• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower




Recently the Democrats have coined the phrase “election deniers” to smear those who worry about our lack of ballot security, as reflected in the 2020 election, by associating them with Holocaust deniers and other cranks. But who are the real election deniers? The Democrats haven’t conceded that a Republican was legitimately elected president since George H. W. Bush carried 40 states in 1988.

The RNC put together this 12-minute video of Democratic Party election deniers. It is painful in some respects, but a useful reminder of how unprincipled the Democrats have been for a long time, and how hypocritical they are today:

“The People won!”

Bloomberg Politics deep thought: I thought SCOTUS was The People’s Court!

ED MORRISSEY Jun 24, 2022 at HotAir:

Judge Wapner lives! (In principle, anyway.) American civics education … not so much. Bloomberg’s senior political editor John Haltiwanger expressed his dismay over the Dobbs ruling today on Twitter by claiming that the Supreme Court had not done its duty by, er … following public opinion.

Haltiwanger isn’t the only person confused today about what the judiciary does in the American form of government, not even among media outlets, but he’s one of the most direct about it. So let’s continue the civics lesson that even many of our elite appear to lack:



Where does one start? First off, the word “serve” doesn’t appear in the preamble of the Constitution. Neither does the word “government,” nor the word “citizen.” Other than that, Bloomberg’s senior editor really hits the bulls-eye.

But let’s go with that concept anyway. The premise that the government exists to serve its citizens is accurate in a very general and ambiguous way, but the same Constitution  much more explicitly restricts the federal government in its jurisdiction and authority to do so, especially in what each branch can do. The Supreme Court and the entire federal judiciary operate under Article III as a co-equal branch to Congress (Article I) and the executive (Article II). The authority and purpose of the court is encompassed in Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Nothing in here directs the court to impose policy based on the will of “the people.” In fact, “the people” don’t get a mention in Article II. Their authority only extends to ruling in cases based on the laws passed by Congress and signed by a president, and to ensure that those abide by the Constitution’s text. It is clearly not a “people’s branch.” That status goes to the legislative branch established in Article I, especially in Section 8’s final clause:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The branch that “serves the people” on policy is the legislature, not the judiciary. The Constitution separates those powers, very explicitly regarding acts of attainder, in order to keep popular pressure off of the rule of law.

Why is it important to recite what should be American Civics 101? The constitutional order of separation of powers is, in fact, the point that Justice Samuel Alito makes in his Dobbs decision. The problem with Roe is that it was essentially a judicial usurpation of legislative authority, both in form and in principle. The Roe court took an issue that had no basis in the Constitution in either text or authority, and created a legislative policy through judicial fiat that overstepped its constitutional limits:

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.

Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,”1 it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court end[ed] up drafting” if he were “a legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave “almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”2

At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State.

Had the critics of this decision bothered to actually read it, they would find that Alito’s decision didn’t outlaw abortion. It instead restored the court’s deference to the Constitution — and to the People that Haltiwanger professes to defend — by vacating Roe and its antecedents to return the issue to the states and its legislatures. Alito’s conclusion:

We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The People won! The alternative to this would be the continuing operation of the Supreme Court as a quasi-legislature with no accountability to The People. Policy decisions belong to the elected branches of government, where accountability for those policies and their execution can be exercised properly. We got into this position because the Roe court decided it could legislate better than the states.

That usurpation has had enormous consequences to constitutional order over the last 49 years, too. Before Roe, judicial nominations and confirmations were sleepy affairs, only controversial when incompetence or corruption intruded on it. For the last 35 years, however, the confirmation process has turned into a bloodsport hinging on one question — whether nominees would continue the court’s abortion policies. That process became the only method of accountability for a contentious policy, thanks to the star-chamber regime imposed by the Roe and Casey courts that all but negated any rational and actual balancing of interests. It got so bad that presidents of both parties have employed sotto voce litmus tests on judicial appointments … and sometimes not so sotto voce at that … rather than on responsible Article III jurisprudence.

With this policy issue restored to the proper constitutional order, that poison can finally if slowly be withdrawn from the body politic. Legislatures will now be able to craft policies that better reflect their constituencies, with the appropriate accountability through the people’s political processes. If they overreach in one way or another, citizens can punish them at the ballot box and amend laws to better reflect the political consensus. That is precisely how the government exists to “serve its citizens” — by allowing for self-governance rather than edicts from star chambers.

If you really do want a People’s Court, though, have I got good news for you.



June 24, 2022

6 Ways McConnell Betrays the Republican Base

By J.B. Shurk at American Thinker:

I do try to respect President Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican.”  I know ideological litmus tests rub some people the wrong way.  I get that turning internal disagreements into political losses is self-defeating.  I agree that priority number one is to beat back the Marxist hoards pushing America to the cliff’s edge.  And it sure is nice to pat ourselves on the back for having a “big tent” open to everyone.  But…you knew it was coming…I sure wish we could move on from Mitch McConnell.  Or rather, I wish we could find an effective way to compel Republican senators to move on from McConnell (and his lackeys) as their leader.

I don’t like him.  I don’t like the way he conducts business in the Senate.  I don’t like his imperious nature and his backroom double-dealings.  I don’t think he represents the vast majority of Republican voters, and even worse, I don’t think he even cares.  I find him off-putting and arrogant and a terrible spokesperson for the Republican Party.  I do not think he has ever convinced a single non-Republican voter to come onboard.  I’m not certain he believes in much aside from the accumulation and maintenance of raw power.  And to the extent he actually does have sincere beliefs, those beliefs seem hopelessly aligned to an outdated Republican Party still grazing in the country-club safe spaces of bourbon-swilling “elites.” 

His fingerprints are all over the Senate’s new gun control bill, of course, because nothing gets done on the Republican side unless Mitch first snaps his fingers or gives his blessing.  His control over Republicans in the upper chamber looks more mafia don than minority leader.  So once again Senate Republicans are marching down a path in which they will congratulate themselves for having taken a “historic step” in fighting “gun violence,” while doing nothing other than undermining the Bill of Rights and leaving their voters more vulnerable as future targets for Democrats’ lawless bureaucratic harassment.  (Tell me that McConnell and his boys don’t secretly enjoy the idea of grabbing guns from the freedom-minded Tea Party and MAGA Americans they despise.)  Well done, Senate Republicans!  Thanks for habitually rewarding red state voters with the vomitous stench of betrayal.  

If McConnell’s efforts to curtail the Second Amendment don’t prove him deeply unsuited to lead the New Republican Party during these uncertain times, consider a few additional reasons:

(1) Russia collusion hoaxer:

The Russia collusion hoax was Obama and Hillary’s baby (uh, gross), but Mitch gave it legitimacy by pretending that it deserved serious investigation.  Using Richard Burr’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to hide the FBI’s illicit spying operations against candidate Trump while backing the two-year Mueller Inquisition allowed McConnell to wield some power over President Trump (who had uniquely come into high office beholden to none).  By doing so, he helped divide the nation further than ever and betrayed all the Republican voters (a common theme here) who had succeeded in finally putting an America First candidate into the White House.  Imagine how much better off the country would have been had McConnell firmly rejected the Democrats’ absurd allegations that Donald Trump was a Russian spy.  Imagine how much more successful President Trump would have been in executing his MAGA policy agenda.  

(2) Backstabber extraordinaire:

No matter how many times President Trump went out of his way to keep McConnell happy (making his wife Transportation Secretary, choosing mutually agreeable Supreme Court nominees, acceding to some of McConnell’s unsavory anti-MAGA picks for elected office), the Establishment Republican never thought twice before stabbing him in the back after January 6.  It is rumored that McConnell was “exhilarated” with the media’s framing of that day as a “terrorist attack” and “insurrection” because he confidently believed it would “finally, totally discredit” Donald Trump and return control of the Republican Party back to the same Chamber of Commerce China appeasers who have sold out America’s labor force for decades.  Had polling not ultimately cowed him, he certainly would have joined Mitt Romney in voting for Trump’s second farcical impeachment.  McConnell could have defended the president’s right to freely express his opinion that the 2020 election was a sham, but that would have put him on the side of free speech and against his good friend, Joe Biden.

(3) Corporate stooge and anti-labor globalist:

I’m thrilled that the Republican Party is becoming the home of hardworking Americans.  I think the future of the party is Main Street, not Wall Street.  I think it’s a great time to fight back against “woke” corporations and the multinational institutions that push foreign interests at the expense of everyday Americans.  A self-sufficient America is a secure and prosperous America.  An America that prioritizes manufacturing, industry, and innovation over imports is an America with an expanding middle class.  An America that produces real products and not simply financial instruments traded by investment banks is an America with a real future and real wealth.  And Mitch is not suited for this transition.  He’s what most Republicans have come to despise: a politician who does the bidding of corporate lobbyists, not his constituents.  He’s a globalist in an America First party.

(4) War hawk with a China problem:

Biden’s Build Back Better boobery has unleashed inflation hell.  His unguarded borders are flooding America with millions of illegal immigrants.  Americans are suffering.  What does McConnell believe is the biggest problem on the planet today?  Ukraine.  After two decades of sending Americans to sandboxes in Asia and the Middle East to accomplish questionable objectives, now he and his war hawks desperately want to engage Russia on the battlefield.  I don’t think he or his acolytes realize how few Americans have their backs.  After pushing military adventurism abroad with little gain, they are not trusted.  Their new “woke” military is not trusted.  And nobody trusts McConnell’s obsession with Russia when he turns a blind eye to China’s genocide, market manipulation, and aggression.  As Peter Schweizer has well documented, McConnell’s family has made too much money from the Chinese Communist Party to know who his real friends are.  Should war with China become inevitable, McConnell is a liability.

(5) Election manipulator:

He helped get Alabama Democrat Doug Jones elected by attacking conservative Republicans Mo Brooks and Roy Moore.  He handed over senate seats in Arizona and Georgia by insisting that those states’ conservative bases back the unpalatable candidacies of Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler over local favorites.  He’s forced Lisa Murkowski on America.  By interfering in state elections to tank the rise of more conservative candidates, McConnell has cost Republicans Senate seats time and again.  His my way or the highway approach to Senate elections has given Chuck Schumer a majority.  Even worse, the few true conservatives in the Senate have been left vastly outnumbered by moderate milquetoasts and Romney-like quislings.

(6) Party boss, not a leader:

Establishment Republicans bemoaned their inability to attract black and Hispanic voters for years.  You know who finally succeeded in appealing to a much broader voting coalition?  Right!  Donald Trump.  For all their underhanded moves to weaken his presidency and destroy his influence within the party, McConnell Republicans have benefited greatly from Trump’s direct appeal to voters disenchanted with the Democrats’ Marxist ways.  You know who doesn’t remotely appeal to that coalition?  Yep.  Mitch McConnell.  McConnell has always struck me as an anachronistic throwback to a nineteenth century party boss before the invention of radio or television.  He lacks gravitas, eloquence, charm, or even the inkling of an inspiring demeanor.  He rules through fear and punishment, and voters do not like or trust him.  

For that last reason alone, he should be dismissed as

(5) Election manipulator:

He helped get Alabama Democrat Doug Jones elected by attacking conservative Republicans Mo Brooks and Roy Moore.  He handed over senate seats in Arizona and Georgia by insisting that those states’ conservative bases back the unpalatable candidacies of Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler over local favorites.  He’s forced Lisa Murkowski on America.  By interfering in state elections to tank the rise of more conservative candidates, McConnell has cost Republicans Senate seats time and again.  His my way or the highway approach to Senate elections has given Chuck Schumer a majority.  Even worse, the few true conservatives in the Senate have been left vastly outnumbered by moderate milquetoasts and Romney-like quislings.

(6) Party boss, not a leader:

Establishment Republicans bemoaned their inability to attract black and Hispanic voters for years.  You know who finally succeeded in appealing to a much broader voting coalition?  Right!  Donald Trump.  For all their underhanded moves to weaken his presidency and destroy his influence within the party, McConnell Republicans have benefited greatly from Trump’s direct appeal to voters disenchanted with the Democrats’ Marxist ways.  You know who doesn’t remotely appeal to that coalition?  Yep.  Mitch McConnell.  McConnell has always struck me as an anachronistic throwback to a nineteenth century party boss before the invention of radio or television.  He lacks gravitas, eloquence, charm, or even the inkling of an inspiring demeanor.  He rules through fear and punishment, and voters do not like or trust him.  

For that last reason alone, he should be dismissed as an unhelpful relic of Republicans’ past.


BREAKING: SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs — on Alito opinion, 6-3

ED MORRISSEY Jun 24, 2022 at HotAir:  

AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe

The reign of Roe has come to an end, and with it the reign of Doe and Casey as well. The Supreme Court overturned Roe and all its successor precedents in a blockbuster ruling over an abortion-restricting law in Mississippi. The leaked draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito turned out to be the controlling opinion, and all of the intimidation tactics didn’t apparently make any difference at all.

Biggest surprise here? Chief Justice John Roberts eventually came along for the ride, but we’ll get to that in a moment. Those who read the Alito draft will already be familiar with his argument:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Alito includes a long list of state-level prohibitions against abortion in Appendix A to emphasize how much Roe fell outside the “nation’s history and tradition.” The latest of those passed in 1952, only twenty-one years before Roe. The “history and tradition” argument worked the other way, which the Roe court ignored entirely in crafting a ‘right’ from its emanations and penumbras of the Fourth Amendment.

The biggest developments in this story come in the concurrences, and the fact that Alito held the majority together at all. The rage and intimidation was both political and very personal, with one justice — Brett Kavanaugh — the target of an assassination attempt. Kavanaugh’s concurrence amplifies Alito’s overall constitutional order argument, but also offers a limiting principle as to the reach of Dobbs:

After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress. But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I address some of them here.

First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).

We’ll have more on that in a moment.

But of course the big question rolling since the leak has been whither Roberts? The Chief Justice settled that today with a concurrence that advised “a more measured course,” saying that the court should have merely upheld the law in Dobbs without taking on the bigger issue of Roe:

I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further— certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (pregnancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity.

But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.

Let me begin with my agreement with the Court, on the only question we need decide here: whether to retain the rule from Roe and Casey that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy extends up to the point that the fetus is regarded as “viable” outside the womb. I agree that this rule should be discarded.

If that’s the case, though, it’s necessary to strike down Roe. Roe specifically drew that line, so it would require overturning that decision to get rid of the rule. Roberts’ position here sounds a bit like the old quote of having to demolish the village in order to liberate it. If you’re going to have to overturn a key element of Roe, and if — as Roberts argues — both Roe and Casey are bad con-law decisions, why keep them at all? Even if Roberts wanted to salvage the “right to choose” element from Roe and disentangle it from the “regulatory regime” it created around viability, that doesn’t address the core issues of constitutionality raised by Alito, Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas (about whom more in a moment). Rather than focus on the clear constitutional deficiencies of Roe and their poisonous impact on both politics and the judiciary, Roberts argues that the “serious jolt” to the legal system should have been avoided by having the court rejigger Roe rather than dispense with it and send the issue back to the states.

If Roberts wanted half-measures on this case, Thomas wanted to swing a sledgehammer to other precedents through Dobbs. He didn’t get his wish, but Thomas argued that the “substantive due process” argument that led to Casey has also led to a number of other judicial policymaking decisions that should also be dismantled, referencing a series of his own dissents on the matter:

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt. 14, §1; see McDonald, 561 U. S., at 806 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. See id., at 854. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach. See ante, at 15, n. 22. Moreover, apart from being a demonstrably incorrect reading of the Due Process Clause, the “legal fiction” of substantive due process is “particularly dangerous.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 811 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); accord, Obergefell, 576 U. S., at 722 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).

Kavanaugh of course answered this in his own concurrence, at least in terms of Griswold, Obergefell, and similar cases. Alito mentioned the “treacherous field” of substantive due process in the controlling opinion as well, but argues that when it’s married to properly grasped history and tradition, it can be useful, and that’s it not a hindrance to reversing Roe:

In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives. See Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214, 225– 226 (1985). As the Court cautioned in Glucksberg, “[w]e must . . . exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” 521 U. S., at 720 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

On occasion, when the Court has ignored the “[a]ppropriate limits” imposed by “‘respect for the teachings of history,’” Moore, 431 U. S., at 503 (plurality opinion), it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). The Court must not fall prey to such an unprincipled approach. Instead, guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term “liberty.” When we engage in that inquiry in the present case, the clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to an abortion.

Interestingly, the three liberal justices produced only one joint dissent. One would have thought each would want the opportunity to weigh in on this decision separately, but instead they combined to accuse the majority of depriving women of their rights and passing those off to legislatures:

Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. See Casey, 505 U. S., at 853; Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 171–172 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.

Roe and Casey well understood the difficulty and divisiveness of the abortion issue. The Court knew that Americans hold profoundly different views about the “moral[ity]” of “terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 850. And the Court recognized that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting” the “life of the fetus that may become a child.” Id., at 846. So the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete.

That, however, is not the function of courts when it comes to policy. That is a legislative function, except when it crosses into enumerated constitutional rights and provisions. The minority wants to continue to argue for a judiciary that creates policy to solve issues of deep division within American society, but that is a task specifically and explicitly assigned to the legislative branch in the Constitution. The judiciary’s role is to apply law, not create regulatory-esque balancing schemes as public policy and then remove them from the reach of elected legislators. And the near-fifty years of chaos and jumbled judicial fiddling over issues like viability, access, and even free speech in the vicinity of abortion clinics prove just how correct the framers of the Constitution were to separate those functions.

Now that Roe is finished, legislators can finally start to pick up the threads of a process locked in stasis for the last five decades. I spoke with Austin Ruse of the Center for Family & Human Rights in my latest podcast about what comes next. He fears that the US will settle into the European model of abortion, which would still be an improvement over the status quo in the US, but would leave a lot of babies dead in the future too.

“Now that this racist law has been overturned as unconstitutional…..”

June 24, 2022

US Supreme Court overturns New York’s racist gun law

By Civis Americanus at American Thinker:

The US Supreme Court deserves credit for overturning New York’s racist Sullivan Act, a law passed in 1911 for the purpose of, among other things, disarming Italian immigrants. A New York judge depicted the first person convicted of violating it, Marino Rossi, as “your kind” and characterized Italians as having an “irascible nature” and also being a major source of crime. “It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.” The New York Times celebrated this “warning to the Italian community,” which it called both “timely and exemplary.”

“Big Tim” Sullivan was himself a criminal whose career included membership in Boss Tweed’s infamous Tammany Hall. He was involved in prostitution, extortion, and unlawful gambling activities, and he also managed to die of syphilis. His approach to election fraud appeared in the movie Gangs of New York, where men who had already voted went to the barber to have their beards or mustaches removed so they could vote again. New York’s current governor is nonetheless trying to defend a racist law enacted by a felon who would today be banned himself from possessing any firearms, and whose target consisted of Italians and quite probably rival criminals.

Now that this racist law has been overturned as unconstitutional, of course, every single person who has ever been convicted of violating it should have his or her conviction vacated and perhaps seek legal advice as to whether New York can be sued for violating his or her constitutional rights under color of law. While I cannot give legal advice, there are plenty of lawyers who can, and everybody convicted of violating the Sullivan Act should contact them. It is also to be noted that the USSC ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania that the government cannot license a constitutional right, and this argument should be used wholesale against states that require any kind of license or firearm owner identification card to purchase or own a firearm. While Murdock v. Pennsylvania related to exercise of the First Amendment, the court also made it clear that “…a State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution” and gun licensing and registration laws do exactly that.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to “cancel culture” for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.


Yes, Nearer, My God, To Thee……May God Bless America! SHE’S NOT DEAD YET!


JUNE 24, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


The Supreme Court released its opinions in the Dobbs case this morning. Consistent with the leaked draft by Justice Alito, it overrules the Roe and Casey decisions. You can read the opinions here. I haven’t had time yet to review Alito’s majority opinion to see how closely it conforms to what was leaked.

The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in the result. He would have upheld the Mississippi statute without entirely overruling Roe. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions.

Left-wing extremists have vowed to riot tonight. We will see whether they carry through on that threat.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court is having a great week!

STEVE adds: I picked the wrong day to sleep in! I’ll second John: when looking at the Court this week, sometimes you just have to take the sweet with the sweet. Or perhaps we should say that someone’s emanation just got clobbered by a penumbra. (Also, since the opinion also overrules Casey, the decision also deprives me of my right to define my own theory of the mystery of the universe! Justice Kennedy hardest hit.)

Meanwhile, I’m on the lookout for the most hysterical reaction from leftists.

P.S. You can pretty much guess what this weekend’s 3WHH podcast will be about. And you’ll be right! Meanwhile, a TWiP preview (courtesy David Deeble):


JUNE 23, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin on a 6-3 vote, with the liberal bloc dissenting. The case related to a program in Maine, whereby the state will pay for specified educational alternatives for parents who live in districts where there is no secondary school. Public and private schools are eligible as long as they are accredited and meet other requirements, except that only “nonsectarian” schools can participate. So the program nakedly discriminates against religion, per se. The Court ruled that Maine need not have included private schools in the program, but having done so, it cannot discriminate against schools merely on the ground that they are religious.

This is in line with Supreme Court jurisprudence in other areas, but it nevertheless prompted an outbreak of hate from the left. Thus, Maine’s Attorney General suggested that religious institutions are “bigoted”:

The state’s attorney general, Aaron Frey, released a statement expressing “his disappointment” with the ruling in Carson v. Makin and indicated in a later interview with the Portland Press Herald that the state might end the tuition assistance program to avoid funding religious schools.

This seems like a question for the legislature, not the Attorney General. But it is remarkable that the Attorney General, at least, might rather terminate the entire program rather than assist a handful of kids in going to Christian schools.

Mr. Frey said in his statement that the court’s ruling might mandate Maine to pay for a religious education that “is inimical to public education.” He was apparently referring to the two schools which the petitioners sought to send their children to — Temple Academy and Bangor Christian Schools.

“They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff,” Mr. Frey said. “One school teaches children that the husband is to be the leader of the household.”

Mr. Frey called upon the governor and the state legislature to amend the town tuitioning program to “ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry.”

This is the conventional liberalism of 2022–everyone must subscribe to a set of beliefs about gender that in large part did not exist ten years ago, or be condemned (and discriminated against) for intolerance and bigotry. For what it is worth, I think Maine’s legislature probably can rework the program to effectively exclude Christian schools by adding criteria that do not isolate religion per se as grounds for exclusion.

Then we have this reaction from a left-wing extremist in Minnesota. It sums up several aspects of current liberal dogma:

This guy, Scott Burns, thinks that 1) parents are generally not good judges of what is best for their children (unlike him, apparently); 2) “many” churches and religions are bigoted; and 3) religion-sponsored schools are worse on average than public schools. It’s a triple whammy of anti-religious and anti-parent bias. Burns is also out of touch with reality if he seriously thinks that public schools in Minnesota, which are in the midst of a crisis of declining quality, are better than parochial alternatives.

One more thing–this out of touch leftist is a member of the Star Tribune editorial board, whose fecklessness Scott has criticized more than once. [UPDATE: A reader says that Burns is on the Strib’s corporate Board of Directors, not the Editorial Board. I think this is right; the link shows the Strib’s “Management Team.” If he is on the corporation’s board, it is even worse.] His tweets provide a window into the thinking of that body.

UPDATE: My friend Mitch Berg replied to Mr. Burns’s tweet in a civil manner:

Star Tribune Board member Scott Burns responded by blocking Mitch, and all 49 people who liked Mitch’s tweet, including my wife. Also, we are told, by deleting the reference to the Star Tribune in his Twitter profile. What a hapless dope.

‘The whole point was to keep the government in this box … the structure was the main way to protect your liberty,’ Thomas said.

Clarence Thomas: Expanding The Administrative State Comes At The Expense Of The Constitution

JUNE 23, 2022

Clarence Thomas sitting in interview

‘The whole point was to keep the government in this box … the structure was the main way to protect your liberty,’ Thomas said.

Author Michael Pack And Mark Paoletta profile


During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has questioned the constitutional basis with respect to the growth of the administrative state, whereby a federal agency amasses legislative, executive, and judicial de facto powers. He has raised concerns that this development is contrary to the Founders intentional design in the Constitution to separate the powers of those three branches, and this amassing of power is a threat to our liberty. 

After three decades of service on the court, few know Thomas beyond his contentious confirmation and the surrounding media firestorm. The following interview is an excerpt from “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” where Thomas unpacks his views on the administrative state and much more.

Michael Pack: Let me ask you about another set of issues that have come up. You’ve been a leader in the administrative state cases. What is at stake there? It seems to be a question of liberty again.

Clarence Thomas: The very people who say they don’t want the government in their lives want this sort of expansive administrative state, which is in their lives, and then every aspect of their lives. And a lot of it comes at the expense of the very structure of the Constitution that is intended to prevent the government from coming in. The separation of powers, the enumerated powers, federalism. The whole point was to keep the government in this box. Justice Scalia and I often talked about that, that the structure was the main way to protect your liberty. The danger in the administrative state is seeing those powers all coalesce again in various agencies. If you think about your life today, there’s very little major legislation that comes from the legislature. The legislation comes in the form of regulations from agencies. They tend to have all three powers. They have the executive power, the enforcement power, they have administrative judges to adjudicate, so they have all three. And the question for us is, where do they fit in the constitutional structure?

When a private right is somehow intruded upon by one of these agencies, what is the role of the federal courts? If we simply defer to the agencies, which is what we do now, in many cases, aren’t we doing precisely what happened when it came to the royal courts of the pre-Revolutionary era? How does that make us any different? You’ve got this creation that sits over here outside the Constitution, or beyond the Constitution. How does it fit within our constitutional structure? How’s it limited and what is the risk that it will actually vitiate the constitutional protections that we have?

We have a form of government where we’ve limited the national government in what it can do. We’ve separated the powers. You’ve got enumerated powers. One of the ways that we’ve limited the national government is to divide the power. You said, “Here’s the legislative power, here’s the judicial power, here’s the executive power. That structure was very important to keeping the national government at bay. You also had federalism, in other words, that the states had most of the authority, and certainly the local authority, beyond what was in the Constitution and the rest remained with the individuals.

MP: I think it was James Madison who said that if you combine the executive, legislative, and judicial in one person, or branch, it’s the very definition of tyranny.

CT: That’s wonderful rhetoric, and it plays out that way when people look at agencies, and they think, “Of course I have no way to defend myself against an agency.” And what we have simply been trying to  do is to raise the question of what are the limits of that. There are different views about it. But at least when you look back at guys like [Frank] Goodnow or Woodrow Wilson or the Progressives at the close of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century, at least you have the advantage of them being candid. To some extent, they meant “progress”—to progress beyond the Constitution. And how that is consistent with the Constitution is something I think is worth discussing.

MP: They were clear, too, that they believed in experts and agencies rather than in traditional legislating by elected members of Congress.

CT: I think to some extent they thought that the quaint ideas that the Framers had were anachronistic, at best, and that you could have someone who understood how a government should operate or how a policy should operate. Once you lose the notion of self-governing, that of self-governance, then where are we? And I think the stark choices are between government by consent and being ruled. And perhaps some people think that we can have a little of both. But good luck! I think the tendency throughout history is that once people get authority to rule, they tend to rule more, not less.

MP: When people use the expression, “the administrative state,” what does that mean?

CT: I think that’s their way of saying we’re being governed by administrative agencies. And it’s like affirmative action, who knows? You get a sense of what they’re talking about, but I think we have to be more precise in defining the relationship between, say, a specific agency and the constitutional protections. I think most people don’t follow administrative cases and they don’t think about the role of these financial boards or the environmental boards. People like a particular policy. Then they’ll argue about the policy and not think about how you got to that policy. And I think how you got there, and by what authority, is the more important question for us, not the policy itself.

MP: The phrase “the administrative state,” itself, implies that each of these little agencies has some particular role, but when you accumulate all of them together, it looks like almost a fourth branch of government.

CT: I don’t know which agencies are little anymore. I ran EEOC and it was small. But look at the reach and the effect that you could have. I ran that little Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, look at the reach and the things that it could affect. So the reach is nationwide.

Mark Paoletta and Michael Pack are co-editors of the forthcoming book “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” taken from more than 25 hours of interviews with Justice Thomas conducted for the documentary of the same name. Pack produced and directed that film as well as over 15 other nationally broadcast documentaries. Paoletta is an attorney and worked on Justice Thomas’ confirmation.

“Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin announced that Robb Elementary School will be razed.”

Texas state senator sues DPS for withholding records on Uvalde shooting

KAREN TOWNSEND Jun 23, 2022 at HotAir:  

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Throughout media coverage of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, two politicians have played prominent roles in keeping the story in the press. Both represent districts that include Uvalde. One is a Republican, Rep.Tony Gonzales. The other is a Democrat, State Sen. Roland Gutierrez. On Wednesday, Gutierrez sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) claiming that the agency violated state open records law.

Gutierrez said that he asked DPS Director Steve McCraw for a ballistics report and “any document or report that details the police and DPS presence” several days after the May 24 mass shooting. He said that McCraw denied his request. Gutierrez filed a lawsuit in Travis County (Austin) on Wednesday.

In his petition, filed in Travis County district court, Gutierrez said DPS has yet to respond to his records request, nor has the agency sought ruling from the attorney general’s office on whether the information is exempted from public disclosure.

Agencies generally must refer the matter to the attorney general within 10 business days if they wish to withhold requested information.

Like most people, Gutierrez has been critical of the ever-changing stories of that horrible day coming from various agencies of law enforcement. The story continues to get worse. McCraw testified before a state Senate committee on Tuesday and called police efforts an “abject failure.” McCraw put the blame on the local school police chief. The Uvalde police chief has now been suspended.

After that hearing, Gutierrez says the response from law enforcement “has been full of misinformation and outright lies from our government.”

“In the wake of this massacre, the State of Texas has completely failed to provide the community of Uvalde with truthful answers,” Gutierrez said. “Weeks have come and gone, and yet families who lost their children have not been told by their government the basic information about who was on site as their children bled, what tools were at their disposal to stop the gunman, and exactly why they decided to wait instead of act.”

He’s not wrong. It has been utterly shocking how inept and untruthful the various agencies have shown themselves to be in the aftermath of this tragedy. They’ve all dug themselves in so deep it will be a long time before anyone will feel confident in trusting them. Gutierrez said he sent an open records request on May 31. The deadline for a response has passed with no documents coming forward.

“The people of Uvalde and Texas have demanded answers from their government. To date, they have been met with lies, misstatements, and shifts of blame. The State of Texas failed these families and those families deserve to know the complete, unalterable truth about what happened that day. This is a suit to demand just that,” the lawsuit says.

Under Texas law, the information must be released or a notice explaining they are seeking clarification from the AG’s office must be sent to the requestor within 10 business days of the original records request.

Meanwhile, Uvalde CISD Police Chief Arredondo, now suspended, was recently elected to the city council. He requested a leave of absence from both his job as police chief for the school district and from city council. City council denied him a leave of absence. He can be removed from city council after missing three meetings. We’ll see what happens with that.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin announced that Robb Elementary School will be razed. “You can never ask a child to go back, or a teacher to go back in that school ever,” McLaughlin said. No timeline was provided. Students from Robb Elementary will be split between two other elementary schools next year.