Displaying posts published in

July 2024

Liz Peek: America, meet ‘Immaculate Kamala’ – the liberal media’s latest creation

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/america-meet-immaculate-kamala-liberal-medias-latest-creation

With the efficiency of a mob boss scrubbing a hit site, Democrats are cleaning up after Kamala Harris. They are deep into reinventing the presumptive Democrat nominee, lying about her background, removing damaging evidence of her hard-core leftism and presenting to the world, like a proud mom showing off her newborn, a fresh and unsullied face. 

Introducing Immaculate Kamala, an entirely fabricated creation of the left-wing media.

Confused voters must be wondering: why has Kamala Harris been judged one of the most unpopular vice presidents in history? How is it that Democrat kingmakers reportedly conspired for months to eject her from the ticket?    

The liberal media is good at this, and have turned the political conversation on its head in just a few weeks. It seems like yesterday that Donald Trump was cruising to victory in November – some were talking”landslide.” The disastrous debate which revealed Joe Biden’s incapacity, the attempt on the former president’s life, his brave response and a stunningly effective convention showed the GOP united, for once, and poised to clobber the incumbent. 

But now we read the polls are tightening, Harris is hauling in big campaign bucks, rebuilding the Obama coalition, and strengthening her grip on young, female and minority voters. We also read that Republicans are distorting her record. Voters disgusted by the failures of the Biden-Harris administration over the past three and a half years are being told their judgment (and recollections) about Harris are wrong, that she had little influence over decision-making in the White House. 

Draining the Swamp Is Now a Job for Congress By Mark Pulliam

https://tomklingenstein.com/draining-the-swamp-is-now-a-job-for-congress/

Wading into the confusing abyss of administrative law, on June 28 the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, overruled the much-criticized 1984 decision in Chevron, restoring the bedrock principle—commanded by both Article III of the Constitution and Section 706 the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act—-that it is the province of courts, not administrative agency bureaucrats, to interpret federal laws. This may sound like an easy ruling, but the issue had long bedeviled the Supreme Court. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, an administrative law expert, supported Chevron prior to his death in 2016. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Chief Justice John Roberts sure-footedly dispatched Chevron.

If, as I wrote for The American Conservative in 2021, “Taming the administrative state is the issue of our time,” why did the Supreme Court unanimously (albeit with a bare six-member quorum) decide in Chevron to defer to administrative agencies interpretations of ambiguous statutes, and why did conservatives — at least initially — support the decision? In a word, politics. In 1984, the President in charge of the executive branch was Ronald Reagan, and the D.C. Circuit — where most administrative law cases are decided—was (and had been for decades) controlled by liberal activist judges. President Reagan’s deputy solicitor general, Paul Bator, argued the Chevron case, successfully urging the Court to overturn a D.C. Circuit decision (written by then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that had invalidated EPA regulations interpreting the Clean Air Act. Thus, in the beginning, “Chevron deference” meant deferring to Reagan’s agency heads and their de-regulatory agenda.