candidates, supporters, and donors. And here's the catch; that 1977 change in the law means it may actually be legal.

‘If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,’ Thomas wrote.

The problem is out of control. No one knows how many separate crimes there are, including the Department of Justice. Researchers have tried counting, with one 2019 effort identifying at least 5,199 statutory crimes. Regulatory crimes are orders of magnitude greater, with estimates of the number of regulatory crimes ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 separate offenses.

This is inconsistent with basic ideas of self-government and the intentions of those who framed the Constitution. Laws with criminal consequences should be carefully considered by the legislative branch, not pushed through by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people. //

Congress can seize the opportunity and pass some simple and commonsense reforms that would further reduce the power of the administrative state and its appetite for passing criminal laws.

Congress should begin by requiring the executive agencies to simply catalog their regulations that have criminal consequences. After all, if a federal agency does not know if something is a criminal offense, how can the people be expected to? If a “mens rea” requirement is not already in the law, Congress should make all criminal regulations have a “willful” requirement to prevent citizens from being prosecuted for actions they did not even know they took. For new laws, agencies should be required to state the applicable mental state.

In the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Chevron "defies the command of" the Administrative Procedure Act (the law governing federal administrative agencies) "that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA."

Roberts noted: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption" (that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies) "is misguided, because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Roberts added that this decision does "not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful--including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself--are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology." //

Jman98 Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Congress always had the power, they simply refused to use it. Congress could have always been specific in the language used in any given piece of legislation they wrote and passed. They purposely weren’t because specificity leads to responsibility and they’re not about that. By leaving things to someone else, bureaucrats in the Executive branch, they could then complain about how their purposely ambiguous legislation was badly implemented and dodge responsibility for what they’d done. How many times have they written in legislation “the Secretary shall” so as to punt all responsibility for what happens next? Hundreds, sometimes in the same piece of legislation. This is telling Congress to do their job right the first time. //

Minister of War Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
I agree that the power should be returned to the people & their elected representatives. But Iam hesitant when I hear that the Court thinks that courts know better than anyone else. The SCOTUS may have just granted itself & the rest of the judiciary more power that they shouldn't have to do what amounts to writing laws.

Laocoön of Troy Minister of War
an hour ago
No...they've just thrown down the gauntlet and have warned the Executive to not play so fast and loose with regulation or the courts will take away even more power from them. This entire decision is an unmitigated, magnificent result.

I suspect that the lazy and cowardly Congress will end up forced by their donors and political supporters to stop at least some regulation overreach.

Bottom line: Congress can amend §666 to make it clear that acts like what Snyder did are illegal. What will come of this is bad faith actors pointing at the court and claiming that Snyder is another example of the high court defending corruption. Rather, it is SCOTUS defending liberty and requiring Congress to define criminal statutes with clarity and specificity.

As Alito has famously said in the past, Congress did not create the Supreme Court, the Constitution did. It is not any Democrat hack's job to "fix" the court, and certainly, no one in Congress has the credibility to do absolutely anything regarding it.

"Fixing" it isn't the real purpose of the current left-wing hysteria, though. The real purpose is to garner more power.