First Amendment Protected

For John, BLUF:  On the 4th of July a Federal Jusge told the Biden Administrstion to stip colluding with social media companies to suppress free speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Poetic Justice for the Biden ‘Ministry of Truth’

From American Greatness, by Opinionator Roger Kimball, 9 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus fourteen:

At some point in this column, I have probably had occasion to quote these famous lines from Walter Scott’s poem “Marmion”:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.”

In another, better world, I like to think, the Bidens and their protectors and puppet masters would ruefully be contemplating Scott’s admonitory observation.

In this world, however, I suspect that—until quite recently, anyway—they had smugly sided with J.R. Pope’s sly amendment to Scott’s moralizing couplet:

“But when we’ve practiced for a while

How vastly we improve our style.”

I note that Pope’s amusing title for his observation is “A Word of Encouragement.”

Many of us feel a great contradiction at the heart of the Biden phenomenon.

On the one hand, he—“Big Guy” Joe—and his entire Snopes-like family—coke-head Hunter, “Dr.” Jill, the litter of grasping, on-the-make siblings—all seem like ciphers, the veritable incarnation of Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, CA: “there’s no there there.”

Indeed, from this point of view, Joe’s painful mental and, increasingly, physical vacancy seems to be the objective correlative for the entire Biden enterprise. It’s as if the nasty brother of the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz suddenly came to life and occupied the White House. “If I only had a brain,” he snarls softly to himself, frightening everyone around him.

And that “as if” brings me to the extraordinary “other hand.” Joe Biden is President of the United States, still, if just barely, the most important political office in the world. Amazing. How could that be? Talk about going from zero to one!

Of course, history is littered with the spectacle of destructive lunatics and incompetents in high office, as such names as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and Elagabalus remind us. (As an aside, I hereby note that Elagabalus is poised for a rerun, so perfectly does that epicene, “gender fluid” freak epitomize some of the central pathologies of our time).

The Bidens have yet to achieve the notoriety of such grimly illustrious predecessors. Nevertheless, these past months have not been kind to the Biden conglomerate.

And here is a seven page summary of the Court Order:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL.		CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213
VERSUS		JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
JOSEPH R BIDEN JR., ET AL.		MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

This is important work.  Important in terms of our right to free speech and important in terms of having a fair and open debate on things that matter to us as Citizens.  Think of the suppressing of the Great Barrington Declaration,  Wikipedia notwithstanding, the Great Barrington Declaration, shunned by the Bureaucracy, turned out to have important points.

If we can't handle free and open debate then we can't claim to have a democracy.  We will have lost our Republic.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Fair Trial

For John, BLUF:  I am thinking she didn't really mean what she wrote, but the first part of the sentence seized her brain into completing it this way..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is what InstaPundit Blogger Robert Shibley posted:

I ASSUMED THIS WAS FAKE, BUT IT’S NOT. Super-professional highlighting mine.

What is she?  French?.

We have a legal system derived from Anglo-Saxon law.  One is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.

The Epoch Times had an article on this,

I wonder if former Speaker Nancy Pelosi subscribes to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."  Which we attribute to English jurist William Blackstone, back in the 1760s.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The FBI Spying on US Citizens

For John, BLUF:  During my youth Mr J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI, and apparently played fast and loose with the rules.  We didn't know.  It didn't get better and in the last three Administrations it may have gotten worse.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DOJ collected Project Veritas emails but didn't reveal it to federal judge overseeing case

From Hot Air, by Reporter John Sexton, 27 March 2022 3:30 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

An attorney for Project Veritas sent a letter to District Court Judge Analisa Torres accusing the Department of Justice of sidestepping her prior rulings designed to protect the journalistic and attorney-client privileges of the organization.  Microsoft recently revealed that the DOJ had previously seized Project Veritas documents from a cloud account using a warrant which was not revealed to the court and which Microsoft was forbidden from revealing until recently.

At the base of all of this is the FBI investigation into how Project Veritas wound up in possession of Ashley Biden’s diary.  An FBI raid of homes belonging to Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe and two former PV journalists, resulted in the FBI seizing a number of phones, laptops, thumb drives, etc. last November.  Project Veritas asked Judge Torres to appoint a Special Master to review the seized information and determine what should and should not be turned over to authorities.  Judge Torres agreed and ordered everything that had been gathered turned over to the Special Master.  But even after she issued that decision, the DOJ didn’t reveal the PV documents it had already collected from Microsoft and went behind Judge Torres back and the back of the Special Master she appointed to keep the previously seized documents a secret.

I get that the FBI can lie to us, but we can't lie to them.  However, they can lie to a Judge?  That seems a little too much of an insult to the Bill of Rights.

Democracy does better when the People think that their Government is not violating their rights, or the rights of other of their Federal Citizens  This is a problem for the US Congress to fix.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Professor Challenges Wokeness

For John, BLUF:  Without the freedom to think and exchange ideas, and to challenge the ideas of others, one cannot claim to have a University.  God Bless fair Judges.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pushback:  Judge rules university officials can be held personally responsible for firing a professor for his political opinions

From the Blog Behind the Black, by Author Robert Zimmerman, 21 March 2022 12:36 pm.

Here is the lede plus three:

A major victory for free speech: A federal judge ruled on March 11th that officials at the University of North Texas can be held personally responsible for firing a professor because they did not like his political opinions.

In his 69-page order of March 11, Judge Sean Jordan, of the United States District Court for Eastern Texas, found that university officials should have known that math professor Nathaniel Hiers’ speech “touched on a matter of public concern and that discontinuing his employment because of his speech violated the First Amendment,” before they fired him for going public with his disagreement with the left-wing concept of “microaggressions.”

The university was claiming qualified immunity for school officials in the case, meaning that the school wanted its officials to be excluded from being held responsible for their actions merely because they were acting in their position as state employees.  Jordan denied the claim of qualified immunity and also denied the school’s demand to have the case dismissed outright.

You can read the judge’s order here [pdf].

And Professor Hiers is not the only one.  From January we have a Professor Jackson being cleared to sue the same institution.

Should we use the term "university" to describe this North Texas institution?  Without "Academic Freedom' can the institution be a Univeristy?  Or is it just another institution, unworthy of the name University?.

I celebrate this judicial decision.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Health of the Nation

For John, BLUF:  For decades we screened immigrants for poor health, and excluded individuals  Now we are told COVID-19 is very dangereous, except for those coming across our Southern Border.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Federal Court Ruling Just Made the Border Crisis Infinitely Worse

From PJ Media, by Reporter Rick Moran, 17 September 2021, 9:34 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus two:

A federal judge in Washington has ordered the government to stop using a public health law to deny families entry into the United States illegally.  U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the government 14 days to appeal before the order is implemented.

Title 42 was instituted in March of 2020 in response to the pandemic.  The law allows for expedited removal of most illegal aliens, including families.

The immediate effect of Sullivan’s ruling will be dire. Families that show up at the border will not be turned away.  Instead, they will be processed and released as they await their court hearing — possibly as long as five years away.

This strikes me as revolutionary.  I remember going to the US Embassy in Manila, The Philippines, and seeing long lines of emigrants outside, holding what appeared to be x-rays.  Why?  Because of tuberculosis.  We were screening folks for infectious diseases.

The article quotes The Wall Street Journal:

In a statement, the ACLU said the policy was unnecessary to control Covid-19 in the U.S. and that the U.S. can safely allow migrants to seek protection.

“President Biden should have ended this cruel and lawless policy long ago, and the court was correct to reject it today,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Does this mean that both the ACLU and Judge Sullivan believe that Vaccination mandates are wrong?

Equally interesting is if the Executive Branch let this one go, without worrying about the consequences, because it aligned with the Administration's immigration policy.

This being Constitution Day, we should ponder, Article 2, Section 3, Clause 6, wherein the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  Do you think President Biden has ducked his responsibilty by soft peddling the value of this law, passed by Congress?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Primary Canceled

For John, BLUF:  You are against Taxpayer funded Party Primaries, and now we have some Primaries being cancelled, but with no replacement mechanism.  Alternatives?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge:  South Carolina GOP can cancel its 2020 primary

From The Associated Press, by Reporter Meg Kinnard, 11 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

A judge on Wednesday upheld the South Carolina Republican Party’s decision not to hold a 2020 presidential primary, a move taken by several states in erecting hurdles for the long-shot candidates challenging President Donald Trump.

In her order, Circuit Judge Jocelyn Newman wrote the law “does not give Plaintiffs a legal right to a presidential preference primary, and the Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the General Assembly or the SCGOP.”

Earlier this year, former South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis sued state Republicans, saying the party’s decision to skip a primary deprives him and others “of the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice in South Carolina’s famous (and particularly influential) ‘First in the South’ primary.”

South Carolina is among several states that have canceled Republican primaries and caucuses next year, an effort that helps Trump consolidate his support as Democrats work to winnow their large candidate field.  The move, taken September in South Carolina by the state party’s executive committee, is not unusual for the party of the White House incumbent seeking reelection.

Is it an advantage to the Citizens, the Voters, to have primaries and should the Government facilitate such events?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Spotlight on Our Mass Attorney General

For John, BLUF:  The US works, as a society, because we have a relatively high level of trust, amongst citizens and between citizens and government.  The coddling of illegal immigrants tends to erode that trust, which is bad for our society.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lelling just doing his job while Healey isn't doing her job

From The [Lowell] Sun, by Columnist Peter Lucas, 7 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus five:

Attorney General Maura Healey should be happy with U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling.

He is doing the job she does not want to do, enforcing the law.

And because he is picking up the slack, Healey has more time to spend suing President Donald Trump, something she loves to do.

Healey, a progressive Democrat, has filed more suits against Trump than just about any other attorney general in the country.

Many of the suits have been filed in conjunction with the Democratic Attorneys Generals Association (DAGA), a political organization that opposes just about everything Trump stands for, illegal immigration, to cutting onerous regulations.

Most of the suits go nowhere but they make headlines.

I think Mr Peter Lucas is correct.  We are getting a lot of whinging out of Mass Attorney General Maura Healey, but precious little action over the shameful act of Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph in releasing an illegal immigrant who was wanted by ICE and also the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Ms healey is a NATO kind of person—"No Action, Talk Only".

Regards  —  Cliff

Spartacus Concerned About Sin

For John, BLUF:  I guess this plays to his base, and it dirties up future SCOTUS nominees.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Cory Booker Launches Inquisition Against Trump Nominee:  'Are Gay Relationships ... Sinful?'

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 5 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

On Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a 2020 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, asked Trump judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she considered homosexual relationships to be sinful.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) immediately called Booker out on this line of questioning.

Booker seized on Rao's 2008 article opposing the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexual activity. He then directly asked her, "Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?"

In a pluralistic society, such as ours, we need to distinguish between illegal and sinful.  We all have friends who have sinned.  Forgiveness is a useful attitude and one God probably agrees with.

On the other hand, we should avoid an "anything goes" attitude.  Stable families, raising stable, hard working kids, is the bedrock of a successful long term society.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Challenging the Mueller Probe

For John, BLUF:  Special Council Mueller's appointment is being challenged in court.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judges side with Mueller, nix Russian joint appeal bid

From ABC News, by Reporters Lee Ferran and Ali Dukakis, 30 August 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

A federal court in Washington, D.C., has denied a bid by a Russian firm to join an appeal brought by an American who is seeking to challenge the legitimacy of Robert Mueller’s appointment to special counsel.

U.S. Court of Appeals Judges David Tatel and Thomas Griffith ruled Thursday that the firm, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC., did not have standing to “intervene” in the appellate case brought by Andrew Miller, a former associate of longtime Donald Trump friend and Republican political operative Roger Stone.

Prosecutors allege Concord financed a St. Petersburg "troll factory" called the Internet Research Agency, which U.S. officials say set up hundreds of fake or automated social media accounts as part of a widespread online influence campaign ahead of the 2016 election.  The firm has pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud.

So, Concord has standing to be indicted, but not to challenge the process behind the indictment.

The federal court did order that Concord was eligible to file an amicus brief in the case.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Manafort Trial Stumbles Forward

For John, BLUF:  I don't think I have seen anything about Russian Collusion WRT this trial.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge Ellis Loses Patience with Mueller Prosecutors and Ends Court Early Over Screw-Up

From Law and Crime, by Mr Colin Kalmbacher, 2 August 2018.

Here is the lede:

Paul Manafort‘s third day on trial over charges of bank fraud and tax evasion was cut a bit short on Thursday after government attorneys made the same mistake twice in a row.

I wonder if Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III has talked with United States District Judge Emmet G Sullivan?

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Mueller's "Pit Bull"

For John, BLUF:  Do you want a "Pit Bull" or do you want a professional, ethical, lawyer?  This is an unforced error.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mueller’s ‘Pit Bull’ Andrew Weissmann Busted for Withholding Evidence in Previous Case

From her eponymous web site, by Ms Sarah Carter, 15 Feb 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

The top attorney in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s office was reported to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General by a lawyer representing whistleblowers for alleged “corrupt legal practices” nearly a decade before the 2016 presidential election, this reporter has learned.

Described by the New York Times as Mueller’s ‘pitbull,’ Andrew Weissmann, a former Eastern District of New York Assistant U.S. Attorney, rose through the ranks to eventually become Mueller’s general counsel at the F.B.I.

In 2015 Weissmann was selected to run the Department of Justice’s criminal fraud section and was later handpicked by Mueller to join the ongoing Special Counsel’s Office investigation into the alleged obstruction and alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

If you are going for the President, your shot needs to be clean, otherwise you will carry the opprobrium of your shady operation to your grave and then into history.  To do otherwise would show a sense of self-righteousness that knows no bounds.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Federal Judge Overrules Trump on DACA

For John, BLUF:  Schumer wanted this shutdown.  It is just that he misjudged the audience.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Federal Judge Blocks Trump From Ending DACA; Update: WH, Trump Slam Ruling

From Town Hall, by Reporter Leah Barkoukis, 10 January 2018.

Yes, I know this is about two weeks late to need, but given actions on Capitol Hill it is still timely.

Here is the lede:

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on Tuesday, declaring that the Department of Homeland Security’s “decision to rescind DACA was based on a flawed legal premise."

Of course there is the question of how Executive Orders become law itself, immune from countermanding Presidential Executive Orders, thus circumventing the Constitutional role of the Congress.  I would think if needed we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to make this point clear.

And, if a federal judge ruled back son 10 January, kicking of a months long litigation, why are the Democrats so antsy to get legislation  The DACA situation is frozen in time.  The March deadline isn't real as long as the Federal Case hasn't been resolved.  So what is going on here?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff
-2 Tue 0

Judges Gone Wild

For John, BLUF:  I'm thinking Constitutional Amendment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

California to register illegal aliens to vote – automatically

The sub-headline:

Court orders government to do so for all driver's licenses issued

From WND, 21 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

California will take the next step in blurring the lines between citizens and non-citizens beginning April Fool’s Day when the state complies with a court order to begin automatically registering to vote all those who are granted driver’s licenses.

The state has long provided driver’s licenses to all who simply claimed, without proof, that they were citizens of in the country legally.  There were no checks made or documentation required.

But beginning April 1 every person who gets a California driver’s license will be automatically entitled to vote.

I wonder if this extends to licenses to drive trucks and buses?

As a side thought, if you want more Trump, this is how you get more Trump, as Law Prof Glenn Harlan Reynolds might say.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Senators Questioning Religion?

For John, BLUF:  No religious test.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hath Not a Catholic Eyes?

This is from Pajama Media, by Writer Andrew Klavan, 8 September 2017, about Senator Diane Feinstein (DiFi) (D-CA) questioning a Trump nominee, Professor Amy Barrett of Notre Dame University.

How would it be if we questioned Dianne Feinstein's ability to serve as a senator because she is Jewish?  After all, "You know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma.  The law is totally different."  So said the senator in her recent questioning of Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for the Seventh District Court of Appeals, and a believing Catholic.  Of course, Senator Feinstein's hostility to Catholic dogma — including the divinity of Christ — might be seen as an expression of her own Jewish dogma, denying Christ's divinity.  We might say to the senator what she said to Professor Barrett:  "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country."  As a liberal Jew, for instance, the senator might deny that our founding guarantees of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," apply to children in the womb — a principle large numbers of people have indeed fought for for years.

But of course — of course — it would be despicable, disgusting and deeply unAmerican to question Senator Feinstein in this way.  Not because religious dogma can't be questioned. All ideas can be questioned and attacked. And it's not because there isn't a danger of dogmatic religious people imposing their dogma on our secular government.  I for one wouldn't allow a Muslim who believed in the abomination of Sharia to come anywhere near an American bench because the very idea of Sharia is antithetical to the underlying principles of American law.

No.  It would be disgusting and unAmerican to attack Senator Feinstein on the basis of her Jewishness because it violates the very principles of our founding, so deeply connected to Judaeo-Christian thought.  Article Six of the Constitution explicitly states that all public servants, including judges, "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  In other words, once it is established that a candidate for public office does not hold beliefs that prevent him from swearing allegiance to the Constitution (as a belief in Sharia would), his religion is none of your damn business.

If this an organized effort or just a smattering?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Judge Rules Against Sex Offender Registry in Colorado

For John, BLUF:  Does the Sex Crime Registry really make a difference or is it just feel good kabuki?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge Finds Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional

From CBS News in Denver, Colorado, by Reporter Jeff Todd, 31 August 2017.

Here is the lede plus three.

DENVER (CBS4)– A federal court judge in Denver has called the public sex offender registry in Colorado “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation posts a list of registered sex offenders required under the law. It contains names, pictures, addresses, descriptions and more and readily available to anyone on the internet.

But now, Federal Judge Richard Matsch has found that to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. He wrote that the public has been given the “power to inflict punishments beyond those imposed through the court.”

Alison Ruttenberg, the attorney for the sex offenders, told CBS4’s Rick Sallinger they were often scarred for life because of all the public information available on the convicted criminals.

Rights in conflict.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Courts Have Been Active

For John, BLUF:  Well, except for putting law breakers away.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Supreme Judicial Court ruling gives legal cover to sanctuary cities

From Monday's edition of The Boston Globe by Reporter Milton J. Valencia (24 July 2017).

The 42 word single sentence lede:

The state’s highest court ruled Monday that under Massachusetts law, local law enforcement officials cannot hold a person who is wanted solely for immigration violations, a ruling that provides a legal basis for sanctuary cities to refuse to cooperate with federal officials.

Judge rules state’s voter registration deadline is unconstitutional

This too is from Yesterday's edition of The Boston Globe, by Reporter Catie Edmondson.

The 27 word single sentence lede, plus two:

A Suffolk Superior Court judge on Monday ruled unconstitutional a state law that forbids people from voting in an election unless they have registered 20 days beforehand.

The law denies qualified citizens their right to vote, Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled.

In a lawsuit filed last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Chelsea Collaborative, a social services nonprofit, and MassVOTE, a nonprofit that registers people to vote, argued that the law is “unnecessary and arbitrary” and that it excluded thousands of citizens from voting.

Just to make sure I have the proper orientation here, it appears the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is speaking for States' Rights, right?  That is to say, there are limits to what the Federal Government can do in Massachusetts and limits to what support it should expect.  While I am a limited Government Republican, I am hoping we are not going to re-litigate a lot of the old "states' rights" issues.  As for illegal immigrants, as long as we are enforcing rules about having a real Social Security Number to get a job and not letting illegal immigrants register to vote and go on welfare, I guess I am OK with it.  As for Drivers Licenses, I am still up in the air.

With regard to voting, I have some small sympathy with the Massachusetts Secretary of State.  They can't even guarantee that they get "Mail In" registration right. Why would we think that this kind of last minute rush would not complicate the printing of voter rolls?  Do they need ten days to print and distribute them?  Five days?  Two days but we have to keep open the Voting Office on Saturday and pay overtime for the Administrative actions on Sunday (plus regular time for Monday)?  And taking it to the extreme, what about, since the count isn't official for a couple of days, those who become eligible on Wednesday or Thursday.  Should they not, out of compassion, be allowed to vote?

The twenty days is an arbitrary rule.  Judges should be familiar with that sort of thing.  And, besides, the focus of judges should be on the fact that the new Court House in Lowell has no rooms for Public Defenders to meet with their clients.  What's up with that?  Isn't there some aphorism about "Physician heal thyself?

Hat tip to the MASSter List.

Regards  —  Cliff

Silencing the Campaigners

For John, BLUF:  Soon politicians, like military commanders, will need a lawyer at their side, advising them what they can and cannot say.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dershowitz: Courts Essentially Saying If Obama Issued Trump Travel Ban, It Would Be Constitutional

From Mediaite and Mr Josh Feldmank posted on 18 March 2017, we havre this worrisome comment from a Harvard Law Professor:

Alan Dershowitz said on Fox News this morning that because court rulings against President Trump‘s travel ban are bringing up his own past rhetoric, the argument is basically,

If Obama had issued the very same order with the same words it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional.

So, we either have a new legal theory or we have judges who have become partisan hacks.

I guess that if we accept this as a new legal theory, if coal mine owners and coal miners had known about it they could have gone to court and had all of President Obama's anti-coal actions thrown out.

Be careful what you say on the campaign trail, because anything you say can and will be used against you.

The big thing is precedent.  Just as then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's suppression of the filibuster—once upon a time a favorite parliamentary tool of Senate Democrats—opens up room for current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to push through the nomination of Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court on a simple majority vote, so this ruling, if allowed to stand, opens up the whole area of Federal Regulations to the question of what the President said while running for office.  If it can be shown he expressed some prejudice, then the issued rule is unconstitutional.

But, we still have the "partisan hack" alternative.  I think I like that better than this other weird theory.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff