Chuck Schumer's Obstruction Tactics Failing as Three Democrats Set to Meet With Judge Kavanaugh

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to do everything possible to block the confirmation of President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Unfortunately for Schumer, it appears a handful of his Democrat colleagues are ready to break ranks and consider voting to confirm the highly qualified Kavanaugh. The Hill reports,

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic-allied advocacy groups are using the lightest of touches on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) as he considers voting for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Manchin will meet with Kavanaugh at 2:30 pm Monday and could embolden other Democrats to announce their support for President Trump’s conservative nominee.

Since the U.S. Senate currently consists of fifty-one Republicans, Democrats will almost certainly need zero defections to have any chance of blocking President Trump’s second SCOTUS nominee. As the Washington Examiner reports, things are starting to look grim for Schumer and his obstruction strategy thanks to a handful of Democrats in states that President Trump carried in the 2016 election.

At the moment, Manchin is one of . . . two Senate Democrats who have scheduled meetings with the judge. Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., is scheduled to meet with the Supreme Court hopeful Aug. 15. 

Others are in the process of scheduling meetings, including Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., whose office is working with the White House toward setting up a meeting with Kavanaugh. With the upcoming meetings, the ballgame for Kavanaugh will begin in earnest.

With President Trump winning handily in all three states of the aforementioned three Democrat Senators, it would be politically risky for them to disregard the wishes of their constituents and cave to the liberal elite and oppose a nominee as qualified as Judge Kavanaugh in such a pro-Trump state.

What is clear is that the Democrat obstruction strategy is beginning to crumble right before our eyes, and that is bad news for Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer's Delaying Game on Judge Kavanaugh Will Fail

Democrats have not found a way to substantively oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. So they are switching gears to delaying his confirmation to the Court until after October 1 when the new term starts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has led an effort to stop Democrats from meeting with Kavanaugh:

Senate Democrats are largely giving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh the brushoff, refusing the customary “courtesy visits” until Republicans agree to turn over voluminous documents from the Supreme Court nominee’s past.

In the two weeks since President Trump nominated him to succeed the retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Judge Kavanaugh has met with 23 Republicans, and not a single Democrat. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in an interview Monday that he would not meet with Judge Kavanaugh until the top Republican and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee reach agreement on what documents should be produced. . . .

“I have told my caucus that I’m waiting, and I think most of them are following me,” Mr. Schumer said.

Of course, Schumer’s wall is already cracking.  Senator Manchin of West Virginia has just agreed to meet with Kavanaugh:

Sen. Joe Manchin’s one-on-one meeting with SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh is officially on the books for July 30.

— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) July 23, 2018

The stated reason for the delay is a ridiculous effort to get irrelevant documents from Kavanaugh’s time as Staff Secretary to President George W. Bush. These records are irrelevant as Kavanaugh has a long record as a judge to examine to decide how one will vote on him. Instead Democrats are focusing on irrelevant documents in an effort to delay. Senator Grassley in a tweet explained it well:

Kagan’s prez library docs were necessary to gain insight because she had ZERO experience as a judge and @SenJudiciary wasn’t fully provided Kagan’s SG records. On the contrary, the best indication of Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence is his TWELVE years as a DC Circuit Court Judge.

— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) July 24, 2018

Fortunately the Senate Majority Leader is Mitch McConnell not Chuck Schumer.  Leader McConnell won’t tolerate too much of this. 

McConnell on Democrats demanding Kavanaugh documents: I hope we can reach an agreement..We’re going to finish this nomination..There is no delaying tactic to take us past October 1

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 24, 2018

Thank you, Leader McConnell. 

Schumer's Antics Hurt the Senate and Aren't Really About the Merits on Kavanuagh

The argument du jour for Democrats seems to be that Judge Brett Kavanaugh made some sort of deal with President Trump so Trump can’t be indicted. As Senate Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated:

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a news conference Tuesday that Trump “chose the candidate who he thought would best protect him from the Mueller investigation.”

The Washington Post concluded this was false and stated so in pretty strong terms:

But Kavanaugh’s articles from 1998 and 2009 are no smoking-gun evidence that he would vote to dismiss an indictment against Trump, should one ever be filed.

Although he clearly believes it’s a bad idea to indict a sitting president, Kavanaugh never states his view whether the Constitution allows it. In fact, he says Congress should pass legislation to ensure the president is immune from civil and criminal proceedings while in office. As Feldman writes, Kavanaugh’s 2009 article can be read as a signal that he might uphold a presidential indictment unless Congress changes the law. 

We don’t mean to split hairs by analyzing whether Kavanaugh believes something “can’t” or “shouldn’t” happen, but in the legal arena, this distinction matters. Kavanaugh’s stated views on this question don’t go as far as Fallon, Maloney and Ocasio-Cortez claimed. Their tweets merit Two Pinocchios, although we considered giving Three. To say Kavanaugh is Trump’s “get-out-of-jail free card” is an extreme distortion of what he’s written.

There is some question as to Senator Schumer’s motive for this and other similar antics.  Schumer may not even care about defeating the nomination of Kavanaugh but may be making this and other ridiculous claims to delay his confirmation.  As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board points out.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.” Nice to know he’s given it such careful thought. But Mr. Schumer knows defeating the judge is a long shot, especially after Maine Senator Susan Collins made encouraging comments Tuesday about Judge Kavanaugh’s lower-court opinion on ObamaCare and his statement in 2006 that Roe v. Wade is a binding precedent.

In any case, what Mr. Schumer cares about more than defeating Donald Trump’s nominee is to be the next Majority Leader. Toward that end he wants to help his 10 incumbent Senators running in November to navigate between a political base that demands opposition to all things Trump and broader state electorates that might come to think that Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent nominee.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.” Nice to know he’s given it such careful">The best way to do that is to postpone a confirmation vote beyond Nov. 6. That way Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Joe Manchin in West Virginia wouldn’t have to take a politically difficult vote before Election Day.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.” Nice to know he’s given it such careful">They and other Democrats like Claire McCaskill in Missouri risk infuriating Democratic activists if they vote for a nominee who will be described day after day on MSNBC and CNN as a threat to every right they have. On the other hand, the Senators might motivate Trump voters to turn out against them if they oppose Judge Kavanaugh. So Mr. Schumer’s main priority is delay, and delay some more.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.” Nice to know he’s given it such careful consideration. The motive for Schumer’s attacks is to delay, not about defeating Kavanaugh. They are about politics and damaging the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” Ironically, Senators of his own party may pay the price.

Top 10 News Items on the Supreme Court Vacancy Going Into July 4th

10.  President Trump will announce his decision on the evening of Monday, July 9th.

9.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will follow the “Kennedy Rule” and oppose any nominee. Senator Ted Kennedy gave an infamous speech condemning Judge Robert Bork as soon as he was announced.  The partisan attack helped lead to Bork’s defeat.  Kennedy gave a similar speech when Justice David Souter was nominated.  Justice Souter turned out to be a vote for the liberal wing of the court.  The Kennedy rule many Senate Democrats have lived by states regardless of the person’s record, if he is nominated by a Republican, he must be portrayed as an extremist that would bring back segregation, back-alley abortions, etc.

8.  CNN will report fake news.  CNN’s legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin has already lost it as Ari Fleischer points out:

If you want to see what it looks like when someone has lost their mind, here it is... https://t.co/TyeCPn9MPQ

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) July 1, 2018

7.  The Left’s attacks are not limited to unhinged insanity.  They also include Religious bigotry.

Dragging Amy Barrett for her Christian faith is 1) unconstitutional if used as a religious test for office; 2) ignorant; and 3) often malicious and bigoted. She lives a life very similar to the lives of millions of her fellow citizens: https://t.co/p1Vu8Z3fvo

— David French (@DavidAFrench) July 2, 2018

6.  And unbounded hypocrisy:

I didn’t realize that the minority leader was such a fan of Citizens United and DC v Heller. https://t.co/qZXrvogE56

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) July 2, 2018

5.  President Trump is reportedly personally interviewing five finalists.  David Latt says four of those finalists are:

I can CONFIRM (multiple sources) that President Donald Trump personally interviewed these four #SCOTUS candidates today: Judges Amy Barrett (7th Cir.), Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), Raymond Kethledge (6th Cir.), & Amul Thapar (6th Cir.). #AppellateTwitter

— David Lat (@DavidLat) July 2, 2018

4.  The fifth person is a woman, as President Trump has stated two of the five potential nominees are women.  Possibilities include: Margaret Ryan, Joan Larsen, or Allison Eid.

3.   While much has been written about the qualifications of Judge Barrett and Judge Kavanaugh, Judge Kethletdge has largely flown under the radar.  Here is a great piece by RNLA Board of Governors Member Chuck Cooper on Kethledge. 

2.   Another potential nominee not receiving as much attention is Judge Thapar.  For his appellate nomination, RNLA endorsed Amul Thapar and worked on his judicial confirmation.

1.  The "judge whisperer" Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society summed up President Trump's Supreme Court shortlist well: "The list is really good," Leo said, adding, "You can throw a dart at that list and in my view you would be fine."

The RNLA is very excited to support the nominee in the mold of former RNLA Member Justice Neil Gorusch.  Stay tuned for more information here and buckle your seat belt for Monday.

Democrats false Narrative on SCOTUS and Some Facts on a Few of the Potential Nominees

Democrats have begun to attack both the Supreme Court confirmation process and some of President Trump's potential nominees.  We provide the facts and some real details on the highly qualified judges.  

Senate Minority Leader Schumer has been saying the Biden Rule applies to the Kennedy vacancy.  While we think it is great that Schumer now acknowledges the Biden Rule (which his own party established), he is purposely misconstruing it and applying it completely wrong.  As the Washington Post explains:

The GOP did argue in 2016 that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled until after voters had their say in the coming election, but their argument was about who gets to nominate the justice — not who gets to confirm him or her. It was clearly about presidential election years, not midterms. 

For comparison, Republicans did not attempt to stop Elana Kagan’s confirmation in summer 2010, just ahead of the Senate midterm election (when Republicans won back the Senate); despite, Senate Republicans ability to filibuster. The Democrats are proving they have no interest confirming a qualified Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, but would rather play partisan political games and continue their efforts to "resist" and obstruct President Trump--even if the country suffers as a result.

Over the next few days, we will highlight some of the nominees that are most talked about. Below are three highly respected judges from President Trump’s list of potential nominees that are currently gaining the most attention in the media.


Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, is a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Judge Barret is a graduate and Professor at the Notre Dame School of Law since 2002, and clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also served as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., where she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. As the Washington Times states Judge Barret had a remarkably difficult experience being confirmed due to potentially anti-Catholic bias:

Republicans said Democrats were bringing “Catholic bigotry” back to the halls of Congress as almost all Democratic senators voted to try to filibuster a Notre Dame University professor President Trump has nominated to be a judge on a federal appeals court. 

The GOP defeated the filibuster on a 54-42 vote, though only three Democrats joined Republicans in backing Amy Coney Barrett, the law professor Mr. Trump nominated to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, Sen. Joe Donnelly, Indiana Democrat, and Sen. Tim Kaine, Virginia Democrat were the three who broke with their party to back Ms. Barrett.  “Amy Barrett happens to be a nominee who is Catholic—and who speaks freely and openly about her faith and its importance to her,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “For some on the Left, that seems to be a disqualifying factor for her nomination. I would remind colleagues that we do not have religious tests for office in this country.” 

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is another potential Trump nominee. As SCOTUSblog explains, Judge Hardiman is highly qualified and a strong conservative:

The Massachusetts-born Hardiman became the first person in his family to go to college when he went to the University of Notre Dame, and he financed his law degree at the Georgetown University Law Center by driving a taxi. (If nominated and confirmed, Hardiman would also bring educational diversity to a court on which all of the other justices attended Ivy League law schools.) 

After his law school graduation, Hardiman worked for two years in the Washington office of Skadden Arps before moving to Pittsburgh, where he practiced law until 2003. At the age of 37, Hardiman became a federal district judge; he was appointed to the 3rd Circuit in 2007, at the age of 41 – yet another similarity with Sotomayor, who also became a district judge at the age of 37 and took her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at the age of 44.  

During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms.    

Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh grew up in Bethesda and attended Yale University and Yale Law School. He later clerked for Kennedy on the Supreme Court and served as a counsel in the White House of President George W. Bush.  

The Baltimore Sun recently highlighted Judge Kavanaugh strong conservative roots:

On the Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh has frequently provided a conservative opinion. In 2017, he was among three dissenting judges on a decision that allowed an immigrant teenager to get an abortion. At the time, he said the majority had "badly erred" and created a new right for undocumented immigrant minors in custody to "immediate abortion on demand."

The RNLA believes any of the three aforementioned judges would each be highly qualified and excellent picks by President Trump.

Schumer: "Opposing" Those HE Supports to Undermine the Government

The Senate recessed today for two weeks and most people are focusing on the Omnibus. The government funding issue is important but so are the people who work for the government. Using obstruction tactics in unprecedented fashion, Democrats have fought against confirming Trump appointees to run the government. As Politifact recently reported:

Compared with recent presidents, Trump has had the fewest nominees confirmed to date, according to the White House.

Trump has also had the smallest percent of nominees confirmed by the Senate at this point in his presidency, relative to recent predecessors. Only 57 percent of Trump’s nominees have been confirmed, below that of Presidents Barack Obama (67 percent), George W. Bush (78 percent), Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (each with 81 percent).

Polifact tries to muddy the water a bit by saying that this is somehow also Republicans fault for what they did in the last years of Obama.  Whatever the Republicans allegedly did does not compare to what is happening now.  Politifact misses the "why fact."  Democrats are using dilatory, delaying tactics (emphasis ours):

“At this point, in the past four administrations combined -- the last four administrations -- the Senate had conducted 17 cloture votes combined - cloture vote, in essence, being a filibuster on a nominee. Seventeen cloture votes in the last four administrations combined, at this point,” [White House Legislative Director Marc] Short said.

“Today, the Senate has had 79 cloture votes in the first 14 months of our administration. Seventeen, over the last four administrations, versus 79 in the first 14 months of our administration. That is roughly five times the number of the last four administrations combined,” Short said.

He accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of “weaponizing a Senate procedure and demanding cloture votes on our nominees that he even eventually supports.”  

The last point is important.  Schumer is not even trying to defeat nominees, he is just trying to prevent more of Trump’s nominees from being confirmed by wasting time. Each cloture vote wastes 30 hours of Senate floor time. This is not just the White House or even the more fiery Republican Senators who are upset. The respected, low-key, and long serving Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas put it this way:

“Thirty hours is just too much. You have cloture motion filed on a nominee and the nominee gets 98 votes and then you wait 30 hours for nothing else but to slow the process down,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)

Shame on Senate Minority Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats for trying to undermine the government by preventing more of President Trump's nominees be confirmed.  They are undermining the government, just the same as if they did not vote to fund it.  

Part 2: Top Blog Posts of 2017 - Democrats' Unprecedented Obstructionism

Last Friday, we had the top posts of the year, numbers 10-6.  Today, it is the top 5 posts that unfortunately have a common theme:  Democrats' hyper-partisan obstruction of the Trump Administration.  This is so over the top it would be funny if it was not hurting the governing of our country.   The number one post shows the complete hypocrisy of the Democrats opposition to the Trump Administration.  They are hurting good people for the sake of appeasing their far-left base. 

5.  April 6: “Today, McConnell Ended What Schumer Began with Estrada Filibuster”  Excerpt:

There was much hand wringing over Senator McConnell being forced to invoke the constitutional option today to end the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, but partisan filibusters of judicial nominees are not a longstanding Senate tradition.  It began with now-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's filibuster of Miguel Estrada (who was opposed in large part because he was a conservative Latino).

4.  August 18: “ATL Publishes Vulgar Attack on Former Gorsuch Clerk”  Excerpt:

Perhaps the most telling point in the whole piece is that constitutionalist, textualist, and originalist are just buzzwords used by dumb people, not fully formed, mainstream theories of constitutional and statutory interpretation even adopted by Justice Elena Kagan.  While the crude personal attacks on Mr. Davis are reprehensible, this point shows that what he is really being attacked for is being a conservative who respects the Constitution.  We thank Mr. Davis for his service to our country, even in the face of such vulgar, inappropriate criticism.

3.  November 8: “Sen. Sasse Dismantles ABA as Neutral Arbiter of Judicial Qualifications”  Excerpt:

I'm referring specifically to the smear campaign of the ABA against Steve Grasz, a qualified public servant who has been nominated by the President to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . First, we should discuss the two people who interviewed Mr. Grasz and recognize that, unfortunately, they are blatant partisans with a sad track record of hackery. Second, the ABA Is trying to paint Mr. Grasz as an extremist simply because he did his job as the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska and defended Nebraskans and Nebraska laws that wanted to outlaw the most barbaric of abortion practices — partial-birth abortion. Third, we should talk about the obvious bigotry of cultural liberals evident in their interview process of Mr. Grasz when they asked him repeated questions about nonlegal matters that had nothing to do with the claims of competence of the ABA. 

2.  April 25: “Democrats Continue to Oppose, Delay and Obstruct Non-Controversial, Qualified Nominees”  Excerpt:

He has the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and was an Obama appointee.  He is the longest serving U.S. Attorney in the nation.  Yet, Rod J. Rosenstein has waited almost three months to finally get a chance to be confirmed as Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the number 2 position in the Department of Justice.  Cloture had to be invoked as six Democrats opposed him even getting an up or down vote!

1.    1. February 9: “Senator Nelson Shows His True Feelings after Bowing to Extremist Pressure” (regarding Senator Nelson’s applause following Attorney General Sessions’ confirmation vote) Excerpt:

The Democrats have become totally beholden to extremist elements in their own party. Never has that been more clear than on their recent vote on the confirmation of their colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.  All Democrats--except Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--voted against him.  Yet, many Democrat Senators can be seen applauding Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General. 

The Democrats have taken obstruction and partisanship to a new level in their efforts to undermine the American government. 

State of the Law on Donor Disclosure and Its Dangers

RNLA member Eric Wang published a thorough analysis of the state of the law on donor disclosure requirements and what the law should be under First Amendment free speech principles.  "Staring at the Sun: An Inquiry into Compulsory Campaign Finance Donor Disclosure Laws" was published today as a Policy Analysis paper from the Cato Institute.  Mr. Wang begins by pointing out the tension at the heart of any discussion of disclosure (footnotes omitted):

“Disclosure” is a term with warm and fuzzy connotations. When someone intersperses a “full disclosure” disclaimer in a conversation, we tend to credit the speaker for his or her candor. But privacy also is commonly regarded as a virtue in its own right. The right to privacy is held to be “fundamental” against intrusions by the government . . . . These competing interests of privacy and anonymity versus disclosure in the context of political speech are reflected in the Court’s tortured and tortuous jurisprudence. 

After examining the Supreme Court's unrealistic and limited justifications for donor disclosure requirements, Mr. Wang says that other justifications are not better:

If one goes in search of better justifications for compulsory donor disclosure beyond the Supreme Court’s holdings, the landscape is still rather bleak. The arguments put forward for disclosure often are illogical on their face, contrary to actual experience, inconsistent with other First Amendment precepts, or downright invidious. 

People United for Privacy just released this video about the chilling effects of donor disclosure requirements, including a disturbing moment when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer admitted that the purpose of disclosure requirements was to deter citizens' speech about their government.  Mr. Wang describes this and the constitutional problems with that position:

Every so often, compulsory disclosure supporters reveal their true intention of deterring speech. . . .  This sometimes not-so-subtle effort to use compulsory donor disclosure laws to limit speech runs head-on, however, into what the Court has long held to be our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Not only that, but the deterrence of speech diminishes the public’s “right to hear, to learn, to know”—a right that also has been held to be fundamental.

Mr. Wang concludes by offering recommendations for disclosure laws that serve the legitimate purpose of disclosure while protecting citizens' constitutional rights, while pointing out how current laws often fall short of these principles: 

Disclosure’s purpose should be to “allow[] citizens to keep tabs on their elected officials”— not for “the government to monitor its constituents.” The legitimacy of disclosure laws is at its zenith when they focus on government transparency. Open government is essential to representative government and holding officials accountable and responsive to the public. When disclosure laws’ purpose is to monitor private individuals and groups exercising their First Amendment rights, however, such laws become an authoritarian tool for intimidation, retribution, and the suppression of democratic debate. 

Liberals and Democrats, in their ongoing quest to force more disclosure to deter citizens from speaking out about their government, would do well to pay attention to Mr. Wang's reasoned analysis of the dangers and proper role of donor disclosure.  Free speech often demands the right to speak anonymously, especially in our politically charged era where threats of violence against conservative speakers are becoming commonplace.

A Contrast Between Senate Leaders in Response to the New York Tragedy

On the attack yesterday in New York, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated:

Yesterday’s attack in Manhattan was sickening, twisted, and heartbreaking. The suspect appears to have been inspired by ISIL. We know that in the days ahead our intelligence community will make every effort to learn more about him, and whether he had any connection to this terror group and its hateful ideology.

But today, we are thinking of everyone affected by this tragedy. We are praying for the victims and their families. We are thinking of our fellow Americans in New York. We are expressing our gratitude for the critical work of our first responders. To them we say: Thank you for your courage. Thank you for all you do. Especially in the face of such a terrible tragedy, like we witnessed yesterday.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Democrat Charles Schumer called for more anti-terrorism funding.

Schumer’s office released a statement, challenging the president to focus on anti-terrorism funding. 

The Leader calling for an investigation, praying, and thanking first responders versus a leader engaging in political attacks to ask for more funding before the details are even known for sure.  Thank you, Leader McConnell.  

On Voting, Schumer Apparently Considers Some Democrats Neo-Nazis

In the Daily Caller this week, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen calls out Senator Schumer and his recent blog post in the Medium which compared the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to the racist riots in Charlottesville earlier this month. In his blog post, Senator Schumer announced his attempt to block and force the disbandment of the commission. Mr. Thielen explored the rationale for this undertaking by the Democrats:

Simply put, current Democrats and their allies on the left have opposed virtually every major bipartisan election administration reform proposed by their fellow Democrats and liberals in this century. They have opposed such reforms even when political leaders such as former Democrat President Carter have backed them. . . . They oppose election administration reforms because a messy election system helps them beat outsiders within their own party such as Bernie Sanders and those outside the party, such as Republicans and Green Party candidates. . .

For years now in the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia in the swing state of Pennsylvania, there have been issues with Democrat party operatives intimidating voters in Philadelphia... More recently in 2016, Republican poll officials in Philadelphia were turned away and not allowed to vote or do their jobs because of intimidation. . . . Of course, critics will say Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democrat, so why are Republicans complaining? In April of this year in a special election, the Green and Republican Parties joined together to file a federal lawsuit contesting the outcome. Operatives of the Democrat machine in Philadelphia were escorting voters to voting machines, telling voters they could only vote for the Democrat write-in candidate, and not allowing voters to vote for the Green or Republican Party candidates on the ballot. This is the sort of intimidation that should be condemned by all parties, but it is not—because it benefits Democrats. The reason Schumer says this is because he knows such “sloppy lists” benefit Democrats. . .

In July in Florida, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Democrat Brenda Snipes admitted under oath that problems with sloppy lists and last minute voter registration drives have led to “non-citizens and felons [voting] despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections.”... In other words, Democrat efforts to keep messy voter rolls have resulted in vote fraud and eligible voters being disenfranchised in a key Democrat county in Florida—the ultimate swing state during modern Presidential elections. Yet, none of this is reported or mentioned by many on the left who purport to track voter fraud.

Schumer ended his rant by proposing bipartisan “hearings on the status of voting rights in America.” If Schumer were at all sincere and believed this, he would embrace President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, for this is exactly what it is doing. The commission is seeking public comments prior to its second meeting on September 12, 2017, which will be co-chaired by the nation’s longest serving Secretary of State, Democrat Bill Gardner. Gardner is not just co-chairing the meeting but hosting it in his native New Hampshire. Hard to get much more bipartisan, unless Schumer is concerned the second meeting is too Democrat. . . .

The Democrats, guided under Senator Schumer, continue their offense of obstructing Republicans and their efforts to govern. By doing this, they continue to reject the will of the people and their choices in 2016 Election, including any efforts to investigate problems that occurred in past elections. 

Nevertheless, you can help out! The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is seeking public comments ahead of their next meeting on September 12th. You can submit your comment here.

Flashback Friday -- 2009 -- That Time Senator Schumer Was Actually for an Election Integrity Investigation

Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, has emerged as one of the most highly partisan leaders in the Senate in a long while. Senator Schumer has also become a leading critic of President Trump's Commission on Election Integrity headed by Vice President Pence.

Senator Schumer decried: 

"President Trump has decided to waste taxpayer dollars chasing a unicorn and perpetuating the dangerous myth that widespread voter fraud exists."

Reported by Fox News on May 11, 2017

He continued by claiming the Commission was going to be a:

“clear front for constricting the access to vote to poor Americans, older Americans, and — above all — African-Americans and Latinos.”

Reported by the Washington Post on May 11, 2017 

However, it looks like Senator Schumer's real objection is simply this is a Commission called for by President Trump after he claimed that vote fraud occurred during the 2016 Election.

Let's take a look at what Senator Schumer said in March 2009. According to Politico:

Chuck Schumer’s side won big in 2008, but the New York senator has launched an inquiry into potential voter fraud and disenfranchisement. 

On Wednesday morning, Schumer gaveled to order a hearing on a report estimating that as many as seven million voters were kept from casting ballots in November.

“This report is beyond troubling,” said Schumer, who is chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. “Put together, you get massive disenfranchisement. This is unacceptable and undemocratic.”

While the problems of the infamous 2000 election battle were the result of long lines and hanging chads, an MIT study argues the problems of the 2008 race were the result of voter registration issues. Among the report’s findings are that two million to four million registered voters were discouraged from casting ballots and that as many as nine million additional people tried and failed to register to vote.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in 2009, Schumer was very - and correctly - concerned about election integrity.  However, in 2017, Senator Schumer rather put partisanship ahead of the looking into the extent of vote fraud and overall election integrity.

To be clear, at least "some" vote fraud did occur during the 2016 Election. To categorically deny the problem is to fully ignore a serious problem, a real threat to our elections and our democracy. While the full extent of this problem is currently unknown, the RNLA has documented those cases that have been published on our Vote Fraud News page. 

Democrat Leaders All Agreed with President Trump that Comey Needed to Be Fired, Until He Fired Him

Yesterday, President Trump did what Democrats have long called for: he fired FBI Director James Comey.  Of course being Democrats, they disagree with President Trump even when he does what they want.  Here's a list of just a few of the past statements by Senate Democrats calling for Comey to be fired.

SenateMinority Leader Chuck Schumer:

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” said the New York Democrat, who has criticized as “appalling” Comey’s decision to send a letter to lawmakers 11 days before the election disclosing the bureau’s new review of e-mails potentially pertinent to the investigation of Clinton’s private server.

House Minority Leader Nancy Peloisi:

"Maybe he's not in the right job," Pelosi said. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."The former House speaker said Comey had made a "mistake" by sending a letter to Congress about the new review of emails potentially related to Clinton's private server after not recommending prosecution earlier this summer. She alleged that he had a "double standard" given reports that Comey at other points did not want to use his agency to interfere in the election, adding that the new investigation is interfering in the race.

Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee:

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.

Rep. Adam Schiff,  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Ranking Member)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday criticized FBI Director James Comey’s “disparate” treatment of President Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, saying Comey failed to justify his actions during a Senate hearing earlier in the day.

“Nothing excuses the disparate way he handled those,” Schiff said. "I don’t think in any way he justified both what he did and why he treated those investigations so differently.”

Former Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid:

“Comey knew and deliberately kept this info a secret,” he said. Asked whether he believes Comey should step down over the matter, Reid replied, “Of course, yes.”

President Trump did what the Democrat leaders had been asking him to do for months.  This is just another in a long line of examples that the Democrats do not want to work with the President to govern but instead are trying to undermine the government and never stopping their efforts to campaign. 

Judge Thapar: ABA Unanimously Well Qualified -- Not Good Enough for Senate Judiciary Dems

Today, Judge Amul R. Thapar, a U.S. District Court Judge from Kentucky, had his Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. Judge Thapar is the first circuit court nominee by the Trump Administration.

He earned the ABA's highest rating of unanimously Well Qualified to be a judge on the 6th Circuit, which at one time was called the "Gold Standard" in judicial nominations by Democratic Senator Pat Leahy (VT) and echoed by Democratic Minority Leader Senator Schumer (NY).
Judge Thapar faced a line of questioning reminiscent of the recent hearing for Justice Gorsuch, albeit slightly more subdued. Politico summarized the hearing as follows:

Asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to address the denigration of federal judges, Thapar evaded any direct comment on Trump's rhetoric, but he said it was unlikely to have much impact because federal judges are thick-skinned and have lifelong tenure. . . ."I am a proud Article III judge. We've been criticized from the beginning of this great country," Thapar said. "What I will say about me and my colleagues is it doesn't matter to us." . . . 

Thapar also faced pointed questions from Democrats about his affiliation with the conservative Federalist Society. Trump last year had included both Gorsuch and Thapar, 47, on a list of judges he said he would choose from when making nominations to the Supreme Court, and the possibility Thapar could someday be elevated to the high court was a subtext of Wednesday's hearing. Thapar was one of four individuals reportedly interviewed by Trump for the Supreme Court vacancy. 

Under questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Thapar said Wednesday he was surprised to learn from a law clerk after a court session last fall that he'd been named to Trump's list. "I have no idea how I got on the list. I wasn't notified ahead of time," Thapar said. . . . Whitehouse and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) noted that the list was prepared by the Federalist Society and by the conservative Heritage Foundation, but Thapar insisted he'd made no pledge of ideological fealty to those groups. "I'm my own judge, and I hope my track record speaks to that," he said. He called the Federalists "an open-debate society." Durbin appeared skeptical of that explanation.

Also, entered into the record, by Chairman Senator Grassley, was a written statement signed by a diverse group of 23 lawyers who all clerked under Judge Thapar:

Each of us spent a year working closely with Judge Thapar in his chambers, and we can each attest that he is an exemplary judge, a devoted mentor, and a great person. First, and most importantly, Judge Thapar is an exceptional jurist. There is only one rule in his chambers: get the law right. Judge Thapar works diligently with his law clerks to ensure that every decision he makes is in accordance with what the law requires. Judge Thapar gives equal attention and a fair hearing to every litigant in every case that comes before him. From individual social security 2 disability claimants, to incarcerated inmates, to large multinational corporations, every party gets a fair hearing from Judge Thapar. . . .

We firmly believe there is no one better than Judge Thapar to fill the open seat on the Sixth Circuit. If confirmed, we are confident that Judge Thapar will approach his job on the appellate court the same way he has approached his job on the district court—with dedication to the law, with a prodigious work ethic, and with respect for all parties who appear before him. We hope the Senate will confirm Judge Thapar quickly. 

According to The Washington Times, there are some 19 circuit court vacancies and more than 100 district court vacancies in need of nominees, perhaps giving President Trump the opportunity to reshape federal courts. However, it looks like this line of questioning will likely be repeated against most, if not all, of President Trump's judicial nominees.

Democrats Continue to Oppose, Delay and Obstruct Non-Controversial, Qualified Nominees

He has the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and was an Obama appointee.  He is the longest serving U.S. Attorney in the nation.  Yet, Rod J. Rosenstein has waited almost three months to finally get a chance to be confirmed as Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the number 2 position in the Department of Justice.  Cloture had to be invoked as six Democrats opposed him even getting an up or down vote!   

While the delay in confirming Rosenstein for the number 2 position at DOJ is inexcusable, the treatment of the nominee for the number 3 position (Associate Attorney General), Rachel Brand, is even worse.  As Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley stated:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he wasn’t sure why the nomination of Brand became a partisan issue. Brand’s nomination cleared through the judiciary committee on an 11-9 vote among party lines. 

“It’s a little more controversial than I thought it would be,” Grassley said Thursday. “She’s a pretty low-key person. ... I think she’ll get some Democrat votes on the floor of the Senate. I can’t give you a reason why it’s become somewhat partisan, because she’s well qualified.”

Chairman Grassley is understating the case.  Brand, like Rosenstein, should be non-controversial as she is extremely qualified and even an Obama appointee.   A few details from her bio as a Board Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from August 2012 to February 2017:

Rachel Brand has served as a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board since 2012. Her prior government experience includes serving as the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice after being confirmed by the Senate and appointed by President George W. Bush. In that capacity, Ms. Brand served as chief policy adviser to the Attorney General, handling a broad range of national security, law enforcement, and civil justice issues. She also oversaw the development of all regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice and managed the Department's role in selecting federal judges, including running the confirmation hearing preparation for Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Earlier, Ms. Brand served as Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush at the White House. She was a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Justice Charles Fried of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Rosenstein was finally confirmed this evening, and the Democrats should stop their delay tactics and confirm Brand soon also.  It is time for Democrats to stop obstructing such qualified nominees.