×
↓ Freedom Centers

Tag Archives: Supreme Court


The Progressive Panic Over Justice Breyer

By Peter RoffNewsweek

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer sits during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. ERIN SCHAFF-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

In a ghoulish turn of events, progressive legal activists are invoking Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s legacy in an attempt to persuade Justice Stephen Breyer to step down from the United States Supreme Court.

Speaking to CBS News about the 82-year-old Breyer, Demand Justice’s Brian Fallon said, “We want to avoid a repeat of the unfortunate situation that occurred last fall,” when Ginsburg—a liberal icon—died while a Republican was in the White House and a GOP-controlled Senate was able to confirm her replacement.

Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court for terms ending only upon their death, resignation or removal. The Founding Fathers wrote this provision into the Constitution to insulate the Court and its members from political pressure.

Ginsburg’s death after a long, valiant struggle with cancer produced a rare moment of bipartisanship in the nation’s capital. Republicans and Democrats alike praised the justice for her devotion to her work, her tremendous success as an attorney who championed equality under the law and her longtime friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which proved that people with wildly divergent views could work together and be genuine friends.

That era of good feeling shattered shortly after President Joe Biden entered the White House. Progressives immediately started whispering about Breyer, a stalwart defender of the Court’s independence, needing to step down.

“There are a lot of people that were filled with regret after [Ginsburg’s] passing because she did not take the opportunity to step down when Barack Obama was president,” Fallon said on CBS News. He faulted Ginsburg for refusing to resign after the severity of her eventually terminal illness became known, which would have allowed the then-president to replace her with someone even further to the left. “We don’t want to have that situation reprise itself this time with Justice Breyer who is—the Court’s oldest justice,” Fallon told the CBS anchor.

As the Court has moved rightward, it has come under increased scrutiny from liberals and progressives who once accepted its decisions as binding and unassailable, at least when they liked the outcome. Nowadays, those progressives are enthralled with the idea that Congress can overturn rulings they consider incorrect, such as Citizens United v. FEC.

Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has been especially hard on the justices. Recently he attempted to use his Senate subcommittee to demonstrate the influence of the “dark money” Citizens United set loose. He demanded that justices share their time and travel records so their critics could uncover any unsavory relationships between them and what Teddy Roosevelt called the “malefactors of great wealth.”

There’s an argument to be made that Supreme Court justices stricken with severe illnesses should step down. The Court faced a crisis after Justice William O. Douglass suffered a debilitating stroke and refused to resign even though his colleagues said he could no longer fulfill his duties. Breyer, by contrast, seems to be in the best of health and does not show signs of impairment or loss of enthusiasm for the job. He has no apparent reason to retire unless he himself has decided it’s time.

What progressives are doing now is unseemly and ugly. Were the shoe on the other foot, they might call it ageist and discriminatory. Some will, no doubt, suggest that conservatives would do the same. But liberals tend to advance their agenda and their candidates for elected office and the federal bench by saying they are better. They themselves ask to be held to higher standards.

The jockeying over federal judges didn’t begin with Trump. It started back in the 1980s when Ted Kennedy waded into the slime and ooze on a mission to destroy Robert Bork’s reputation along with his nomination to the highest Court in the land. Judging by what progressives are now saying about Justice Breyer, they’re still stuck in the muck.


How The Voting Rights Act Lets Biden’s DOJ Insist Georgia’s Photo ID Requirement Is Racist

For each of the challenged provisions, DOJ's complaint alleges black voters are burdened more than white voters in Georgia's new voting law.

By Margot ClevelandThe Federalist

How The Voting Rights Act Lets Biden’s DOJ Insist Georgia’s Photo ID Requirement Is Racist
Photo Steph/Krell

On Friday, the Biden administration filed suit against Georgia, challenging numerous aspects of the state’s Election Integrity Act of 2021. While many of the allegations contained in the nearly 50-page complaint struck a surreal chord, assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuit requires an understanding of the Voting Rights Act. Here’s your lawsplainer.

Last week, the Biden administration, through the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, filed a one-count complaint against the state of Georgia, the Georgia State Election Board, and Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, pursuant to Sections 2 and 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act.

The latter provision, Section 12(d), authorizes the attorney general of the United States to file a civil lawsuit against states and local election officials for alleged violations of the substantive provisions of the Voting Rights Act, such as Section 2. Further, under the Voting Rights Act, the federal government may seek injunctive relief to block voting laws from taking effect.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act currently prohibits any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The “results in” language here proves key, because when Congress first passed the law in 1965, Section 2 prohibited only a “standard, practice, or procedure” “to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

As originally drafted, then, the Voting Rights Act only prohibited intentional discrimination. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, wherein the high court held that Section 2 only bars “the purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by the government of the freedom to vote” on account of race or color, Congress amended the language of Section 2 to prohibit practices that “result[]” in the “denial or abridgment” of the right to vote.

To prevail on a Section 2 claim, then, the Department of Justice need not establish a state such as Georgia intended to deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color. Rather, Section 2(b) provides that a violation “is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes . . . are not equally open to participation” because members of a particular race or color “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”

Based on this statutory language, courts have developed a two-step analysis to determine if a practice violates Section 2. First, courts ask whether the practice provides members of a particular race or color “less opportunity” than others “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Second, the burden must be “caused by or linked to ‘social and historical conditions’ that have or currently produce discrimination.”

While the courts seem to agree on this two-prong approach to Section 2, in practice the lower courts have reached conflicting assessments of the validity of various laws. For instance, the Seventh Circuit upheld Wisconsin’s voter ID law against a Section 2 challenge, while the Fifth Circuit rejected Texas’s Voter ID law.

Most extreme, however, was the Ninth Circuit’s application of the two-prong test in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. In Brnovich, the en banc court held that Arizona’s “out-of-precinct” provision, which required voters to cast their ballots in the correct precinct, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The appellate court also struck Arizona’s ballot-harvesting ban that made it illegal for individuals to possess another person’s ballot, other than election officials, mail carriers, caregivers, family, or household members. In striking Arizona’s voting law, the Ninth Circuit focused heavily on the disparate impact of the challenged provision, as opposed to whether minority voters have an “equal opportunity” to vote.

Brnovich is currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and experienced court watchers expect the justices to reverse the Ninth Circuit and uphold Arizona’s voting laws. Beyond the bottom line in Brnovich, the Supreme Court will likely also define the appropriate standard for lower federal courts to apply in analyzing Section 2 claims.

While it is unclear what guidance the Supreme Court will provide or what standard the justices will adopt in Brnovich, it is likely the majority will stress that a mere disparate impact on voters is insufficient. Yet the gist of the DOJ’s entire lawsuit against Georgia is that select provisions of the Election Integrity Act impact black voters at a higher rate than white voters.

Specifically, the DOJ complains that black voters are “disproportionately burdened” by the challenged provisions of Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021. And what exactly are those challenged provisions?

First, the DOJ complains that Georgia prohibits the distribution of unsolicited absentee ballot applications then also bars private organizations from distributing duplicate absent ballot applications. Next, the DOJ challenges Georgia’s requirement that in requesting an absentee ballot that voters either provide their driver’s license number or present a photocopy of another form of identification — but even a utility bill would suffice.

Also challenged are limits on the time period for requesting absentee ballots and limits on the number and location of absentee ballot drop boxes. Finally, the DOJ challenges Georgia’s ban on out-of-precinct voting and the distribution of food or drinks by private organizations to persons waiting in line.

For each of these challenged provisions, the complaint alleges black voters are burdened more than white voters. But even under current precedent — outside the liberal Ninth Circuit — that is not enough. Rather, the question is whether under the totality of the circumstances the challenged provisions deny black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process and that that burden is caused by historical or current race discrimination.

Given that Georgia’s law provides more generous early voting and absentee voting opportunities than many other states, it is difficult to see how a court would find these provisions violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Further, if, as expected, the Supreme Court in Brnovich, upholds Arizona’s challenged provisions, the precedent will be even stronger in Georgia’s favor.

For now, though, Georgia must answer the DOJ’s complaint. At that point it is likely the DOJ will seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law. However, to obtain a preliminary injunction, the DOJ must establish a likelihood of success on the merits. We will then get a first sense of how presiding Judge J.P. Boulee, a Trump appointee, views the DOJ’s case.

Before then, though, we will know how the Supreme Court views Section 2 challenges to state voting integrity laws, with a decision in Brnovich due in the next month or so.


New Polling: Majority of Voters Support 15-Week Limit, Reject Abortion on Demand

By Peter RoffAmerican Action News

The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) released a national poll Monday of likely voters that found a strong majority of voters support limits on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy and the rejection of abortion on demand.

The poll, which was conducted on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement it would review Mississippi’s 15-week abortion limit and consider the question of whether all “pre-viability” bans on abortion are unconstitutional also found likely voters much more likely to support Republican candidates who back a 15-week limit on abortion versus Democratic candidates who back unlimited abortion.

“Among other findings, this survey of 1,200 likely voters showed that there is a strong center-right coalition that supports the Supreme Court allowing significant limits on abortion. In short, a strong majority of voters oppose unrestricted, abortion on demand, throughout pregnancy. Additionally, this study strongly indicates that the pro-life side of the issue enjoys significantly more intensity than the pro-choice side. Politically, the pendulum has swung decisively in our direction,” said the polling firm OnMessage Inc., in its analysis of the data.

Among the key poll findings:

-53 percent of likely voters said they were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who supports a 15-week limit on abortion versus just 28 percent of voters who prefer a Democratic candidate who supports unlimited abortion up until the moment of birth.  Independent voters break strongly to the GOP side by a 54 percent to 18 percent margin.

-55 percent of likely voters say they are more likely to support a 15-week limit on abortion when they learn that an unborn child has the capacity to feel pain.

-43 percent of likely pro-life voters identified abortion as being “very important” (10 on a 1-10 importance scale) in deciding their vote for an elected official, while only 29 percent of pro-choice voters said the same.

“The majority of voters reject late-term abortion and the Democratic candidates who shamefully advocate for it. At 15 weeks, unborn children can feel pain, and most European countries limit abortions at this point. There is strong support among the American people for our nation’s laws to finally catch up with science and international norms,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement announcing the results.

SBA List recently launched a $2 million video ad campaign asserting the humanity of unborn children. The 30 spot is airing on national cable, including on Lifetime and Bravo networks, as well as select streaming services, and in the Washington, D.C. media market on top news stations.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.


Most Voters Don’t Want More Judges on the High Court

By Peter RoffNewsweek

The Democrats are returning to their roots during Joe Biden‘s presidency. The Clintonian concession that the “era of big government” was over has been nullified. The bigger-is-better approach to public policy fueled by “tax and spend” is back.

Biden was portrayed as the moderate candidate in the last election, so this switch may seem odd. Those who follow politics closely know, however, that was spin. He’s only “middle of the road” because the party has moved so far left since he first achieved national prominence.

Over his first hundred days, Biden has embarked on an ambitious program that will lead to a radical change in the role, scope and size of government.

In recent weeks, the president has announced the creation of a commission to study the makeup of the federal judiciary, as he promised he would during the campaign. Former president Donald Trump‘s achievements in remaking the third branch of government—ably supported by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell—might be Trump’s most significant achievement, making it the thing that irks progressives the most. Rather than waiting on Father Time and the Grim Reaper to do their work so they may make major changes to the Supreme Court‘s makeup, congressional Democrats have introduced legislation increasing the number of justices from nine to 13.

The last time Biden took a position on the idea, he denounced it as “boneheaded.” That was back during the Reagan-Bush years. Challenged on the issue by Trump in 2020, he punted to the idea of a commission rather than answer “yes” or “no” to the question.

The dodge worked, and reminded us all what a skilled politician Biden is.

Democrats Announce the Judiciary Act of 2021
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) hold a press conference in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to announce legislation to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court on April 15, 2021 in Washington, DC. The bill is biggest push at Supreme Court reform since 1937.DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES

Since changing the direction of the Court can only be accomplished by changing the justices—right now there’s a soft six-to-three center-right majority—the only quick way to bring about change is to change the justices. Packing the Court may be fashionable among progressives not content to wait for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to depart, but it isn’t popular with the American people.

According to one recent survey, a majority of likely voters said they opposed enlarging the Court, especially if the purpose of adding justices was to change the direction of its rulings. Just 33 percent of those surveyed by Rasmussen Reports said they were in favor of adopting a proposal like the one put forward by congressional Democrats to add four justices as quickly as it can be done. A solid majority—55 percent—said they were opposed.

“On the specific question of increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 13,” the polling firm said, “voters divide along party lines much as they do on the more general question. Fifty-six percent of Democratic voters approve increasing the number of justices to 13.” That includes the 29 percent who “strongly approve” of the proposal that congressional Democrats have already put forth as legislation even before Biden’s commission on the judiciary can make its report. Meanwhile, the pollster continued, “Seventy-four percent of GOP voters disapprove of the plan, including 70 percent who strongly disapprove. Among unaffiliated voters, 59 percent disapprove of increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 13, including 49 percent who strongly disapprove.”

According to the pollster, those numbers are “little changed since October,” when 53 percent of those asked said they opposed packing the Court. Rasmussen found a slim majority in both surveys supporting term limits for appointments to the federal bench—though making that change would require a constitutional amendment, while the number of justices on the Supreme Court can be changed through legislation.

The idea of packing the High Court to change the direction of its rulings has been tried before. Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do it in the late 1930s but was rebuffed by a Congress controlled by Democrats—who were nonetheless punished for FDR’s overreach at the next election. There’s something about changing the rules to change an outcome that disturbs most voters. The Democrats had better figure that out fast, or they’ll suffer at the ballot box for their mistake.


Democrats’ Court-Packing Two-Step

By The EditorsNational Review

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the House of Representatives managers for the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump during a news conference on Capitol Hill, January 15, 2020. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

President Biden and the Democratic Party still cannot answer a simple question: “Will you, or will you not, blow up the judicial branch of the United States government?”

This should not be a tough one — especially for Joe Biden. Last time a Democratic president considered destroying the Supreme Court, his party described the proposal as “the most terrible threat to constitutional government that has arisen in the entire history of the country” and recommended that it “be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” As a senator, Biden concurred with this assessment. “Roosevelt,” Biden said, “I remember this old adage about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely — corrupted by power, in my view, unveiled his Court-packing plan.”

Evidently, the presidency does that to some men.

Perhaps aware of the gravity of what they are attempting, the Democrats are running a two-track play. President Biden, through whom many of the party’s most radical ideas are laundered, is simply refusing to answer whether he supports the idea, and, in an attempt to extend the uncertainty, has unveiled a bipartisan commission to “study” the issue. Equally wishy-washy is Nancy Pelosi, who generated headlines yesterday by saying that the current proposal would not get a vote in the House, but did not rule out the idea so much as hide behind Biden’s commission and insist that it needed to be “considered” and is “not out of the question.” In the meantime, less protean Democrats are making the affirmative case. A bill introduced by no less than the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet would add four new justices to the Court — exactly the number needed to hand Democrat-approved judges a majority. 

Subtle, this is not.

The justifications that the Democrats have proffered are ridiculous on their face. They claim that the Republicans “packed” the Court themselves when, as the party in the majority in the Senate, they merely used their constitutional powers to approve or reject the candidates they were sent. They claim that the Court must be expanded to keep up with population growth and the workload that results — a contention that miscasts what the judicial branch does, and that does not make sense on its own terms (because all justices participate in every case, a court of 13 will not be able to take more cases than a court of nine, and in any event, the Court’s docket is smaller than it was a half century ago). And, finally, they claim that the Court is suffering through a crisis of legitimacy — which, given that it is more popular and more trusted than it was prior to the additions of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, represents the very opposite of the truth.

What is the truth? That, as it grows more progressive, the Democratic Party senses that it will more frequently hit up against the Constitution itself, and that, when it does so, it is going to need judges who are not interested in what that Constitution actually says. To comprehend this is to comprehend the whole grubby initiative, which will confer benefits upon the Democrats irrespective of its success. If Biden and Co. succeed in their undertaking, the Court will become merely another legislature, there to rubber-stamp the Democratic Party’s transgressions. If the endeavor fails, the Court may nevertheless be so intimidated by the attempt that they begin to bend at the knees. And, either way, the public is taught to mistrust Article III.

There is only one way out of this treacherous scheme, and that is the emphatic rejection that the congressional Democrats of 1937 envisioned. It must be rejected by the Republicans. It must be rejected by the Democrats. And, ultimately, it must be rejected by the people — who did not vote for a regime consumed with freeing itself from any meaningful constitutional restraint, and do not deserve to live under one.


In 2021, Watch What The Supreme Court Does With Philadelphia’s Ban On Christians Parenting Foster Children

It's clear the City of Philadelphia is far more anxious to punish the free exercise of religion than to serve its most vulnerable children.

By Yaakov MenkenThe Federalist

In 2021, Watch What The Supreme Court Does With Philadelphia’s Ban On Christians Parenting Foster Children

Not just foster care providers, but religious groups of all kinds are closely following the case of Fulton v. the City of Philadelphia. Indeed, all those who care about our nation’s children should be.

While this case before the U.S. Supreme Court to be decided in 2021 directly concerns the provision of foster care, by placing hypothetical arguments about non-discrimination ahead of the religious freedoms ensconced in the First Amendment — and ahead of children’s actual needs — the broader ramifications of the case threaten to force religion further from the public sphere.

In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same-sex marriage. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that ‘the necessary consequence’ of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to ‘demean or stigmatize’ same-sex couples.

Fulton v. Philadelphia demonstrates how right Roberts was to be concerned. The attorney for the city, Neal Katyal, claimed during oral arguments that a religious foster care agency, by following the prescriptions of the religion which it represents, would “stigmatize” LGBTQ individuals, especially children. Having asserted that traditional religious beliefs are bigoted and damaging, he thus argues that they must be prohibited in practice.

In particular, the city’s claim that the stigma is associated with Catholic Social Services’s provision of foster care cannot withstand even a cursory examination. Whatever feeling of harm or stigma might be involved, it would emerge from the biblical belief — which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment — that same-sex relationships are forbidden; whether or not this teaching was applied to foster care would be essentially irrelevant. Yet the city, knowing that it can’t directly attack religion, claims that the damage occurs when a religious foster care agency conforms to those beliefs.

Taking the attack on religion a step further, Philadelphia equated religious diversity with mutual hostility: its lawyer claimed that foster care would be “balkanized” if various religious groups were each allowed to serve children in need consistent with their religious beliefs, working with supportive families seeking to partner with those agencies. Frankly, it’s quite scary to see such open hostility to free, diverse religious practice from a city government — and one could hardly seek more decisive proof that freedom of religion is, in fact, on trial in this case.

The threat here is clear, and not limited to Catholics. In Judaism, we believe it essential to raise a Jewish child to learn both our books and our observances. If applied consistently, the city’s argument would prohibit a Jewish agency from insisting upon placing a Jewish child in a Jewish home. Rather than demonstrating the First Amendment’s respect for different traditions and beliefs, Philadelphia is demanding universal conformity to state doctrine.

What is most troubling in all of this is that the city has lost sight of the ultimate goal: to serve children in need of foster care. There is a grave shortage of families willing to open their homes to foster children, and religious agencies, by working specifically within their faith communities, can expand that pool.

Plaintiff Sharonell Fulton is but one of many who are certified by Catholic Social Services and have room in their homes to care for children. The city is keeping these foster care providers on the sidelines because of CSS’s religious beliefs, offering only theoretical arguments about hypothetical harms to justify callous denial of homes to children in need.

As was clear at oral argument, no same-sex couple has been prevented from fostering or adopting by Catholic Social Services, or ever would be. Were such a couple to ever present itself to CSS, attorney Lori Windham told the court, CSS would help the couple to find one of the many other agencies that can assist them and better attend to their needs.

Based solely upon a far-fetched, theoretical claim of “stigma” that reflects hostility towards biblical beliefs, the city’s actions are therefore forcing dozens if not hundreds of actual (very non-theoretical) children to languish in group homes and institutional settings rather than being placed with loving foster parents.

The city has made its disregard for children’s actual needs quite obvious. Responding to the fact that Catholic Social Services has provided foster care to needy Philadelphia children for more than two centuries, long before the government was involved, Katyal argued that “whatever these [private] entities did before, like CSS, they never selected who cares for kids in city custody, applying state criteria.” In other words, the city claimed that whether these children are wards of the state is a more central consideration than whether they need foster care.

This is heartless, and even more fundamentally flawed. To be sure, the city has notargued that CSS provides an inferior service. It even acknowledged that CSS has been a “point of light” in the child welfare system. Yet the city also claims that closing down such an agency and preventing it from helping the more than 250 children in need of a foster home today would somehow be a net benefit for society.

So it is not merely true that Philadelphia wishes to squelch free religious practice — it is also clear that the city is far more anxious to punish the free exercise of religion than it is to serve the city’s most vulnerable children. The shocking part is that it was necessary to go all the way to the Supreme Court to ask for the obvious: that the city of Philadelphia should both respect different religious beliefs, and put the needs of children first.


Intellectual Property: Stealing is wrong, even if you’re Google

By George LandrithRed State

While the rest of the country enjoyed their Thanksgiving dinners and began their Christmas shopping, the big brass at Google had a lot to think and worry about over the long weekend.  

You may recall that earlier this year, Google was the recipient of a bipartisan grilling in Congress over its predatory business practices. The big tech goliath was unable to offer up even a semblance of a convincing defense, leading some to speculate that an antitrust bust-up was awaiting on the horizon.  

Over the past few months, those rumblings have turned into reality.   

First, in October, the Department of Justice announced a formal antitrust lawsuit, putting the full weight of the federal government on Google’s neck. Then, last week — just two days before Thanksgiving — a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general announced plans for a second lawsuit, which may come this month (a third antitrust suit spearheaded by Texas is also in the works). It is very likely that by next summer, every state and federal division of the judicial branch will be pursuing the breakup of the search engine giant.  

But it may be the Supreme Court, traditionally the final stop on legal journeys, that strikes the first blow.   

Observers may recall that back in October, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a copyright infringement case regarding the shady origins of Google’s Android software. The lawsuit’s gist is that Oracle claims Google sticky-fingered Java source code developed by its subsidiary, Sun Microsystems, to build up Android OS — a multi-billion-dollar revenue generator that runs on millions of smartphones. 

Consider some of the most damning details.   

According to the lawsuit, Google stole what it refused to buy after Sun offered Google a three-year license to use its code. The deal would have cost Google $100 million. Google decided that, as Woody Woodpecker used to say, free was a much better price. 

This is an interesting argument. If Google initially sought permission to use Sun’s code, it implies that Google knew perfectly well the code wasn’t just theirs to take. One doesn’t ask permission to use the public sidewalk. One does ask permission to borrow the neighbor’s car — and if the borrower takes it for a drive without permission, everyone understands what that is. 

The Supreme Court appears to understand this point very well, which doesn’t look good for Google.  
 
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it: “You’re not allowed to copy a song just because it’s the only way to express that (particular) song.” In other words, the fact that Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin is the only song that sounds like Stairway to Heaven doesn’t mean that people who didn’t write it have a right to record it and sell it just because they like the way it sounds. 

If they did so, everyone would understand a theft had occurred, and the thief would be held accountable. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch made the point that the existence of one avenue, however popular it may be, doesn’t prevent creators from finding new ones. The fact the Led Zeppelin wrote Stairway to Heaven and made a lot of money selling albums in no way prevented Stone Temple Pilots from writing Plush and selling lots of albums of their own.

Gorsuch’s reasoning explains why other mobile operators managed to create their products without using Java at all. Java wasn’t the only way into town, so to speak, as Google claims; the tech giant just refused to find a new path.  

While we likely won’t know the official decision until the summer, Google is likely sweating bullets.  

It’s one of the wealthiest companies in history, but it’s facing an unprecedented level of legal pressure due to two decades of bad behavior. From the outside looking in, it appears the courts are circling the wagons.   

Consumers need not worry. None of the services Google provides are irreplaceable innovations or at threat of disappearing in the case of a breakup. It’s even possible that, with the market’s largest digital predator subdued, a breakup would lead to a flurry of new digital services. 

The only people who have to worry are Google shareholders and employees. They’re looking at legal cases and potentially billions in losses. Those prospects would dampen anyone’s holiday season. 


Supreme Court May Void Individual Mandate, But Unlikely to Topple Obamacare

By Kevin DaleyThe Washington Free Beacon

The Supreme Court may strike down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate but appears poised to uphold most of the law against a constitutional challenge from a coalition of red states backed by the Trump administration.

A majority of justices were skeptical that a 2017 Republican tax bill endangered the entire statute. While that law created doubts about the continued legality of the controversial mandate to buy health insurance, other popular provisions, such as coverage for preexisting conditions, do not appear to be in danger.

The High Court’s new composition seemed to have little effect on the fate of Tuesday’s challenge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh telegraphed that he thinks the bulk of the health care law should stand even if the individual mandate is struck down. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised doubts that one set of plaintiffs even had a right to be in court. Those developments follow dire warnings from Senate Democrats that Barrett’s confirmation would endanger health care coverage for millions of Americans.

The Court’s apparent direction greatly simplifies the health care agenda for President-elect Joe Biden. A decision striking down the ACA would send the new administration back to the drawing board on health care, while it faces the likely prospect of a GOP-controlled Senate. Biden favors a plan that would make government-funded health care available alongside private plans.

The case arose in December 2017 when congressional Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law effectively zeroed out the individual mandate, setting the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance at zero dollars. The Supreme Court said in 2012 that the ACA’s requirement to buy health insurance could be upheld as a tax. In turn, a group of red states and a few individuals brought a fresh legal challenge. They reasoned that because the mandate is no longer generating revenue, it cannot be legitimated on tax grounds.

In a highly unusual move, the Trump Justice Department declined to defend Obamacare in court, so a group of blue states led by California intervened to do so.

The biggest issue in Tuesday’s case is the question of what happens if the mandate is unconstitutional. The answer turns on a legal doctrine called “severability,” or a general preference for preserving as much of Congress’s work as possible when courts find particular parts of a statute unlawful. Two conservative members of the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, plainly indicated that they think the mandate can be severed from the ACA if it has been rendered unconstitutional by the tax law.

“Looking at our severability precedents, it does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the Act in place, the provisions regarding preexisting conditions and the rest,” Kavanaugh said in a key exchange.ADVERTISING

Roberts had even more pointed words for Texas solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who argued for the red states. The chief justice said the Court shouldn’t step in to scuttle Obamacare when the Republican Congress itself did not repeal the law, even as it zeroed out the mandate.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that,” Roberts said. “But that’s not our job.”

“Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero. That seems to be compelling evidence on the question,” he added.

Critically, however, the chief justice did not give away his thinking on the continued legality of the mandate. He asked only about severability and whether the plaintiffs had a basis for being in court.

Donald Verrilli, the former solicitor general who defended the ACA in court for the Obama administration, appeared before the justices again Tuesday, this time on behalf of congressional Democrats. He noted that millions of people are covered under the ACA and that the entire health insurance sector has operated for years in compliance with its requirements.

“To assume that Congress put all of that at risk when it amended the law in 2017 is to attribute to Congress a recklessness that is both without foundation in reality and jurisprudentially inappropriate,” Verrilli said.

As to the legality of the mandate itself, the red states say it cannot be sustained as a tax if it doesn’t raise money for the government.

“The mandate as it exists today is unconstitutional. It is a naked command to purchase health insurance, and, as such, it falls outside Congress’s enumerated powers,” said Hawkins.

The liberal justices sparred with Republican lawyers on this point. Justice Elena Kagan questioned how a toothless mandate could amount to unlawful strong-arming.

“How does it make sense to say that what was not an unconstitutional command before has become an unconstitutional command now, given the far lesser degree of coercive force?” Kagan asked.

Justice Samuel Alito later countered that there aren’t other examples of a zero-dollar tax penalty in federal law, making the mandate suspect in its current form.

“Are you aware of any provisions in the [U.S. Code] in which Congress has purported to use its taxing power to say you must do this, and we’re going to tax it and we’re going to set the tax at zero?” he asked acting solicitor general Jeff Wall, who argued for the Trump administration.

Another issue is whether the plaintiffs even had a legal basis, called standing, for getting to court. In court papers, the blue states said that harm is a necessary prerequisite for a lawsuit, but a mandate penalty of zero dollars isn’t harming anybody.

“It is legally clear that absolutely nothing will happen to them if they choose to go without coverage,” the blue states wrote of the individual plaintiffs in court papers. Even if the individual plaintiffs don’t have standing, the red states say they do because the mandate effectively requires them to spend more on health care.

A decision in the case, No. 19-840 California v. Texas, is expected in the spring or early summer.


Religious Liberty Should Prevail

By Richard A. EpsteinThe Hoover Institution

This past week in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court re-entered the dangerous minefield at the junction of religious liberty and anti-discrimination. The current dispute arose when Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services announced that it would no longer refer children to Catholic Social Services (CSS) for placement in foster care because CSS refused to consider same-sex couples as potential foster parents. CSS was, however, prepared to accept into its foster care all children regardless of their sexual orientation. After prolonged negotiations with the city failed, CSS sued. It seeks, in the words of the Third Circuit, “an order requiring the city to renew their contractual relationship while permitting it to turn away same-sex couples who wish to be foster parents.” The Third Circuit upheld the position of the city.

Resolving this delicate confrontation requires a return to first principles. Let’s start with the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion, as elaborated in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Alfred Leo Smith, a drug guidance counselor, was denied unemployment benefits after being terminated for consuming peyote, a controlled substance, as part of a religious rite. The court held that his religious beliefs do not “excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate.” The First Amendment did not require Oregon to accommodate Smith’s religious practice. Any neutral law of general applicability was acceptable, notwithstanding its disparate impact.

Notably, the word exercise is broad enough to cover not only Smith’s use of peyote but also CSS’s adoption policies. Accordingly, under no circumstances should Philadelphia be allowed to pass an ordinance that requires the Catholic Church to ordain women as priests, or to offer family aid services paid from its own funds to same-sex couples. The question in Fulton is whether CSS’s free exercise rights are forfeited when the city supplies public funds and matching services to CSS and the children it puts up for foster care.

The point is contentious. During oral argument, Justice Elena Kagan insisted that Philadelphia has a compelling state interest to eliminate all forms of discrimination against same-sex couples. Stanford professor Jeffrey Fisher, who represented two-nonprofit organizations that sided with the city, made a similar point by insisting that if Philadelphia lost this case, city police officers would be able to refuse to enforce certain laws to protect those same-sex couples just by citing their religious convictions.

Both of these claims miss the central point. The real risk of government abuse arises when the state exercises its exclusive power to enforce the criminal laws. Given that state monopoly power, state actors have a correlative duty to treat all persons equally and therefore are disallowed from bringing personal religious convictions to bear on criminal law enforcement.

The situation, however, is quite different whenever the government grants public funds to organizations to discharge some public purpose. This contest raises tension between a state’s independent regulatory authority and its ability to impose conditions on such grants. It is often incorrectly asserted that the government has extensive freedom of choice when it puts “its” money behind a particular program, such that it can act in an “entrepreneurial” fashion even if it cannot regulate private church conduct. As one observer suggested, “[r]eligious groups typically have little leeway to shape government programs that they object to.”

These oversized claims for state control should be roundly rejected. The government does not have some private stash of cash to dole out on whatever terms and conditions it sees fit. Virtually all of its money comes from taxation, fines, and fees. Those monies are paid into the city by both supporters and opponents of the city’s ban on CSS. Just as it would be wholly inappropriate to exclude non-religious programs from participating in the city’s foster programs, so too is it wholly inappropriate to exclude the religious organizations solely because of their religious beliefs. Excluding either group from the class of recipients while forcing them to make contributions into the common fund creates an illegitimate cross-subsidy from groups without political power to groups with it.

That fundamental fiscal imbalance implicates the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which supplies the much-needed counterweight to inappropriate exercises of state monopoly power. The parallel common law rule holds that any public utility or common carrier has, by virtue of its monopoly power, the duty to offer services to all customers on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. The public law doctrine of unconstitutional conditions applies that principle to the strongly entrenched and indisputable state monopoly powers of regulation and taxation. But the state should have no power to regulate parties in competitive industries, where there are many alternative sources of supply. Accordingly, the state cannot license private Catholic hospitals only if they are willing to perform abortions at will, which can be done at many other facilities.

Similarly, whether the issue regards dispensing cash or using public facilities, the state cannot use its monopoly power to impose viewpoint conditions on public grants. Thus, no one thinks (I hope) that the city of Philadelphia can use its power to prevent CSS or its foster parents from using city streets to render their services unless they accept same-sex couples for foster care. The basic test is whether the condition that the city government wants to impose is designed to improve the overall efficiency of public services, or if the condition is instead intended to serve as a form of viewpoint discrimination. Thus, the city can require all vehicles that CSS uses on public roads to meet the uniform standards of vehicular inspection, but it cannot condition CSS’s use of vehicles on the alteration of its religious beliefs and practices.

It is painfully clear that the state cannot identify any efficiency justification for excluding CSS from its foster care program. The city operates a useful platform that brings together parents and other guardians with children in need of foster care through a wide array of organizations. The more choices on both sides of the platform, the better the system. We know that CSS increases the supply of foster care, which reduces the risk of shortages of foster placements. It also allows many parents or guardians seeking a Catholic family to obtain their first choice of foster parents. In oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito noted that CSS has never had to turn down an applicant for foster care who desired to place a child with a same-sex couple. Instead, CSS acted a liaison with other groups to secure those children with a satisfactory placement. Why should anyone oppose a system that leaves everyone better off, simply because one provider among many insists on adhering to its deeply held religious beliefs? There is no interest, let alone a compelling state interest, to undermine a matching program that has worked well for decades.

Fulton follows on the heels of the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which threw out a set of penalties that the Colorado Commission imposed on Jack Phillips, a devout Christian who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. In a most unsatisfactory opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy chastised the commission only for its boorish behavior, not its substantive actions. Thus in the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had an easy hook on which to uphold the city, which acted with proper professional candor in dealing with CSS, unlike its Coloradan counterpart. But the ultimate issue in both cases is not about manners. It is about the abuse of monopoly power (exercised with civility or otherwise).

Masterpiece offers the converse situation to Fulton. In Masterpiece, a competitive market eliminated the need for Colorado to force any merchant to take on any customer, given that a host of merchants were eager for the same-sex couple’s business. But in Fulton, the state’s monopoly position requires it to apply the nondiscrimination rule for the benefit of CSS. In their effort to counter this contention, both Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan argued that allowing for discrimination against same-sex couples might open the way to allowing discrimination on the grounds of race. In my 1992 book Forbidden Grounds,I argued that private parties have the right to engage in any form of discrimination in private competitive markets, including discrimination by race—in part because that principle provides a clean justification for private affirmative action programs. But even if that argument is rejected emphatically for public institutions, recall Justice William Brennan’s 1984 opinion in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, which upheld Minnesota’s antidiscrimination law as applied to a large public club, only to insist “that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the state.”

The foster care arrangements fall into just this category. This implies that CSS, like all other qualified agencies, may choose foster parents on whatever grounds it wants, race and religion included. The expectation is that the Supreme Court will reverse the Third Circuit. Hopefully, it will also overrule Smith.


From Bork To Barrett—It’s Been a Long Time Coming

By Peter RoffNewsweek

The confirmation of then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court has been a long time coming. All told, nights and weekends included, it’s been, give or take a day, about 33 years.

In 1987, when Justice Lewis Powell announced his resignation from the high court, the Democrats went to war. They made federal judicial confirmations—hitherto staid, formal and collegial affairs—into battle royales.

The opening shots were fired by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who took to the Senate floor to assault the character of the man chosen as Powell’s replacement: Judge Robert Bork, a former U.S. solicitor general and distinguished professor of law at Yale.

Thus, the judicial nomination process was forever changed. Ever since, each party has blamed the other for starting it all. In reality, most of the blame lies with the Democrats, who, after the politics of personal destruction proved so effective against Bork, have repeatedly used smears, insinuations and arguments about character to try to keep conservative originalists off the federal bench. Sometimes, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they wouldn’t give Republican nominees the courtesy of even a hearing. Contrary to what you’ve heard, it didn’t start with Merrick Garland—ask Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen or any of the other George W. Bush judicial picks whose nominations to the various appellate courts were held up or blocked completely due to partisan concerns.

Each time the battle over the courts escalated, it was Democrats who almost always drew first blood. It was Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who made it possible to force lower court confirmations through with 51 votes, rather than 60, and who used that power to stack the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—second in influence only to the U.S. Supreme Court—with appointments made by President Barack Obama.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett sworn in by
Justice Amy Coney Barrett sworn in by Justice Clarence ThomasTASOS KATOPODIS/GETTY IMAGES

Now, over the screams, complaints, wailing and gnashing of teeth from progressives who fear what is in store for their agenda, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has become Justice Amy Coney Barrett, thanks in no small part to the way these same opponents rigged the system to operate in their favor. There’s some justice in that.

Everything about her nomination and confirmation was legal, fair and according to the rules as they now are—thanks to Kennedy, Reid and others who corrupted the process. Fortunately for them, Justice Barrett—while she provides the crucial fifth vote to establish something of an originalist majority, as well as being the sixth vote for a center-right one—has not taken her new post with the intention of rewriting the Constitution according to her personal values.

She made that clear after she took her oath of office, saying:

“It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government.”

The Democrats still intend to pack the high court, if they are able to do so. If able, they will attempt to add enough justices to allow the court to make policy for a generation or more. They will find within the Constitution, no doubt, the rights to health care, free public education, taxpayer-funded abortion on-demand, strict regulation and limitation of the private ownership of firearms, compulsion of workers to join unions and whatever else is on their political agenda that doesn’t pass muster with the voters. Instead of pausing, they’ll push on through, eliminating the restrictions on government and expanding its reach. If they succeed.

If they don’t succeed, America finally has the chance to put part of the genie back in the bottle, and to restore to the democratic process the importance of the individual that the reliance on the courts as the last word on everything has increasingly obscured. The elevation of Justice Barrett gives us one more shot at getting it right. Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that the court seizes the opportunity.


The Scalia Family

The lasting influence of the legendary Supreme Court justice

By Matthew ContinettiThe Washington Free Beacon

scalia acb
Getty Images

“Enough to field a baseball team.” That was the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s response when asked how many children he had. And he and his wife Maureen’s nine children have themselves parented, as of this week, 40 grandchildren. How big is the Scalia family? So big that, at the moment, it would not be allowed to hold an in-person gathering in the justice’s home state of New Jersey.

Even that count might not be accurate. Watching Judge Amy Coney Barrett testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I couldn’t help thinking that the Scalia family is larger than the individuals directly related to him. In both her September 26 remarks at the White House and her October 12 opening statement to the committee, Barrett spoke of the influence Scalia had on her life and identified herself with his approach to the law. “His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were,” Barrett told the senators. “Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best-known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not men.”

Whether it was for the students he taught, or the clerks he hired, or the lawyers he mentored, or the readers of his work, Scalia modeled a form of jurisprudence rooted in the text of the Constitution and in the American political tradition. His approach came to be called originalism (in matters of constitutional interpretation) and textualism (in matters of statutory interpretation). But his legacy is far greater than these contributions to legal terminology and methodology. What this son of an Italian immigrant accomplished was nothing less than a revolution in the law—and the promulgation of a distinctly American conservatism that is needed now more than ever.

It was Scalia who was among the first faculty advisers of the Federalist Society, and who addressed the society’s first national gathering in 1982. Along with his colleagues Robert Bork and Laurence Silberman, Scalia stood for the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution and statutes based on their original public meaning. The clarity of his argument, the force of his intellect, and the charm of his conversation enlarged the audience for his views. That audience exploded in size after President Reagan elevated him to the Supreme Court in 1986. Over time, the strength of originalism’s reputation in legal circles became so overpowering that some liberal judges, such as Justice Elena Kagan, felt it necessary to describe themselves, however ironically, as “originalists.”

Scalia pointed to his decision upholding the constitutionality of flag-burning as proof that originalism is not a mask for conservative politics. And there have been plenty of decisions—most recently Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock—where self-described originalists and textualists arrived at places conservatives did not expect. But there is nonetheless an integral relationship between originalism and conservatism. What American conservatism seeks to preserve is the institutional and philosophical inheritance of the American Founding. This inheritance is codified in our enabling documents: the Constitution (as amended), the organic laws of the United States (which include the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance), and the Federalist Papers. It is through fidelity to these words, as the Founders understood them at the time, that conservatives defend the constitutional structure and the individual freedom it secures.

Originalism has turned out to be more than a legal doctrine. It is the common ground of American conservatism. For years, the right has tried to define a “constitutional conservatism” that would serve as the political analogue to originalism. That project has been overshadowed by the rise of national populism. But it is worth noting that the current president won his office in no small part because he pledged to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and approved by the Federalist Society. And his most enduring legacy will be his appointments to the federal courts.

It would be difficult to name other Supreme Court justices who have had such a galvanizing effect on American politics—and who continued to play such important roles after their deaths. What accounts for Scalia’s iconic stature? The latest collection of his writings, The Essential Scalia, edited by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton and Edward Whelan, offers some clues. “Nino loved ideas—thinking about them, talking about them, arguing about them, as well as writing about them,” Justice Kagan writes in her introduction. “That love may explain why he found it so natural to befriend colleagues with whom he often disagreed (yes, like me).” Scalia’s ability to depersonalize intellectual debate was a function of his self-confidence and sense of humor. His convictions were the result of deep reflection. But he was more than happy to defend them, and to explain why you were wrong.

What comes across most, though, is the quality of Scalia’s writing. It is clear, direct, witty, lapidary, memorable. Scalia’s opinions and dissents are famous for certain lines—”this wolf comes as a wolf”; “What Is Golf?”—but on second reading it is the way he develops his argument that most impresses. And he always makes a perfect landing. “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem,” he wrote in Heller (2008). “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

These aren’t judicial decisions. They are essays. And like great literature they will reverberate far into the future. As Antonin Scalia’s extended family, biological and philosophical, continues to grow.


Joe Biden Takes a Dark Turn on Blowing Up the Court

By CHARLES C. W. COOKENational Review

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden addresses reporters in Las Vegas, Nev., October 9, 2020 (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

It gets worse. For weeks, Joe Biden has refused to answer whether he intends to blow up the United States Supreme Court on the preposterous grounds that, if he does, journalists will write about it. Now, he adds that voters “don’t deserve” to know his position.  This transmutes an untenable position into a downright nefarious one.

Biden’s defenders have been trying to draw some equivalency between the threat of his “packing” (read: destroying) the Supreme Court and the Republicans’ push to appoint Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsburg. In and of itself, this is ridiculous: The Republicans are in control of the White House and the Senate, and, in acting now, are using a process that has been in place since 1789 and echoing a norm that has obtained throughout American history. But the equivalence also fails on its own terms, in that neither President Trump nor any of the 53 Republican senators are keeping any secrets about their plans. Trump has been open about his nomination from the start; so have the 51 Republicans who intend to vote yes; so has Susan Collins, who intends to vote no; and so has Lisa Murkowski, who opposes the process but says that she may vote yes if it comes to the floor. There is no parity here. One party is going about the business of government with the branches that it presently controls; the other party is threatening to smash those branches up.

Biden’s stance essentially inverts the way the American system is supposed to work. Going into the election, the Democrats’ position is that it would be unseemly for candidates for our electedbranches to answer questions about what they will do, but that it is imperative that candidates for the judicial branch be expected to say ahead of time how they intend to rule in major cases. Why is Biden, who knows better, indulging this? I suspect it is because he knows full well that what is being proposed by his party is monstrous and so hopes to sidestep it entirely.

Biden’s defenders have been trying to draw some equivalency between the threat of his “packing” (read: destroying) the Supreme Court and the Republicans’ push to appoint Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsburg. In and of itself, this is ridiculous: The Republicans are in control of the White House and the Senate, and, in acting now, are using a process that has been in place since 1789 and echoing a norm that has obtained throughout American history. But the equivalence also fails on its own terms, in that neither President Trump nor any of the 53 Republican senators are keeping any secrets about their plans. Trump has been open about his nomination from the start; so have the 51 Republicans who intend to vote yes; so has Susan Collins, who intends to vote no; and so has Lisa Murkowski, who opposes the process but says that she may vote yes if it comes to the floor. There is no parity here. One party is going about the business of government with the branches that it presently controls; the other party is threatening to smash those branches up.

Biden’s stance essentially inverts the way the American system is supposed to work. Going into the election, the Democrats’ position is that it would be unseemly for candidates for our electedbranches to answer questions about what they will do, but that it is imperative that candidates for the judicial branch be expected to say ahead of time how they intend to rule in major cases. Why is Biden, who knows better, indulging this? I suspect it is because he knows full well that what is being proposed by his party is monstrous and so hopes to sidestep it entirely.

Biden’s argument in this clip is unequivocal. He agrees that the idea of “packing the Supreme Court” is an outrageous “power grab.” He suggests that it takes people of courage to stand up to their own party when it begins to flirt with such outrageous propositions. And, most important of all, it is clear from this clip that there is nothing “different” about this debate in 2020 than there was back in 2005. By his own terms, Biden agrees with FDR that the Court was “thwarting” the government’s agenda. By his own terms, he is aware that that government had won in a landslide. And yet, despite this, he understands that the planned remedy was disgraceful. FDR, Biden says, was “corrupted by power in my view,” and his “court packing” plan served as a good reminder of how “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What was necessary — what Biden explicitly wanted “entered into the record” — was that “statesman” stand against “political exigency.”

A good example of such a statesman, Biden said, was . . . well, Joe Biden.

Where is that man today?


What’s Really at Stake in 2020

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court, and the future of American democracy

By Matthew ContinettiThe Washington Free Beacon

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has clarified what is at stake in the 2020 election. It is not, as some believe, democracy itself. Nor is it, as others assume, our continued existence as a nation. Democracy will survive Donald Trump, and the United States of America will outlast Joe Biden. The question that 2020 will help to answer is what sort of democracy, and what sort of nation, America will be as it prepares to enter the second quarter of the 21st century.

The reaction to Ginsburg’s death, and to Republican plans to fill her seat on the Supreme Court, underscores the choice before the electorate: Does it prefer to live in a democratic republic ordered toward the principles of the Founders and the constitutional structure they designed to protect individual liberty? Or would it rather dwell in a plebiscitary democracy where the original meaning of the Constitution, when it is not explicitly repudiated, is politely overlooked in order to satisfy ever more radical egalitarian demands?

Needless to say, the answer is up in the air, and has been for some time. But we may be nearing a settlement, one way or another. The civil unrest of the past several months has made unignorable the existence of a large body of opinion that holds something is terribly wrong with America as founded, something that cannot be redeemed, and that American history and American institutions must be drastically revised to atone for the injustices committed against racial minorities. President Trump, in his inimitable way, has made the opposite argument, and called for a renewed appreciation of the American story and a resurgence of national pride.

Ginsburg’s passing heightened the tension. Suddenly an abstract cultural debate was transformed into a concrete political-legal struggle, and the prospect of lasting victory for one team (Trump and Mitch McConnell’s) looked real. The fight over the Supreme Court vacancy Ginsburg left behind also illuminated the lengths to which some progressives are prepared to go to make real their vision of the future. And it is in their openness to institutional upheaval that the real import of this election may be found. If enacted, the measures these Democrats propose would warp our constitutional system. They would turn the American government into a creature far different from the one the Founders made. This would be the upshot of the “structural reform” that, until the last week, lived mainly on Twitter and in the heads of policy wonks.

These Democrats say that, if President Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg is confirmed, and next year brings a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate, then the first order of business for the new government, in the middle of a pandemic and a troubled economy, will be abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the Supreme Court by adding anywhere from two to four justices. Such a move, which even the greatest president of the 20th century was unable to achieve, would polarize this country even more than it already is, and delegitimize the Court in the eyes of millions. But it is just the start of what some on the Democratic left would like to accomplish.

The Electoral College has been on the chopping block since 2000. If it goes the way of the dodo, presidential campaigns thereafter will be determined by who has the greatest allegiance in the biggest cities of the largest states. To override the supposed Republican advantage in the Senate, where every state enjoys equal representation, some progressives would grant statehood to Washington, D.C., and to Puerto Rico, and maybe Guam and American Samoa while they’re at it. These changes would make it much easier for Congress to eliminate private health insurance, enact universal vote by mail, “decarbonize” the economy, grant citizenship to illegal immigrants and voting rights to noncitizens, suppress political speech, resume taxpayer funding of abortion, and cross out the Second Amendment. The sheer number of bad ideas in play would be overwhelming.

Now it is true that at least the first item on this agenda would be debated according to the present rules. And the multiple veto points within the American kludgeocracy would no doubt interfere with, and sometimes upend, the boldest plans of the progressive Democrats. It is also the case that incorporating new states gives rise to challenges both constitutional (are we really willing to grant the remaining residents of the federal District of Columbia—the first family—three electoral votes?) as well as political (does Puerto Rico even want to be a state?). But the very fact that we are having this conversation at all—and that Biden, at this writing, has neither ruled out the court-packing scheme nor said whom he would nominate to the Court—ought seriously to worry defenders of the Founders’ Constitution.

In 1963, in the first chapter of The Conservative Affirmation, Willmoore Kendall offered his definition of American conservatism. Conservatives, Kendall wrote, oppose the “Liberal Revolution” that would replace representative government with majoritarian democracy:

Put an end, the Liberals insist, to ‘rural overrepresentation’ in the lower house of Congress and in the state legislatures—bringing them in line with the principle one-man one-equal-vote. And that principle, once adopted (it is French political philosophy, not American), must call finally for abolition even of the U.S. Senate as a check on majorities, and would in any case make the House the creature of numerical majorities at the polls. Abolish the electoral college, the Liberals insist further, and so make the President also the direct agent of the popular majority. Reform the party system, the liberals insist still further, so that each of our parties shall be programmatic, ideological—like those of the ‘real’ democracies in Europe—and that the two parties together shall submit, at election time, a genuine choice to the electorate. Abolish the filibuster—so runs the next point in the program—because it frustrates, serves no other function except to frustrate, the will of the majority. Rescind the seniority-principle in congressional committees, the program continues; it also obstructs the will of the majority. Now give the Liberal attackers their way on all these points, and the form of government explicated in the Federalist Papers will be no more.

That is what 2020 is about.


Democrats Cross the Line on Judges

By Peter RoffNewsmax

Leave it to Michael Barone to point out to us all what should be obvious: It’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are being hypocrites when it comes to filling the latest vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Up to now, all you’ve heard from the mouthpieces of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party is that, under rules established by the Republicans during the Obama administration, the Senate should not vote on President Donald Trump’s nomination of a judge to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this close to a presidential election.

This is wrong on many fronts. First, there is no such rule, at least none formally adopted by the Senate as part of its procedures. Second, any such rule would conflict with the president’s Article II authority in the Constitution to nominate members of the High Court. Third, the last time a nominee was confirmed close to an election when the presidency and Senate were controlled by different parties was in the late 19th century.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but you get the idea. In this case, with the GOP and the presidency both in the hands of the Republicans, it is natural, even essential that both move to nominate and confirm a new Justice as quickly as possible. Leave it to Barone, who knows more than just about anyone else writing today about American politics that “Democrats are the ones being inconsistent.”

“If you think a president’s nominee is entitled to a vote from an opposition Senate, then a fortiori, you must think the nominee is entitled to a vote from the [president’s own] party’s Senate,” he wrote correctly. The hypocrites in this instance are every current Democrat in the U.S. Senate who demanded the GOP majority allow the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the High Court following the untimely death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Those like Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who demanded Garland get a vote and are now trying to find a way to block the Trump nominee—expected to be announced at 5 p.m. Saturday—are playing a desperate political game designed to convince their funders and their base that they’re on top of the situation.

Schumer and Pelosi
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) walk together following ceremonies honoring late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Capitol on September 25, 2020 in Washington, D.C.JONATHAN ERNST/GETTY

There’s little they can do to stop the process from moving forward. That’s because former Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations below the level of the Supreme Court. That allowed Barack Obama and the Democrats to pack the nation’s second most important court—the U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit—with judges who favored their view of the Constitution. Once in the majority, and to no one’s real surprise, the GOP went on to abolish the filibuster for nominees to the High Court as well.

The Democrats, whose frustration is causing them to lash out, are promising to leave no stone unturned in their attempt to upend Trump’s coming nomination. It’s almost certain they’ll find ways to slow its progress through the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor, perhaps in hopes some last-minute bombshell might delay the vote until after the Nov. 3 election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to launch impeachment proceedings against the president if he moves forward—a further lowering of the bar her party will live to regret—while other members of the House are contemplating the introduction of legislation reducing the tenure of a Supreme Court Justice to 18 years.

That last idea would require a constitutional amendment, something its proponents seem not to have figured out. If they wanted to be clever, they could perhaps enact a law saying Justices could continue to serve but could no longer be paid after 18 years—which would be within Congress’s purview but would likely be ruled unconstitutional.

The most damaging threat, one that many Democrats have made, is the one that involves “packing the Court.” Fearful of losing decisions on controversial issues like abortion, health care, unionization, taxes and gun rights by 5-4 or 6-3 margins for at least the next few years, there are some calling for the size of the Court to be increased to twelve or sixteen members, which could be accomplished by a change in the statute and would not require a constitutional amendment.

Again, the hypocrisy of this proposal is staggering. Back in the 1990s, Republican House majority whip Tom DeLay proposed that the House take up the impeachment of several federal judges who had issued rulings that were, in his opinion and the opinion of others, outrageous. For this DeLay was slammed by the liberal press and by the Democrats who attempted to unduly influence the independence of the judiciary. Yet many of those who complained about that then are cheerleading, if silently, the talk of creating an insurmountable liberal bloc on the Supreme Court that will lock in as constitutional anything Democrats from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can come up with. If America ever does become a “banana republic,” as some liberals have charged it has become under President Trump, it will be because the progressives first took control of the Court by special means and not through the exercise of the democratic process.


SCOTUS To Rule On Charge That Google Success Was Built On Someone Else’s Intellectual Property

By Peter RoffTownhall Finance

Larry Dean is not as famous as he deserves to be but, as the man who developed the code that allows automatic teller machines to accept cards from other banks and outlets, he birthed a revolution in banking that forever changed the way people shop and get cash. His innovation allowed debit cards to function like credit cards, taking money directly from accounts and pushing the nation and world closer to a cashless economy.

Dean’s innovation made banking easier for millions. The application programming interfaces – the APIs – he developed were protected by copyright, meaning his intellectual labors produced great wealth. Outside Atlanta, he built Dean Gardens, a 33,000 square-foot, 15-bedroom home was so extravagant the annual up-keep alone cost $1.5 million. Infamous for the iconic “Liberace Meets Napoleon” style later imposed by Dean’s son – who lived there until 1994 – it featured a Moroccan theater, 24-karat gold sinks, a gallery of Hawaiian art, 13 fireplaces, an 18-hole golf course, and a 14-seat dining room whose most prominent feature was a wall-sized aquarium known as the “Predator Tank.”

This monument to conspicuous consumption, which might have given even pre-presidential Donald Trump pause, was bulldozed into rubble ten years ago. What endures is his code which, thanks to a legal push by Google seeking to eliminate the copyright protections coders enjoy for the APIs they develop might make innovators like Dean a thing of the past. 

Whether that happens is in the hands of the United States Supreme Court which, in a matter of weeks will finally hear oral arguments in the matter of Google v. Oracle, a landmark case that will decide the course of intellectual property development going forward. If a majority of the justices side with Google, then future innovations like what Dean wrought will likely be few and far between. 

The case stretches back over a decade. At one time, hard as it may be to believe, Google was losing out to BING in the critical mobile search engine market while the Apple iPhone was beating its brains out in the competition among smartphones.

Seeking to improve its competitive position, Google took 11,500 lines from Java’s API coding which the company used to pay to use to construct the Android mobile operating platform, installing its search engine as the default option. As Android grew more popular, so did the Google search engine, creating a boom for the company without, the suit alleges, paying licensing fees for the use of Java to its owner Oracle.

Google does not dispute it took the code. What its briefs do argue is that these types of software APIs may not be copyrightable and, even if they are, that Oracle cannot force them to pay for using it because what it did is covered under the fair use doctrine – and copyright law exception often used when news stories are reposted and circulated for comment but seldom in commercial situations.

As even those who are not lawyers may recognize, Google’s interpretation of the copyrightability of software and the fair use doctrine as applied in this situation cannot be sustained by historical and legal precedent or by common sense, not that it bothers the biggest of big tech very much.

Google’s layers have already admitted the company “doesn’t care much about precedent or law” when it comes to copyright. When the company didn’t like the licensing terms offered to it by Sun Microsystems (then the owner of Java) Adam Rubin, the father of Android, bluntly wrote in an e-mail the company would simply “do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way.”

Being big doesn’t allow you to ignore the law. Google’s lack of concern for intellectual property doesn’t come as a surprise – some have argued its business model depends on using the IP of others without paying for it. And the court would do well to note that others have made similar complaints in the past including the American Association of Publishers, which settled a case alleging Google has posted books online with the permission of the authors, a lawsuit by PayPal arguing an ex-employee turned over trade secret IP used to construct Google Wallet, and a suit settled with Viacom over videos posted without permission to YouTube.

These issues persist, in part because of the lack of clarity in the law protecting intellectual property and because the white shoe lawyers employed by big tech make fortunes of their own finding, exploiting, even creating loopholes that end up exploiting consumers and inventors alike. The Supreme Court is being asked to slam the door on this kind of exploitation and should.

No one likes government interference in the marketplace or the court making law from the bench but that is not what a decision favorable to Oracle would do. A decision favorable to Google would set a precedent adversely affecting software development and every other industry that relies on innovation and creativity to maintain and enhance its market petition. For the sake of private property and our nation’s founding principles, the court must come down firmly on the side of protecting intellectual property rather than affirm the idea that loopholes exist allowing big tech to take the innovations of others for their use without compensation or consent. That’s not the American way. 


WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com