ICYMI: David Bossie Talks Trump and Citizens United at the 2018 National Policy Conference

At the 2018 RNLA National Policy Conference, Citizens United President David Bossie discussed the landmark campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC, and how that led to his relationship with President Trump.

Bossie came up with the concept of Citizens United after he saw commercials of the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.  Citizens United ended up filing a complaint with the FEC arguing that the documentary violated section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as it was produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituting political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. 

This concept in 2005 led to the Supreme Court decision in 2010 which has since resulted in many victories across the country due to Bossie's efforts.  It was this case that led Bossie to get to know President Trump on a more personal level.  Bossie stated:

"Because I had just won this case as in 2010 as the plaintiff, [Donald Trump] started asking me about politics.  So over the years, I kind of became one of the guys he called.  I introduced him to...Don McGahn, one of my longtime friends."

In 2016, Bossie worked as the Deputy Campaign Manager for Donald J. Trump for President alongside Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski.  Bossie described in-depth his time on the campaign trail through election night and described how writing Let Trump Be Trump with Lewandowski about this experience was "natural" and "cathartic."

Bossie credited President Trump and the incredible accomplishments he has made from the economy to foreign relations during his tenure in office.  In regard to the upcoming midterm election Bossie stated:

"We have to tell the story of the good news of our accomplishments over the first year and a half.  It's an incredible list of accomplishments.  All of them good - for all Americans- not just conservatives or Republicans...

"If we do that, we're going to bring about real change because we will keep the House and add in the Senate."

To view Bossie's speech in its entirety, click here.  RNLA members may purchase a signed copy of his book Let Trump Be Trump, by signing into the Members Only section of RNLA.org after clicking here.

On Law Day: Highlighting Acosta’s Speech to RNLA on the Rule of Law and Liberty

Last week, RNLA hosted its 19th annual National Policy Conference. The Conference was a huge success. Today, on Law Day, we choose to highlight one of those addresses: R. Alexander Acosta, current Secretary of Labor and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Dean of the Florida International University College of Law. (emphasis mine)

I can think of no topic that is more important than the rule of law. . . .

That is deregulation to preserve liberty. [applause] The word liberty appears in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. But here's a question for all the lawyers in the room: how many times have you seen the word liberty appear in the Federal Register? . . .

Liberty is part of what makes America different and exceptional. If liberty is sufficient to form the foundation of our nation than liberty should be sufficient to form the basis for changing or rescinding a regulation period. [applause]. If we go back to our founding documents, back to first principles, we see that our Founders strongly believed in this.  The Declaration of Independence could be read this way: It asserted America's intent to eliminate regulations that impinged on mankind's inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What follows those words, if you read it, is a long list of grievances that justified our Revolution. And certainly these grievances complain of Britain’s economic regulations, if you think back to our history. What are they doing to regulate our economic prosperity? How are they maltreating our economies through regulation. But they also indict British regulation of and interference with the liberty of Americans. The ability of both individuals and the colonies as a whole to govern themselves. And it is that is at the heart of our American experiment. Citizens sit on juries. Voters elect their representatives to Washington. So by the same token, Americans should be trusted to exercise individual choice. At a practical level, this means that Washington should regulate only, only when necessary and that limiting the scope of government protects space for people to make these judgments for themselves.

Mr. Acosta goes on to give a concrete example of how liberty and the rule of law is applied now and how it was abused in the last Administration.  He focuses on a topic of interest to all lawyers, attorney-client privilege.

So I'd like to offer a few examples of how some of this works in practice. One of the clearest examples I think is a regulation that was enacted by my predecessor called the "persuader rule". . . . Issued last year required individuals to disclose when they provided legal advice to employers in a union organizing election. The effect of the rule was to discourage employers from consulting with counsel.  As everyone in this room knows the freedom to consult counsel of choice has been sacrosanct in the American tradition.   And for good reason, even the American Bar Association came out in opposition to the rule. They did so based on the concerns that it improperly infringed on attorney-client privilege. Yet the rule was published.  Now we at the Department have now published a new rule to rescind that rule. And here's the thing, the issue there is not the cost of compliance. The cost of the paperwork to report. The issue there is one of principle. Do we believe that that attorney-client privilege should be sacrosanct?  

While Department of Labor uses such quantitative tools as cost-benefit analysis, it is important to note as Secretary Acosta states, sometimes it comes down to the basic principles of the rule of law and liberty.  

Secretary Acosta’s speech can be viewed here. It is important to note that Secretary Acosta addressed the RNLA in his personal capacity, not in his official role.  We apologize for any transcription errors. 

RNLA Honored Scott Pruitt with Ed Meese Award at 2018 National Policy Conference

The RNLA was pleased to present Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt with the 2018 Ed Meese Award at its National Policy Conference on Friday:

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, for whom the award is named, stated: “Scott Pruitt is an outstanding public servant who has rendered extraordinary service first to the state of Oklahoma and now to the entire nation. His accomplishment in common-sense environmentalism is an example for all who are truly interested in conservation of resources and quality of life.” 

RNLA First Vice President Manuel E. Iglesias, who will interview Administrator Pruitt after giving him the award, said: “Scott Pruitt has led the effort to restore the rule of law at the EPA, fighting to enforce existing laws while not enacting new regulations that will hurt hardworking Americans with little effect on the environment. While being constantly attacked by Democrats, liberals, and the media, he has been steadfast in his defense of transparency, regulatory reform, agency efficiency, due process, and cooperative federalism." 

Administrator Pruitt was selected for his hard work to restore the rule of law to the Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump and his efforts to defend the rule of law and protect the role of states in our federalist system as the former Attorney General of Oklahoma. Administrator Pruitt has returned the EPA to its statutory mandates and limits, working tirelessly to undo the extralegal practices of the Obama Administration while under constant attack from the left.

Administrator Pruitt's discussion with RNLA First Vice President Manuel Iglesias may be viewed here.  He emphasized the actions he has taken to restore the rule of law to the EPA and how clear rules will encourage a cleaner environment:

At a Republican National Lawyers Association meeting on Friday, Pruitt laid out what he hoped to accomplish at EPA in 2019. First, Pruitt mentioned finalizing the repeal of major Obama-era regulations. 

“I anticipate the proposed redefining of ‘waters of the United States’ will come out here very soon, and we will finalize that by the end of the year,” Pruitt said at the event where he accepted an award. . . . In the upcoming year, Pruitt would also focus on less high-profile reforms to EPA’s permitting and reporting processes, he also told Republican lawyers. 

“Just to give you one example, when I came in I asked the question of our team, ‘how long does it take us to go through the permitting process,'” Pruitt said. “And it wasn’t even measured. We didn’t even know.” 

EPA has been developing a process “where the agency is going to be able to make a decision, up or down, on a permit within six months by the end of the year,” Pruitt added.

Congratulations to Administrator Pruitt on receiving the 2018 Ed Meese Award, and thank you for your efforts to protect the rule of law. 

ICYMI: Judge Mukasey Blasts Comey's "Claptrap"

Friday, Judge Michael Mukasey will be addressing the RNLA’s National Policy Conference. Judge Mukasey is also, of course, a former U.S. Attorney General with an insider's knowledge of what the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can, and cannot, do. That topic came up on a recent episode of the Laura Ingraham show. First, Judge Mukasey is emphatic that former FBI Director James Comey’s memos that are the basis of his book and talk show appearances are classified:

They were classified as soon as he wrote them. I had an experience when I started as AG on taking notes at a meeting on a top secret procedure, and when I got up to leave the meeting, my then chief of staff leaned over and wrote in big block letters at the top, TS/SCI, meaning Top Secret/Secure Compartmentalized Information. In other words, those weren't my notes those were the government's notes and the information in them, if it was classified, was classified as soon as he put it down on paper.

Judge Mukasey goes on to criticize Comey in one specific matter in his straight-to-the-point style:

His handling in particular, everybody has their own favorite issue, mine is with his handling of the Clinton email investigation was an outrageous performance. President Obama was sending messages and receiving messages on Hillary Clinton's private email server. Jim Comey knew that and when President Obama went on television and said there is no issue here, she doesn't really intend to cause harm. What he was saying in essence is you better let her off; if you wind up accusing her, you accuse me and Comey followed that lead. The notion this somehow was something he had to do for the welfare of the country is a lot of disingenuous claptrap.

Judge Mukasey’s perspective on the FBI and DOJ is especially enlightening as he ran DOJ as Attorney General without any ethical issues or dissension.  His concerns should alarm all Americans regardless of their political affiliations.  We look forward to hearing from him Friday at the RNLA National Policy Conference. 

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to Address National Policy Conference on April 27

The RNLA is pleased to announce that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai will speak at the National Policy Conference next Friday.

Chairman Pai joined the FCC as a Commissioner in 2012 and was designated as Chairman by President Trump in January 2017.  He has been a leader in the effort to restore the rule of law to federal communications regulation.

Last November, Chairman Pai gave remarks explaining the "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, which undid the FCC's unprecedented overreach in 2015 that created the so-called "net neutrality" policy:

First: what will the plan do? When you cut through the legal terms and technical jargon, it’s very simple. The plan to restore Internet freedom will bring back the same legal framework that was governing the Internet three years ago today and that has governed the Internet for most of its existence. . . . Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we’ll simply reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework. . . . 

Much of the problem stems from the vague Internet conduct standard that the Commission adopted in 2015—a standard that I’m proposing to repeal. Under this standard, the FCC didn’t say specifically what conduct was prohibited. Instead, it gave itself a roving mandate to second-guess new service offerings, new features, and new business models. Understandably, businesses asked for clarity on how this standard would be applied. My predecessor’s answer, and I quote: “We don’t know, we’ll have to see where things go.” That’s the very definition of regulatory uncertainty. . . . 

Many critics don’t seem to understand that we are moving from heavy-handed regulation to lighttouch regulation, not a completely hands-off approach. We aren’t giving anybody a free pass. We are simply shifting from one-size-fits-all pre-emptive regulation to targeted enforcement based on actual market failure or anticompetitive conduct. . . . By turning back time, so to speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not fewer. . . . 

This reminds me of another point, one that’s been brought home to me the past few days. This debate needs, our culture needs, a more informed discussion about public policy. We need quality information, not hysteria, because hysteria takes us to unpleasant, if not dangerous places. We can disagree on policy. But we shouldn’t demonize, especially when all of us share the same goal of a free and open Internet. . . . So when you get past the wild accusations, fearmongering, and hysteria, here’s the boring bottom line: the plan to restore Internet freedom would return us to the light touch, market-based approach under which the Internet thrived.

We are grateful to Chairman Pai for his leadership, his commitment to the rule of law, and his steadfast support for freedom from regulatory overreach in the face of harsh and violent criticism.  We are honored for to address the RNLA next Friday, and we invite you to join us.   

Judicial Confirmation Expert Carrie Severino to Speak at National Policy Conference

We are pleased to have Carrie Severino speak on one of our breakout panels on "Restoring the Rule of Law to the Judiciary" at RNLA’s National Policy Conference.  Carrie is one of the leading experts on the judicial confirmation process and the qualifications of federal judicial nominees.  Carrie has been in this role for years through both Republican and Democrat control of the White House and Senate.  A few of her recent views.

On Chairman Grassley’s leadership on the “blue slip” process.  

Senator Grassley's policy is completely consistent with the 100-year history of the blue slip. This CRS report gives lots of historical detail: https://t.co/OV5EmXIED0

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) February 16, 2018

Severino is a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.  Unfortunately, part of her job is defending Justice Thomas from the periodic groundless attacks such as a cover story in New Yorker Magazine a few months ago.   

A boring rerun of discredited allegations from the 1990s, resurrected by a discredited journalist who was fired for lying and mistreating her own employees. https://t.co/msol7WsiK0

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) February 19, 2018

But Severino's expertise is not just limited to countering groundless Democrats' attacks or obstruction, she also provides insightful commentary on nominees.  A recent sample after President Trump nominated Britt Grant, a justice on the Georgia Supreme Court, and Patrick Wyrick, an associate justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Severino said the country would benefit from having more state justices serve on the federal bench. State supreme court justices often have the privilege of settling judicial matters whereas federal judges know that the buck does not stop on sensitive or controversial cases until the federal Supreme Court.

The process of nominating and confirming judicial nominees is needlessly complicated by often imagined or misinterpreted Senate procedures such as the blue slip.  Severino does a masterful job of cutting through the chatter and instead focusing on the abilities of the nominees.  

Former SG Paul Clement to Speak at National Policy Conference on 4/27

The RNLA is pleased to announce that former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will speak at the National Policy Conference on Friday, April 27.  Tickets and more information are available here.  Unlike previous years, walk-up registration will not be available this year.

Mr. Clement has had a distinguished career of public service and private practice, is one of the nation's foremost appellate and Supreme Court advocates, and is widely regarded as an example of a principled and ethical attorney, after he resigned from his law firm instead of abandoning an existing client when it was no longer politically popular.

He spoke to the RNLA at the National Policy Conference in 2016 on "Scalia and His Legacy on the Supreme Court," which was an excellent analysis of Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence and his immense impact on the legal world and the Supreme Court.  Mr. Clement gave a poignant tribute to Justice Scalia's life, wit, and impact on legal interpretation at the Supreme Court Bar's memorial to the late Justice (beginning at 32:25):

The Justice had a transformative effect on the Supreme Court and the way it decides cases.  His impact on statutory construction, which is the bread and butter of what the Court does, was nothing short of Copernican, with the center of attention returned to the text.  He likewise championed a focus on the text and original public meaning of the Constitution, and he strove mightily to ensure that his methodology for interpreting both statutes and the Constitution produced predictable legal results even when they did not comport with his policy preferences.  His votes to vindicate the First Amendment rights of flag burners are famous examples. . . . 

Just as his opinions will continue to shape the way the law is understood, he will continue to shape the way briefs are written and the way advocates prepare for oral argument.  

This year, we will have a panel focusing in part on Justice Scalia's successor on the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch.  We are honored for Mr. Clement to address the RNLA in two weeks, and we invite you to join us.

RNLA Honors Ashley Carter with the Betty Murphy Award

The Republican National Lawyers Association is very pleased to announce that we will be honoring Ashley Carter as our 2018 Betty Murphy Award recipient. This award will be presented to Ashley during the RNLA’s 2018 National Policy Conference on April 27, 2018.  

In the RNLA's Press Release issued today explains that:

[Ashley] Carter was selected for the Betty Murphy Award as she is an unsung hero, member, trailblazer, with entrepreneurial spirit, a community service leader, and an organization builder who inspires others’ efforts. 

Carter was elected in 2016 as the At‐Large Representative for the DC State Board of Education. Additionally, Ashley is the Director of Coalitions for Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and Independent Women’s Voice, the preeminent organizations of women who promote free markets, limited government, and personal liberty. She was a 2016 Washington, DC fellow for National Review Institute and regularly speaks on issues affecting women in politics. 

Prior to joining IWF, Ashley worked in political consulting and was involved with political campaigns at the national and state level including Mitt Romney for President, Ken Cuccinelli for Governor (VA), and Martha McSally for Congress (AZ). A native Marylander, Ashley cut her teeth in politics in the office of Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett and worked for the Maryland General Assembly during the administration of Governor Bob Ehrlich. She also worked with state party counsels and leaders across the country at the Republican National Lawyers Association. 

Ashley received her B.A in Government & Politics from the University of Maryland, College Park and holds a J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law. She also spent time studying at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. Ashley is actively involved in the Washington, DC community. She currently volunteers with the Junior League of Washington, serves on the advisory council for the Washington Literacy Center, and promotes literacy development by working with several area nonprofits. 

In accepting the Betty Murphy Award, Ashley states: "I am honored to be the recipient of this year's Betty Murphy award. As an elected official and nonprofit leader, I hope to inspire others to take initiative and become problem solvers in their own communities." 

Past winners of the Betty Murphy Award include Linda Kerns, Kathryn Ciano, Heather Heidelbaugh, Tom Spencer, Brigida Benitez, and Nancy Nord. 

The full press release can be read here.

Leading up to the 2018 National Policy Conference, the RNLA will be holding a Women's Networking Luncheon that will be honoring Ashley Carter for her work and efforts on Friday, April 6. More details are available here.

The official award presentation will be held on Friday, April 27th at the National Policy Conference. For more information, tickets, and sponsorship opportunities, please visit the event's page here.

We congratulate Ashely Carter on this great achievement!

Former AG Mukasey to Speak at National Policy Conference on 4/27

The RNLA is pleased to announce that former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will speak at the National Policy Conference on Friday, April 27.  Tickets and more information are available here.  Unlike previous years, walk-up registration will not be available this year.

Judge Mukasey has had a distinguished career of public service and private practice, supporting the rule of law for many years:

Michael B. Mukasey, of counsel to [Debevoise & Plimpton LLP], recently served as Attorney General of the United States, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. As Attorney General from November 2007 to January 2009, he oversaw the U.S. Department of Justice and advised on critical issues of domestic and international law. Judge Mukasey joined Debevoise as a partner in the litigation practice in New York in February 2009, focusing his practice primarily on internal investigations, independent board reviews and corporate governance. 

From 1988 to 2006, Judge Mukasey served as a district judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, becoming Chief Judge in 2000. 

From 1972 to 1976, Judge Mukasey served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as Chief of the Official Corruption Unit from 1975 to 1976. His practice consisted of criminal litigation on behalf of the government, including investigation and prosecution of narcotics, bank robbery, interstate theft, securities fraud, fraud on the government and bribery. From 1976 to 1987 and from 2006 to 2007 he was in private practice.

Judge Mukasey wrote a few years ago in defense and praise of the exceptional nature of our system of separation of powers and federalism established by the Constitution:

Ours is the only nation on earth to define itself and the rights of its citizens based not on blood or land, but rather on adherence to a document: the Constitution.  Moreover, that document was architected in large measure to protect those rights. Here I emphatically do not refer to the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments – but rather to the structure of the government defined in the body of the Constitution, with powers of governance divided among the three branches, and, as to legislative powers, between the two Houses of Congress, so as to assure that interests would always be pitted against competing interests. That structure was put in place with explicit awareness, as Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51, that neither men outside government nor those inside it are angels, and thus governments are necessary to govern the former, and limits on government are necessary to control the latter; but as between the two, government is bottom up, not top down. . . .  

What protects our rights as Americans is not their recitation in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, but rather the structure put in place in the body of the Constitution -- with specifically enumerated legislative powers lest the legislature overreach; and a president given “the executive power” – all of it – but compelled to swear allegiance to the Constitution and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” lest he overreach. . . .  

Neither judicial-legislative symbiosis, nor judicial parasitism, was foreseen by the Founders. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton portrayed the judiciary as “the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” and possessed of a “natural feebleness” that left it in constant jeopardy from the other branches, at least so long as it remained separated from legislative and executive powers. 

No rules, even those contained in the splendidly crafted Constitution, can determine their own application. The Constitution, even though it is responsible for so much of our exceptionalism, and for keeping our rights safe from infringement, is virtually never itself the subject of serious study in schools. It appears, at least to me, that more people are familiar with cases decided under the Constitution than with the Constitution itself. If what so defines us and sets us apart is to continue to do so, that is going to have to change. Failing such change, we may wake up to find that, like those who reside in the countries of the European Union, we are governed not from the bottom up, but from the top down.   

We are honored for Judge Mukasey to address the RNLA at the end of April, and we invite you to join us. 

Religious Liberty Experts Discussed Current Issues During National Policy Conference

During RNLA's National Policy Conference in May, Prof. Robert Destro from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America and Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom opined on President Trump's executive order on religious liberty, recent litigation, and other current legal issues regarding religious liberty and rights of conscience.  Here are highlights from the discussion.

On President Trump's executive order: 

Ms. Fiedorek: Definitely a step in the right direction that we would have such a commitment from a brand new administration to protecting the religious liberty of all Americans. . . . There is more to be done as we move forward. . . . We still need to see the agencies take action [to protect rights of conscience]. 

Prof. Destro: What you have is a theme that has now been set by the President.  What we need the President to do is to get those agencies staffed up with people who really understand what religious liberty is all about . . . . All you have to do is see how often the Democrats campaign in churches from the pulpit, and then you see on the other side of the spectrum all these churches that are scared to death of the IRS. And what we have found in the abuse of the IRS scandal is that they actually did have something to be afraid of.

On rights of conscience in the post-Obergefell v. Hodges era:

Ms. Fiedorek: We have such a rich history in the United States of balancing very important government interest with a vast variety of viewpoints and protecting individual freedom . . . . In the past few years, we’re seeing a growing intolerance, particularly advanced by the government, for those who want to live and work consistent with their convictions about marriage. . . . We’re seeing the government use the force of law to come after them and attempt to compel them to speak a message or participate in an event that violates their sincerely held beliefs. . . . 

The [Washington State] Attorney General conceded during oral argument that when [Baronelle Stutzman] creates floral arrangements, she does actually engage in speech, that that is actually expression.  He went on to say that the government can dictate and control what type of expression she creates and for what type of events she does so.  I think that should frighten all of us when the government has that much power that it can come in and say this viewpoint is allowed but this viewpoint isn’t. 

Prof. Destro: What we need to do is recapture in our understanding of religious freedom itself is that the Constitution has religious freedom written into its DNA.  Everybody talks about the First Amendment, but the no religious test clause of Article VI was there before the First Amendment was.  And there [are] also the negative implications – the qualifications clause[s] deliberately left religion out of the qualifications. . . . One of the most bloody battles during the Constitutional Convention was over the swear or affirm clause, because Quakers couldn’t swear, and neither could Native Americans. . . . 

This is compulsion again. [Plaintiff] is entirely entitled to use her own money to buy her birth control pills, but she has no right to stick her hand in the wallet of the Little Sisters of the Poor to get her money.  Religious liberty is not an entity to itself.  What was happening, what was suggested in Hobby Lobby and other cases was a public taking for private use. . . . We need to develop a more holistic way of looking at, we are all Americans and the Constitution welcomes us here, and if the New York dressmaker doesn’t have to make a dress for Ivanka Trump, then neither does the florist have to make the bouquet for the gay wedding.

Ms. Fiedorek: Religious freedom is for both the religious and non-religious alike.  It protects all of us.  Civil liberties absolutely travel together, and when one starts to get chipped away at, you’ll soon see other freedoms chipped away at.

On Trinity Lutheran v. Comer:

Ms. Fiedorek predicted a 7-2 decision, based on oral argument (and she was correct when the opinion was released in June): Justice Breyer was very concerned that if the lower court’s ruling stands, what does this mean for other neutral programs and benefits, including safety. . . . [Kagan] said this is a clear burden on a constitutional right, because religious individuals and groups are barred from competing in an otherwise neutral benefit. 

Prof. Destro: We have to come back to this question of neutrality in public programs. . . . The Court has come a long way since 1947 recognizing that there ought to be equal access to public benefits.

Ms. Fiedorek concluded by noting that “[protection of rights of conscience is] necessary now to preserve that marketplace where we can all participate in and engage without fear that the government’s going to punish us for holding a certain belief,” and Prof. Destro agreed that religious liberty has become equated with bigotry, when in reality it is a fundamental right that should be defended.

GOP Taking Action on Failing Obamacare

As Senate Republicans work to fix the U.S. healthcare system, the Democrats have made fantastical and wild statements about the affects any change will have to people’s access to medical treatment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today announced that the Senate would not vote on the GOP healthcare bill until after recess, to continue perfecting the policy specifics. We must not forget, however, that the Affordable Care Act has already done considerable damage to our healthcare system.

As pointed to in the RNLA’s annual National Policy Conference on May 5th, the Affordable Care Act is not good for anyone. Dennis Kirk, an RNLA Lifetime member among the audience, asked the panel: “When do you anticipate total failure of Obamacare and can we beat that before it gets there?” Michael Franc, Hoover Institute’s Director of DC Programs, answered Mr. Kirk’s question first:

If the black letter had been adhered to it would have happened already. It’s structurally not sustainable, and the only reason it has been in effect for this long, frankly, is that there has been this serial ignorance, or ignoring the actual language, and finding ways to direct subsidies in that really shouldn’t go there under the way the law is written.

Congressman Keith Rothfus (PA-12), also on the panel, related that Obamacare is already failing:

In many areas it’s already felt. We learned this week 94 out of 99 counties in Iowa will not have a single insurer on their exchange to choose from.

Needless to say, the GOP is taking the initiative to reform another failing government program, while the Democrats have marching orders for obstructionism.

On a side note: Ilya Shapiro, who was the third member of the RNLA panel, is celebrating his birthday today. Happy Birthday, Ilya!

Deputy Assistant to President Trump Sebastian Gorka Speaks at the RNLA National Policy Conference

On Friday May 5, 2017, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to President Donald Trump spoke at the RNLA's National Policy Conference on the Islamic threats to the United States and other Western societies.  Dr. Gorka's gave an impassioned speech and a history lesson to conference attendees on the National Security issues facing the White House, and his role as an advisor to President Trump.

According to Dr. Gorka, President Trump considers the Islamic State "as it is and not as he would wish it to be."  This is fundamentally different as to how the Obama Administration viewed the Islamic State by "distorting reality to fit a pre-conceived notion of what the world should be like."

Dr. Gorka outlined three main points in his speech to internalize what the threats are to America and why it is one of Trump's central missions is to destroy the biggest terrorist insurgency to the United States:

1.  The Islamic state is unique among threat groups because they are considered to be the first ever trans-regional insurgency.  In the past, insurgents have been trying to take down one single government by fighting.  In contrast, ISIS is not trying to take down one government, they're trying to take down ALL governments.  

 2.  ISIS is "impressive" when it comes to recruitment.  ISIS isn't held in just one region--they have members throughout the world.  Dr. Gorka describes that an insurgency, in contrast to a terrorist group of just a few individuals, has the ability to recruit tens of thousands of fighters (not just sympathizers) with now more than 85,000 active jihadists.  Of this group, over 6,000 are Westerners -- who have freedom of movement on Western passports.

 3.  The third issue with respect to ISIS and their success has to do with their narrative or their messaging.  There is a core narrative among the different Jihadists, but ISIS has made one addition.  Essentially, according to Islam's eschatology (the belief in end-times such as Armageddon in Christianity), this "holy war" is to be the last and final war.  Therefore, the messaging across ISIS social media outlets is to further show that the end times is against the Western world, and therefore the importance to join the insurgency is important now more than ever.

Dr. Gorka ended his presentation by explaining that President Trump is committed to helping our partners in the Middle East by fighting their wars for themselves through training and supplies.  He is not committed to winning this war with Americans being on the front lines.  

To watch Dr. Gorka's speech in its entirety, click here.  To purchase his book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War on Amazon, click here. 

President Trump Making Good on Promise to Protect Religious Liberty

After years of being under attack, President Trump signed an executive order today protecting free speech and religious liberty:

Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.  

Sec. 2.  Respecting Religious and Political Speech.  All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.  

Sec. 3.  Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.   

RNLA has a panel at its National Policy Conference on religious liberty tomorrow that will discuss this executive order.  There is still time to register!

Will Justice Kennedy Retire this Summer? If He Does, President Trump Will Be Prepared and Ready

DC is rife with rumors that Justice Anthony Kennedy is going to retire at the end of this year’s Supreme Court term in June.  According to CNN:

The question appears not to be whether Kennedy will retire soon, but when -- at the end of this June, or next?

President Trump will be ready if that happens and will pick from his list of potential Supreme Court nominees he announced last year. 

President Trump will stick with the same list of potential nominees for the next Supreme Court vacancy, he told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview in which he also waved aside the lack of a honeymoon from Capitol Hill, saying Republicans are “going to get there” and Democrats are still smarting over losing an election they thought they couldn’t lose. . . .

Mr. Trump shook the election campaign last year when he announced a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees, selected with the help of the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. The list was an instant hit with conservatives and helped cement the candidate’s support among the Republican base.

“It’s a great list. From the moment I put that list out, it solved that problem. And I was proud to say it was my idea,” he said. . . .

Mr. Trump said conservative voters should be assured that his next choice will be “really talented and of our views.” Asked specifically whether he would pick from the list of candidates he put forward in the campaign, Mr. Trump was unequivocal: “Yes,” he said, adding, “That list was a big thing.”

As the Weekly Standard points out, this is politically brilliant, and puts the pressure on the Senate to confirm a nominee off the list:

The field is not open to negotiation. He was elected to put these specific people on the Court. They have been vetted, in a sense, by the American people.

RNLA will have a panel on this topic at our National Policy Conference this Friday.  

Dr. Gorka to Address RNLA National Policy Conference

The RNLA is honored to announce that Sebastian Gorka will be addressing its National Policy Conference on May 5.  Dr. Gorka serves as a strategist and Deputy Assistant to President Trump.  He recently wrote on Trump’s first 100 days foreign affairs agenda and accomplishments.  In this and other areas, President Trump is doing what he campaigned on, in this case in an important speech on August 1, 2016, in Youngstown, Ohio. 

The message was unequivocal and set the stage for a stance wholly unlike the previous 8 years.

Instead of positing poverty or other “local grievances” as the cause for the terrorist violence plaguing the world, the president diagnosed the threat as one rooted in “evil,” promising to take action and speak out against those who “oppress women, gays, and people of different faiths.” This evil, to which the president gave the specific name of “radical Islamic terrorism,” is to be “defeated,” and not “ameliorated” or “degraded,” as the Obama White House had promised.

As Gorka explains:

The 100 day mark is really an irrelevancy. The far more important question is: does a leader keep his promises and what do his actions say about how he has managed the journey from candidate to commander? Whether you voted for him or not, President Trump has answered both questions through his actions. He has made it clear that not only did the U.S. face down the totalitarians of the last century, the global threats of Nazism and Communism, but that we will now deal forthrightly with today’s totalitarians, with those who reject the norms and moral standards we deem universal, be it a terrorist group in South Asia that believes in vicious theocracy, or a secular regime in the Middle East that uses chemical weapons against the innocent.

RNLA is honored to have Dr. Gorka address its National Policy Conference on May 5. 

Rest in Peace, Kate O'Beirne

On Sunday, one of the giants of the conservative movement passed away.  We had a Throwback Thursday post on Facebook early today linking to Kate O'Beirne's speech to RNLA.  Like others, we found her to be incredibly gracious with her time and we can agree in our limited exposure with what Ramesh Ponnuru wrote:

She enlivened every party, taking special care for the people who seemed shy or left out. This same impulse led her to take in young colleagues, or classmates of her children, who had nowhere to go for holidays.

Kate was a true conservative who fought on all fronts, as detailed in this story on school choice:

As an early board member of the organization I founded, the Center for Education Reform (CER), Kate was intensively dedicated to CER (even though education reform wasn’t the issue that grabbed her most). She was steadfast in her commitment to conservative principles and never hastened to argue, with great diplomacy, that focusing on only certain segments of society for educational choice ignored the hard-working middle classes who also deserved to have choices (prescient for 25 years ago, no?).

At her speech to RNLA, while all enjoyed her presentation, it was the women, especially younger women, who were particularly inspired.  The reason should be obvious: she was a true conservative role model for women. 

Kate O’Beirne came of age in the 1960s, amid the second wave of feminism, but in a characteristically pungent quip, the conservative commentator said she “learned more about self-worth, ambition and opportunity from my conservative parents and Catholic nuns than I ever did from Eleanor Smeal and Gloria Steinem.”  

Such luminaries of the women’s movement were to be looked on with a gimlet eye, she said. Instead, she lionized the nun who coached the debate team at her all-girls’ high school and “encouraged us to go in for the kill” against male opponents. The nun also urged her to go to law school.

RIP, Kate O’Beirne. 

National Policy Conference to Feature Stuart Taylor on His Latest Book

The RNLA is pleased to host Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., of National Journal at the 2017 National Policy Conference on Friday, May 5, for an address on his latest book, The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities:

In recent years, politicians led by President Obama and prominent senators and governors have teamed with extremists on campus to portray our nation’s campuses as awash in a violent crime wave—and to suggest (preposterously) that university leaders, professors, and students are indifferent to female sexual assault victims in their midst. Neither of these claims has any bearing in reality. But they have achieved widespread acceptance, thanks in part to misleading alarums from the Obama administration and biased media coverage led by the New York Times. 

The frenzy about campus rape has helped stimulate—and has been fanned by—ideologically skewed campus sexual assault policies and lawless commands issued by federal bureaucrats to force the nation’s all-too-compliant colleges and universities essentially to presume the guilt of accused students. The result has been a widespread disregard of such bedrock American principles as the presumption of innocence and the need for fair play.

This book uses hard facts to set the record straight. It explores, among other things, about two dozen of the many cases since 2010 in which innocent or probably innocent students have been branded as sex criminals and expelled or otherwise punished by their colleges. And it shows why all students—and, eventually, society as a whole—are harmed when our nation’s universities abandon pursuit of truth and seek instead to accommodate the passions of the mob.

Mr. Taylor has agreed to sign copies of his book immediately following his address, and books will be available for sale at the National Policy Conference.

We look forward to hearing from Mr. Taylor on this important issue and hope to see you there on Friday, May 5!  There is still time to register or sponsor.

Three State Attorneys General to Speak at RNLA's National Policy Conference on May 5

The RNLA is honored to host three distinguished state attorneys general to speak at its National Policy Conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on May 5: Curtis Hill, Attorney General, State of Indiana; Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; and Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas.

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has focused his agenda on four priorities: rolling back federal overreach; protecting families from drugs and violent crime; safeguarding consumers from fraud and scams; and inspiring youth to pursue meaningful lives.  Prior to his election last November as the top vote-getter of any elected official in Indiana history, General Hill was serving his fourth term as Elkhart County prosecutor.  General Hill has served as a member of the Board of Governors for the Indiana State Bar Association; Governor’s Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving (past chairman); Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (past trustee); and Board of Regents for the National College of District Attorneys, in addition to serving his community through leadership in a many other organizations. 

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2010, where he was ferocious advocate of the Constitution, a leader on national energy policy emphasizing increased domestic oil and gas production, an activist for conservative family values, and a promoter of true reductions in wasteful government spending.  General Landry is a veteran of Desert Storm and left the military with the rank of Sergeant. He received the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, a National Defense Ribbon, an Overseas Training Ribbon and the Louisiana War Cross from his eleven years of service as a member of the Louisiana National Guard. 

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge is the first woman and first Republican in Arkansas history to be elected attorney general.  Along with making the office more accessible, General Rutledge’s priorities have included creating more awareness of the office’s services, such as consumer protection and internet safety for all ages and skill levels; leading efforts to combat domestic violence; and focusing on making the office the top law firm for Arkansans.  She previously served as Deputy Counsel for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign, Deputy Counsel at the National Republican Congressional Committee and Counsel for the Republican National Committee, including during the 2012 Presidential campaign cycle.  General Rutledge is a leader in numerous community organizations including the Junior League, Alpha Delta Pi Alumni, National Rifle Association, and Women in Networking in Central Arkansas.

The early bird registration discount for the National Policy Conference ends next Tuesday, April 18.  Sign up to join us for this exciting event and hear from General Hill, General Landry, and General Rutledge!

The Trump VP Vetting Process

There is currently a high level of excitement and speculation surrounding potential running mates for the presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. While no one outside the inner circle knows for sure what is going to happen, those who attended the RNLA National Policy Conference in 2009 received an inside look at the vetting process in an address by former Reagan White House Counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., who is also in charge of the Trump VP vetting process.  

The contenders under the most serious consideration, such as Gingrich and Christie, have been asked by attorney Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. to answer more than 100 questions and to provide reams of personal and professional files that include tax records and any articles or books they have published.

Culvahouse, a former White House counsel who is managing the vetting for Trump, was the lawyer who vetted then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the GOP vice-presidential nomination during the 2008 campaign.

Culvahouse shared details insights about the VP vetting process for 2008 Republican Nominee, John McCain, at the RNLA National Policy Conference. Culvahouse has been hard at work attempting to narrow the list for Trump. The process is not one that is an exact science and there are no formal rules governing the vetting process. It is likely that he is following a similar process for Trump but with a few more questions. (Below are direct quotes):

The Vetter’s role is to vet and we are given a list and my deal with John [McCain] is there were three rules:

1.     He was the decider

2.     There was no one between he and me [. . .]

3.     [. . . ]He could not pick anyone I had not vetted

He agreed to that and we had 26 people on the long list. It was a blind basis. They did not know that they were on the list. I had a staff of about 30 lawyers and we wrote 40-50 page reports.

How do you make the qualifications assessments? Qualifications in this town means someone with a great resume. We all know people with a long list of qualifications who have [been] Senators or Committee Chairmen forever, who at least in our minds may not be qualified to be President or Vice President of the United States. That’s a very important and different responsibilities. [ . . . ]

Ethical issues, I learned as White House Counsel and doing some lookbacks on some of our nominees that have gotten into trouble. We look for corner cutting.  I believe in redemption, everyone is entitled to a mistake or two. But someone who has an aggregation of complaints, someone who doesn’t [pay] their parking tickets on repeated occasion, tax issues [. . . ], that sort of thing we found disqualifying.

Short list. There was a handful. We interviewed them. They answered seventy-four questions. There was no debate about what the meaning of “is” is, I drafted that question. Have you ever been unfaithful? Has anyone ever asserted that you have been unfaithful? Is there anyone who could truthfully assert that you have been unfaithful? Then you define unfaithful. I think we got great cooperation.

I asked three lead in questions [. . .]

1.     Why do you want to be VP

2.     Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of the American Homeland

3.     Osama Bin Laden is identified in the fata. The CIA’s ready to take the shot but if they take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?

Much like with Trump's campaign counsel Don McGahn handling the legal issues, everyone can trust in an experienced expert such as A.B. Culvahouse handling the VP vetting. 

Chuck Cooper to be Presented RNLA's Highest Award

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) is pleased to name Charles “Chuck” Copper as the recipient of the 2016 Ed Meese Award.  Cooper was selected for the Ed Meese Award, named after the 65th United States Attorney General, as he has upheld the rule of law in the face of adverse political challenges. 

Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. Named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington, he has over 35 years of legal experience in government and private practice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court and scores of other successful cases on both the trial and appellate levels.

Shortly after serving as law clerk to Judge Paul Roney of the Fifth (now Eleventh) Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Justice (later Chief Justice) William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Cooper joined the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1981. In 1985 President Reagan appointed Mr. Cooper to the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Cooper reentered private practice in 1988, as a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of McGuire Woods. From 1990 until the founding of Cooper & Kirk in 1996, he was a partner at Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge where he headed the firm’s Constitutional and Government Litigation Group.

Mr. Cooper’s practice is national in scope and is concentrated in the areas of constitutional, commercial, and civil rights litigation. He is currently representing private clients in a variety of commercial cases, including antitrust, intellectual property, and contract disputes. Mr. Cooper also represents a number of state and local government bodies, as well as private clients, in a wide range of constitutional and federal statutory cases.

In 1998 Mr. Cooper was appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve as a member of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Mr. Cooper is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and he has spoken and published extensively on a wide variety of constitutional and legal policy topics.

Mr. Cooper is a lifelong Republican who has been active in numerous local, state and national election campaigns.  He served as National Co-Chairman of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney 2004, the last successful Republican Presidential Campaign.  Mr. Cooper’s firm has employed numerous leaders in the Republican and conservative legal movement including Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz.  Mr. Cooper has also been previously honored by the RNLA with the 2010 Republican Lawyer of the Year Award.