Sen. Collins Will Not Be Swayed by Abhorrent, Potentially Illegal Intimidation from Liberals on Kavanaugh

Radical liberal organizations are trying to intimidate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine into voting against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even resorting to potentially illegal bribery and threatening her staff members.  The Wall Street Journal described the abhorrent campaign of intimidation against Senator Collins:  

A crowdfunding website is trying to strong-arm Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, by giving more than $1 million to her 2020 opponent—unless she opposes Judge Kavanaugh. . . . It isn’t clear this is even legal. We’re all for citizens exercising their free-speech rights, including campaign donations, for or against political candidates. But federal law defines the crime of bribery as “corruptly” offering “anything of value” to a public official, including a Member of Congress, with the intent to “influence any official act.” The crowdfunders in this case are offering something of value—withholding funds from her opponent—in return for a Supreme Court confirmation vote. . . . 

Another pressure tactic, one Ms. Collins says she finds “incredibly offensive,” is “the out-of-state voicemails being left on the answering machines of my state offices.” Many of the messages are profane. “In one case—and we are going to turn this over to the police, but unfortunately, of course, the person didn’t leave a name or number—but they actually threatened to rape one of my young female staffers.” 

The Senator’s office also has been receiving coat hangers in the mail, a grisly attempt to insinuate that a Justice Kavanaugh would restrict abortion rights. About 3,000 have arrived so far. “I am pleased to say,” Ms. Collins says with a small chuckle, “we had a group that has a thrift shop that helps low-income women ask us for 300 of the hangers. So at least 300 of them have gone to a very good cause.”

But Senator Collins will not be intimidated.  Instead, she will do her job under the Constitution's advice and consent requirement and evaluate Judge Kavanaugh based on his qualifications and his record:

Even diehard opponents of Judge Kavanaugh must recognize the unseemly nature of this bid to intimidate a U.S. Senator. Not that it will work. “I’m going to do what I think is right,” Ms. Collins says. “I am going to cast my vote—as I have done on all of the other Supreme Court nominees that I’ve been called upon to consider—based on his qualifications, his character and integrity, judicial temperament, his record, and his respect for the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution.”

The lengths to which liberals and Democrats are willing to go to oppose Judge Kavanaugh show that they have no genuine basis for their opposition in either his qualifications or record and the depths to which they will descend to resist President Trump.  They are even willing to make unsubstantiated allegations of perjury against Judge Kavanaugh and mischaracterize his testimony during the hearings last week to such an extent that even The Washington Post's Fact Checker awarded the description four Pinocchios and said that "Democrats should drop this talking point." 

But Senator Collins deserves credit for not giving into the intimidation and remembering that her duty as a senator is to do what is right and represent the people of Maine, not bow to the radical liberal interests controlling the Democratic Party.

SDNY Judge Holds Trump May Not Block Users from Personal Twitter Account

Today, a judge in the Southern District of New York held that President Trump may not block users from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump:

This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no. . . .

We then proceed to the substance of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. In so holding, we reject the defendants’ contentions that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs.

In the hours since its release, this decision has already ignited a storm of debate, some uninformed (see generally, the media) and some informed (see Eugene Volokh's initial analysis here).  Prof. Volokh notes that the Eastern District of Kentucky recently reached the opposite conclusion.

While many issues are unsettled when applying the First Amendment to social media and other technologies, Ed Whelan highlights some concerns with the decision:

My first take: I'm very skeptical of holding that "interactive space" of @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is a "designated public forum." I'm not persuaded that any part of Twitter is a public forum. 1/ https://t.co/z0SuwYRPPi

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Judge's assertion that "extent" of Trump/Scavino control over Twitter space is "sufficient to establish the government-control element" seems like naked assertion, is underdeveloped at best. Judge cites precedent of "privately owned theater under long-term lease to city." 2/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

But does anyone think that relationship between Twitter and user is anything like a long-term lease from one entity to another? "Designated public forum" precedents are far from clear, but this application strikes me as strained beyond the breaking point. 3/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Doesn't judge's reasoning apply equally to public-university professors who use their Twitter account for work-related purposes? Or is that a ground of distinction that, in my haste, I've overlooked? 4/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Ilya Shapiro points out that the identity of the parties may have improperly affected the holding:

The judicial #Resistance strikes again. Sure, you have a constitutional right to troll the president, but that doesn’t mean he can’t block/mute you. https://t.co/0VqI1Hpcf5

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) May 23, 2018

It is also worth noting that this case is concerning Donald Trump's personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, which has been his for years and will remain his after leaving office, and not the official presidential Twitter account, @POTUS, which is operated by the current holder of the White House.  While the #resist movement may be cheering this decision as a victory against President Trump, few are pausing to consider its vast implications, as Mr. Whelan points out, if applied to public officials' Twitter accounts, from members of Congress down to the clerks at City Hall. 

A True Journalist Laments the Death of Reporting the News

Although Howard Kurtz probably would not put it this way, he is a dying breed of journalist. He believes in journalists reporting the news and not journalists writing their preferred narrative. His new book Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth details how many of his fellow reporters have declared war on journalism itself. As he writes in the afterword:

No less a figure than Jimmy Carter, who endured more than his share of bad press, told columnist Maureen Dowd that “the media have been harder on Trump than any other President” he had seen and “feel free to claim Trump is mentally deranged.”

I’ve been pretty tough on my profession in this book, and I know that will bring a ton of personal criticism my way.  Fair enough. But I believe I’m standing up for the fundamental values of journalism, which have gotten sadly twisted in the Trump era.

Kurtz’s book gives many examples of journalism malpractice and an inside look at the White House's communications shop.  But that is not the point of his book.  The point of his book is that many journalists and editors have given up any pretense of reporting the news and instead have become partisans and members of the Never Trump or “resist” movements. 

This is not just when as CNN famously did in a libelous story devoid of truth on Anthony Scarrumucci.  A less obvious example was a Washington Post effort to take a factually true bit of information about a 2014 real estate deal of Jared Kushner's company and make some enormous leaps that strained all credulity that it was somehow tied to Russian money laundering.  Both were big scoops when released and both were bogus. 

But Kurtz is definitely not trying to curry favor with the Trump Administration, Fox News, or even those who believe the “mainstream media” is fake news.  He is for reporting the news.  Unfortunately others in his profession are opposed to this when it comes to Trump.  In one chapter, "Trump Trauma", Kurtz details how his colleagues consider Trump as a foe who must be defeated, not worthy of any sort of factual or news reporting.  (Kurtz points out how Huffington Post put Trump in the entertainment section of their blog up until Election Day.)

In my opinion, the New York Times is one of the worst offenders.  Kurtz describes how his counterpart there, New York Times Media Columnist Jim Rutenberg, justifies an end to factual news-based reporting:

. . . you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.  If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.  You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.  That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known and by normal standards, untenable. 

Throughout his book Kurtz is lamenting his profession much as a judge if he were told there were no laws or precedents to base his rulings on, or a police officer if told he was free to arrest anyone he didn’t like.  This is not the way journalism is supposed to work. 

As Kurtz concludes:

Donald Trump will not be president forever, but the media’s reputation, badly scarred during these polarizing years, might never recover.

Howard Kurtz will be speaking to the RNLA in DC on Thursday.  Please sign up here.  

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.  

Senator Hatch: Unprecedented Judicial Vacancy Crisis

On March 20, Senator Orrin Hatch, the president pro tempore of the Senate, delivered an impassioned speech about the current state of federal judicial vacancies under President Trump.

Due to Senate Democrats' continued obstruction and efforts to "resist" President Trump and his agenda (as we have highlighted regularly), there are currently 138 federal district and appellate court vacancies. Senator Hatch clearly and concisely explains this crisis and how things compare today to days' past under other, recent Presidents.

First, Senator Hatch looked to recent, past "standards" exalted by Senate Democrats before President Trump took office, to point out the hypocrisy and outright obstructionism [1:20-minute mark]:

One standard is that the Democrats have specifically identified how many vacancies are unacceptable. In February 2000, with a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats said that 79 vacancies were ‘‘too high.’’ In September 2012, with the Democrats both in the White House and controlling the Senate, they declared a ‘‘judicial vacancy crisis’’ when there were 78 vacancies. If 78 vacancies is a crisis, what is the label for 138 vacancies? . . .

A second Democratic vacancy standard is that, as they did in April 2014, we can compare judicial vacancies today with vacancies at the same point under previous Presidents. If that Democratic standard is valid, vacancies today are 35 percent higher than at this point under President Obama and 46 percent higher than at this point under President George W. Bush.

There is a third Democratic vacancy standard. In June 2013 and at least as far back as April 1999, the Democrats have complained that the Senate was not confirming enough judicial nominees to keep up with normal attrition. Well, judicial vacancies today are 30 percent higher than when President Trump took office, and, as I said, at least 33 more have already been announced.

Finally, the Democrats have frequently said that the 107th Congress—the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration—should be our judicial confirmation benchmark. During that time, the Senate confirmed an average of just over 4 judicial nominees per month. The Senate has so far confirmed 28 of President Trump’s district and appeals court nominees or fewer than 2 per month.

Take your pick. By any or all of these Democratic standards, we face a much more serious judicial vacancy crisis than in years past. . . .

Next, Senator Hatch explained the reality of this situation and how Republicans have tried to get President Trump's judicial nominees to the Senate Floor for a vote and how Democrats have pulled all stops in an attempt to slow the process down to a crawl [5:34-minute mark]:

Under Chairman Chuck Grassley's leadership, the committee has held a hearing for 62 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—more than under any of the previous five Presidents at this point. So that is clearly not the problem. The first sign of Democratic obstruction is the unwarranted and partisan opposition to reporting judicial nominations from the Judiciary Committee.

In February 2012, 3 years into the Obama administration, the Democrats complained that five nominees to the U.S. district court had been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. This, they said, departed dramatically from Senate tradition. Today, just 14 months into the Trump administration, eight nominees to the U.S. district court have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The present rate of such party-line votes in the Judiciary Committee is more than four times what the Democrats criticized just a few years ago.

The below-the-radar obstruction tactics continue when the Judiciary Committee sends judicial nominees to the full Senate. The Democrats, for example, refuse to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes. They can’t prevent confirmation votes altogether because they abolished nomination filibusters in 2013, but if they can’t make judicial confirmations impossible, they are determined to make them very difficult. Here is how they do it.

Since President Trump took office, the Democrats have forced the Senate to take 28 cloture votes on judicial nominations, compared to just 2 cloture votes at this point under the previous five Presidents combined. Even when cloture is invoked, Senate rules provide for up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur. Nearly half the time under President Obama, a judicial nomination cloture vote was followed by a confirmation vote on the same day. Under President Trump, that has plummeted to 17 percent. The average time between cloture and confirmation votes for President Trump’s judicial nominations is more than 55 percent longer than it was under President Obama. . . .

Senator Hatch concludes [13:00-minute mark]:

We face an unprecedented judicial vacancy crisis. Since President Trump is making nominations and the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, is steadily processing them, there remains only one explanation for the vacancy crisis we face today—plain, old-fashioned, partisan obstruction. The Democrats are manipulating this process at every stage, using the very tactics that they have loudly condemned in the past to make confirmations as difficult and time-consuming as possible.

Even in politics, actions speak louder than words. In July 2012, when there were 76 judicial vacancies, Chairman Leahy said that ‘‘we should be doing better.’’ Today, with nearly twice as many vacancies, I challenge my Democratic colleagues to put actions to those words.

You can view Senator Hatch's entire Senate Floor speech on YouTube and a transcript of his remarks have been published in March 20's Congressional Record (on the first two pages).

The RNLA will continue to highlight this ongoing, unprecedented crisis faced by President Trump's judicial and political nominees.

Federal Judicial Vacancies Increasing Due to Senate Democrats' Obstruction

Despite the unprecedented number of U.S. Court of Appeals judges confirmed in President Trump's first year in office, Democrat obstruction has lead to more judicial vacancies now than there were a year ago:

Trump came into office in January 2017 with 108 vacancies on the federal bench. Despite rapidly moving to fill the seats, he now has 178 current and known future vacancies, according to the Judicial Crisis Network.

The conservative group reports 146 current vacancies on federal courts and 32 known future vacancies, meaning judges who have announced they will retire. Of the total vacancies, 25 are appeals court judges and 153 are district or specialty court judges. . . .

The slowdown is a result of Senate Democrats’ requiring 30 hours of debate for every nominee, even those who clear the Judiciary Committee unanimously or near unanimously, Severino and others noted. 

“At this rate, it will take the president more than two terms to fill all the vacancies,” [Carrie] Severino said.

Senate Democrats are using these delay tactics solely to score political points with their liberal base and resist President Trump, as they insist on 30 hours of "debate" (i.e., empty Senate floor time) for even nominees with broad, bipartisan support.

Even the center-left Pew Research Center has confirmed that obstruction against President Trump's nominees is unprecedented:

The 23 men and six women Trump has successfully appointed so far have faced a total of 654 “no” votes on the floor of the Senate, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Judicial Center and the U.S. Senate. That works out to an average of nearly 23 votes against each confirmed judge – by far the highest average for any president’s judges since the Senate expanded to its current 100 members in 1959. 

The 330 judges Barack Obama appointed during his eight years in office faced an average of six votes against them. George W. Bush’s 328 confirmed judges faced an average of two, and Bill Clinton’s 382 judges faced an average of just over one. . . .  

Just one of President John F. Kennedy’s 134 confirmed judges drew any “no” votes in the Senate. That was Thurgood Marshall, whom the Senate confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on a 54-16 vote in 1962. (Four senators voted “present” on Marshall’s nomination; 26 others didn’t vote at all.) All of Kennedy’s other confirmed judges were approved on a voice vote – that is, without any recorded opposition.

Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, also faced little Senate opposition to his judicial choices: All but two of his 186 confirmed judges were approved on a voice vote. 

Thanks to the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, President Trump's excellent nominees are being vetted, receiving hearings, and receiving votes.  Unfortunately due to the Democrats' unprecedented obstruction, far fewer judges are being confirmed than are needed on the federal bench. 

New Excellent Judicial Nominees Show White House Cooperation with Senators

Despite the media's constant attempts to undermine the Trump presidency, it is undeniable that judicial nominations continue to be a resounding success for those who value the rule of law and respect for the text of the law.  Prof. Jonathan Adler wrote for The Volokh Conspiracy:

The White House announced its eleventh set of judicial nominees on Monday. As we've come to expect, the Administration put forward an impressive list of jurists, led by four noteworthy picks for appellate courts, including several who are guaranteed bipartisan support. 

The latest appellate nominees are Andy Oldham (Fifth Circuit), Michael Scudder (Seventh Circuit), Amy St. Eve (Seventh Circuit) and Mark Bennett (Ninth Circuit). In addition, Trump nominated John Nalbandian (Sixth CIrcuit) and Joel Carson (Tenth Circuit) in January and December, respectively.

Like previous appellate nominees, these have sterling credentials.  And as Prof. Adler describes, they also have the support of their home-state senators:

Although news stories tend to suggest the White House refuses to consult with Senators about potential judicial picks, this week's nominations tell quite a different story. All of the appellate nominations announced this week enjoy the support of their home-state Senators, including those from states with deep-blue delegations. 

The latest set of nominations illustrates that the Administration is more than willing to consult with home-state Senators before making judicial picks, even for appellate courts. All that's necessary is for Senators to negotiate in good faith. They also suggest that insofar as vacant seats on some courts languish without nominees, it's unlikely due to a lack of effort by the White House Counsel's office.

As Prof. Adler points out, if some of the most liberal and noteworthy senators could come to an agreement with the White House on excellent nominees to help with the increasing crisis in the number of vacancies, other senators must be simply obstructing for the sake of obstructing by their failure to work with the White House.  Despite what is reported in the media and the complaints of Democratic Senate leadership, the White House is willing to work with Democratic senators.  But judicial nominations are a priority, so neither the White House nor Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley are willing to let the Democrats' mindless obstruction keep them from appointing superb nominees after a reasonable period of consultation.  For that, we are immensely grateful. 

Democrats #Resist America During State of the Union

Last night, President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address.  It was a strong speech, focusing on his Administration's accomplishments in the first year and his policy goals to continue making American great again.  As many commentators have noticed, in contrast to President Obama's State of the Union speeches, President Trump focused on "we" instead of "I" and on the greatness of America and the American people.

Of the many first-year accomplishments that President Trump noted, a few are especially noteworthy from a legal perspective (additions to prepared remarks from the delivered speech noted in brackets):

For the last year we have sought to restore the bonds of trust between our citizens and their Government. 

Working with the Senate, we are appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, including a great new Supreme Court Justice, and more circuit court judges than any new administration in the history of our country. 

We are [totally] defending our Second Amendment, and have taken historic actions to protect religious liberty. . . . 

In our drive to make Washington accountable, we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in [the] history [of our country].

Also notable last night was the sheer recalcitrance of the Democrats.  It is common for the opposing party at State of the Union addresses not to applaud or rise for the President's policy proposals.  But the number of normally non-partisan things for which the Democrats (with a few exceptions) did not applaud or stand is astounding:

• Record-low African-American and Hispanic unemployment (the silence from the Congressional Black Caucus was deafening)
• Infrastructure spending (a perennial Democratic policy proposal)
• Veterans
• The strength of the American people
• Rising wages and prosperity
• Return of jobs to America
• Approval of life-saving medications and treatments (a.k.a. "right to try")
• The entrance and introduction of the President
• The National Anthem
• "In God We Trust" (the official motto of the U.S. by statute)
• Not telling America's enemies our plans and giving aid to allies and not enemies

See here and here.  As Fox News reported, there were a couple exceptions to the scowls from the Democrats: 

Members during the address chose not to stand when Trump honored Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise and praised his resolve for returning to work less than four months after he “took a bullet” from a gunman and "almost died.” 

And they chose not join in the applause for a 12-year-old boy in the gallery whom Trump praised for putting flags on soldiers’ graves on Veterans Day. 

“Democrats are no longer just the party of resistance and obstruction, they are now also the party of sitting on their hands,” said the Republican National Committee. “No matter the issue, Democrats chose to sit on their hands tonight.” 

There were three notable exceptions among Democrat senators. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., all red state Democrats facing tough re-election bids in November, stood and applauded multiple times.

Today, Sen. Manchin called out his Democratic colleagues for being "disrespectful," though Sen. Manchin also felt the peer pressure not to applaud or stand at times as well.

So while President Trump delivered a strong speech, highlighting and praising American values and the American people, the Democrats continued their resistance to such an extent that they would not even recognize those shared American values and the value of the American people.  As the President would say, SAD!

David Stras Confirmed to 8th Circuit with Votes of 7 Democrats

This afternoon, the Senate confirmed Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to serve on the Eighth Circuit.  David Stras had been the target of a politically motivated refusal to return a blue slip by former Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, who complained that he was too conservative.  Franken's fellow Democratic Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, returned her blue slip.   Despite Sen. Franken's protest, Chairman Chuck Grassley went ahead with a hearing for David Stras, noting that he will not allow senators to use the blue slip as a veto for circuit court nominees.   

Tellingly, seven Democrats voted to confirm Justice Stras, demonstrating that all the heated rhetoric from Democrats about the sanctity of the blue slip has been just that - rhetoric:

#Senate CONFIRMED the nomination of David Stras to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 8th Circuit by a vote of 56-42.

Senator Capito and McCain did not vote.

7 Democrats voted yes:
Donnelly
Heitkamp
Jones
Klobuchar
Manchin
McCaskill
Warner

— Senate Press Gallery (@SenatePress) January 30, 2018

Seven is a large number of Democratic votes for any Trump Circuit Court nominee to receive, as the Democrats have been fairly united in opposing Trump's judicial nominees.  It's also worth noting that four of them, Sens. Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, and McCaskill, are up for re-election this year in states that President Trump won in 2018.  We may see more carefully chosen votes in favor of the President's nominees in the coming months.  

But that they chose to vote to confirm David Stras, when they had an easy excuse to vote no in the withheld blue slip, demonstrates the excellence of Justice Stras as a nominee.  We can only hope that it also indicates some weakening of the Democrats' mindless obstruction of President Trump's nominees as the 2018 election nears.

Left Targets Judicial Nominee for Representation of Republicans on Election Matters

Yesterday, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina wrote an op-ed in The Hill, describing the Democrats' obstruction of the judicial confirmation process and attempted character assassination against one of President Trump's nominees, Thomas Farr, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina:

Senate Democrats have been indignantly sounding the alarm that President Trump represents a threat to the independence of the judicial branch. They are apparently unaware that the real threat to our judiciary – the flagrant politicization of our courts and the confirmation process itself – has been facing them in the mirror this entire time. . . . 

Since the moment Mr. Farr was nominated, he has been the subject of a coordinated and viciously dishonest smear campaign from the far-left designed to tank his confirmation. . . .  It’s important to note that this smear campaign has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Farr’s actual qualifications. He has tried cases in federal and state courts in North Carolina and has handled appeals at all levels of the North Carolina appellate courts, the Fourth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. He is highly regarded and deeply respected by his professional colleagues in North Carolina from across the political spectrum. He is rated as “unanimously well-qualified” by the American Bar Association.

What is the basis of the left's special targeting of Mr. Farr for attack?  His representation of Republicans on election-related issues (emphasis added):

Ignoring Mr. Farr’s impressive qualifications, the far-left objects to his role providing legal counsel to Republicans in North Carolina on both voter ID and redistricting cases. This is a break from the bipartisan tradition that we do not hold lawyers accountable for the clients they represent and any animus one may harbor against them. 

Senator Tillis describes how the left and Senate Democrats have repeated misrepresentations about his career in an attempt to destroy Mr. Farr's reputation and character.  He concludes:

It is disappointing that some of my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee appear willing to use pandering to the left as a stepping stone for their own political ambitions without any regard given to the reputational harm their posturing will cause to an exceptional attorney and an honorable person.

Fortunately, Chairman Chuck Grassley and the other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are not willing to play the Democrats' political games.  At the Judiciary Committee' executive business meeting today, three circuit judge nominees and fourteen district court nominees, including Mr. Farr, were voted out of committee.  They now move to the Senate floor, where Democrats are employing a different set of delaying tactics, but Majority Leader McConnell has been prioritizing and devoting immense amounts of floor time to confirming judicial nominees.  We thank Senator Tillis, Chairman Grassley, Leader McConnell, and the other Senate Republicans for their commitment to confirming judges who support the rule of law.

Trump Resistance at FEC Misstates First Amendment Law

The @alt_fec Twitter account is run by self-proclaimed FEC employees who are experts in campaign finance law.  But they managed to mis-state First Amendment law three times in one Tweet attacking the Institute for Free Speech and requesting IFS' "views on the First Amendment implications of a letter from a private attorney to a private publisher concerning Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."  IFS accepted the invitation to analyze the letter under relevant First Amendment law (footnotes omitted):

The author behind @alt_fec suggests that this is our “chance to denounce the President’s attempted prior restraint of a book – just about the worst [First Amendment] violation there is.” . . . 

First, the letter protesting Fire and Fury is from Donald Trump’s private attorney. Donald Trump, the man, is different from Donald Trump the President. The letter isn’t an attempt by the President to prevent publication using the powers of his office. It’s a warning from a private party that he will sue for libel if the book is published. 

Second, this isn’t a prior restraint. By definition, a prior restraint involves a legal prohibition on publishing something. Threatening to sue after publication isn’t a prior restraint. 

Third, there is no First Amendment violation when a private party sends such a letter. The First Amendment prohibits action by the government, not private individuals.

IFS then describes how proving libel against public figures requires a showing of falsehoods printed with "actual malice," a very high bar established by N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan.  This is the actual First Amendment question at issue here, not the prior restraint question identified by @alt_fec:

Such errors are among the reasons why @alt_fec has little credibility on First Amendment matters, and why we do not intend to respond to future attempts to bait us with patently ill-informed, partisan broadsides. But this particular tweet provides a teachable moment which, as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to a robust (and accurate) view of the First Amendment, we couldn’t let pass.

Yet, the FEC resistance movement is unperturbed by misstatements of the law and has since reiterated their initial, faulty analysis of the letter.  This is just a microcosm of the tactics of the movement to resist President Trump: partisan attacks, little respect for facts or law, and manufactured outrage.

Conservatives Respond to End of Election Integrity Commission

On Wednesday, President Trump ended the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), which had been plagued by lawsuits from liberal organizations and even one of the Commission's own Democratic members.  Liberals are touting their victory in "resisting" an initiative started by President Trump, but conservatives have also responded.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Hill:

Why is this hatred so strong? Besides that it is the liberal election administration community’s way of participating in the Trump “resist” movement, they feared the PACEI because the last two presidential election commissions have recommended corrective measures that go against the liberal agenda. . . . Contrary to the liberal’s narrative, the PACEI disbanding does not prove there is no vote fraud; rather, it proves liberals fear looking into this issue because things such as illegal non-citizen votes favor the Democratic Party in elections. . . . 

In the end, liberals won this battle to prevent any inquiry into fraudulent votes and messy elections, but may lose the war. When the President disbanded the PACEI, he also “asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues.” . . . If DHS reviews the issues that the PACEI was tasked with studying, it could use the SAVE database to help states fix their voter registration lists and find non-citizens registered and voting much more efficiently than an advisory commission ever could, as election officials have been clamoring for for years. . . .

So Democrats have “resisted” the bipartisan efforts, in the fine tradition of the last two presidential election commissions, to study and propose solutions to fix our elections. Sadly, the American people are those who lose the most whenever the liberal election world is “successful.” Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of an American citizen, who has lost the right of self-government due to the political agenda of liberal activists. But the left may lose the war, as their victory may hurt their real goals and make it easier to stop non-citizens from registering and voting. 

Former PACEI member Hans von Spakovsky issued the following statement:

While I am disappointed about the dissolution of the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I understand President Trump’s action.  The ability of the Commission to research, review, and examine the integrity and security of the American election process was made almost impossible by the unprecedented and unjustified obstruction by many state election officials who defiantly refused to cooperate with the Commission.

The Commission was also hampered by the almost dozen meritless lawsuits that were filed against the Commission by progressive advocacy groups that were solely intended to prevent its work and take up the time of the Commission’s staff with frivolous litigation. 

The American people understand how important it is that we have a secure system in which everyone who is eligible is able to vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election officials.

The obstacles and impediments used to hinder the work of the Commission is evidence that there are many politicians and activists who want to prevent the American people from finding out the truth.

Fellow former PACEI member Christian Adams also issued a statement:

Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table.  Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system. Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the Commission’s work.  They may delight today in the dissolution of the Commission, but before long they’ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support and perseverance than they realize.

We thank the members of the PACEI for their work and look forward to future efforts to improve the integrity of elections and voters' confidence in election systems and their outcomes.