Judge Amy Coney Barret Does Not Think SCOTUS 5-4 Split Decisions Are A Sign Of Political Partisanship

Federal Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale College In May 2019

In an interview at Hillsdale College in May 2019, Federal Appeals Court Judge and now Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said she does not think the increasing 5-4 split decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are a sign of political partisanship. This is a very strange assessment given the fact that much of the public angst against the U.S. Supreme Court can be attributed to the increasing number of these 5-4 split decisions between the 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices, which people have reasonably attributed to partisan political differences.

Judge Barrett’s strange position that Supreme Court 5-4 split decisions are not as a result of partisan political differences will certainly draw the attention of Democratic Senators at her confirmation hearings, which are already expected to be the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings ever.

Bottom line folks, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the U.S. Supreme Court, Americans better get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on ACA, voting rights, DACA, Trump’s tax returns, 2020 election challenges…….. Simply put, get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on steroids!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Amy Coney Barrett Feared “A Very Marked Shift” In SCOTUS Composition If Hillary Clinton Won In 2016

University of Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett giving a presentation at Jacksonville University On November 3, 2016 , five days before the general elections

An interesting presentation then Professor Amy Coney Barrett gave at Jacksonville University in November 2016, five days before the elections, begs for further scrutiny now that President Trump has formally nominated her to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her hour long presentation at Jacksonville University, which reasonable people will agree was highly impressive, Professor Barrett delved into a whole host of issues dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and its Justices. Of particular relevance today, is the fear Professor Barrett expressed of “a very marked shift” in the Supreme Court to the left, were Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in 2016.(see clip below)

Professor Barrett’s concerns in November 2016 are of particular concern today because the “very marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court she feared in 2016 has come to pass. The only difference is that the marked shift in the court has been to the right, with Trump as President. More importantly, the very concerns she had about a future President Clinton replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal, is the exact situation we currently find ourselves in, with President Trump getting ready to replace liberal Justice Ginsburg with her–a staunch conservative. Given her fears in 2016, should Trump have nominated someone more liberal to replace Justice Ginsburg? In other words, is Judge Amy Barrett only worried about the U.S. Supreme Court markedly shifting to the left but okay if the shift is to the right?

Specifically, then Professor Barrett argued in her presentation that whoever won the presidency in 2016, who she assumed like many would be Clinton, would have a chance to replace up to four Supreme Court justices, given their advanced ages. Clinton, she argued, would not only fill the vacant Scalia seat with a reliable liberal, tipping the balance of the court leftward, but would also likely replace Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy with much younger reliable liberals, essentially turning the U.S. Supreme Court into a reliably liberal court. Trump on the other hand, Professor Barrett argued, would fill the vacancies with a “mixed bag” of justices resulting in a somewhat center-right court but definitely not a far right Supreme Court.

Reasonable people will agree that with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump has already shifted the U.S. Supreme Court to the right. Trump’s nomination of conservative Judge Amy Barrett to replace reliably liberal Justice Ginsburg will therefore lead to the very “marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court that then Professor Amy Barrett feared with a Clinton presidency. The question Democratic Senators need to confront Judge Barrett with at her confirmation hearings, is whether she is now comfortable with the marked shift in the Supreme Court to the right. Should Trump have nominated a Supreme Court justice more in the mold of Justice Ginsburg to prevent the marked shift to the right?

It bears pointing out however that Professor Barrett espoused an interpretation of the role of judges generally, and supreme court justices in particular, that many legal scholars will find very refreshing. She stated very clearly that the role of a judge is not to placate to the partisan political camps but rather to follow the law, wherever it leads. She illustrated her point with Justice Scalia, who sided with the liberal justices time and time again on criminal law issues even though as a conservative, Republican voters expected him to be a “law and order” judge, always siding with law enforcement in criminal cases. Professor Barrett said Justice Scalia did so not because he liked criminals, but because that was what the text of the constitution required him to do. This should be a warning shot to Trump Republicans who are fast-tracking her confirmation in the hopes that she will rubber stamp GOP policy positions at the Supreme Court.

Bottom line folks, as things currently stand, Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court is all but certain. There’s literally nothing Democrats can do procedurally or otherwise, to stop her confirmation to the high court. One only hopes that during her confirmation hearings, Democratic Senators will confront her with tough questions, among them, her fears in 2016 of a “marked shift” in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, Democratic Senators should ask Judge Barrett why she feared a marked shift of the high court to the left but is now seemingly comfortable with a marked shift to the right, thanks to her confirmation.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Mitch McConnell Rewards Lobbyist’s Wife With Federal Judgeship

A bombshell segment on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expedited the confirmation of U.S. District Judge Wendy Vitter as payback for the work her lobbyist husband David Vitter did to land an aluminium plant linked to Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska in Kentucky. David Vitter, a former Republican U.S. Senator from Louisiana is now a lobbyist for Rusal, the Russian firm tied to Oligarch Oleg Deripaska and previously sanctioned by the U.S. government. It is Rusal that has committed $200 million to build an aluminium plant in Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky.

According to the Maddow segment, the confirmation of Wendy Vitter as a federal judge had stalled because a lot of Republicans did not feel she was qualified for the job. However according to Maddow, five weeks after her lobbyist husband David Vitter called McConnell confirming that Rusal will invest in Kentucky, McConnell used his position as Senate Majority Leader to expedite Wendy Vitters confirmation–a clear cut case of pay-for-play corruption and abuse of power.

Maddow specifically said, “Within five weeks of David Vitter calling Mitch McConnell to tell him that Rusal was going to put this plant in Kentucky, Rusal was going to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into Mitch McConnell’s home state, within five weeks of that call, the nomination of David Vitter’s wife to be a federal judge, a nomination that had been languishing for a year and a half because she was so humiliatingly and embarrassingly and obviously unqualified for the job, whose confirmation hearing went so badly it went viral and got her nomination buried, turns out within five weeks of Mitch McConnell getting that call from David Vitter saying hey I got an aluminium plant we are going to put in your home state thanks from Oleg, within five weeks of that call, Wendy Vitter’s nomination got pulled off the trash heap by McConnell and Mitch McConnell expedited it, put it on top of the list and now she’s a federal judge for life. Must be nice.”

Bottom line, there are already a lot of questions surrounding Mitch McConnell and Russia that warrant an investigation. This new pay-for-play twist involving a federal judge should definitely be explored further both by Democrats and the mainstream media. Simply put, McConnell should not be allowed to abuse his position as Senate Majority Leader to push bills in the Senate that seemingly benefit him personally. More importantly, McConnell should not be allowed to continue ruining the credibility of federal courts with pay-for-play confirmation of federal judges. McConnell has already done enough damage to the credibility of federal courts with the Kavanaugh incident.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Kavanaugh’s Dramatic Collapse Over FBI Questions A Total Disqualifier

Sen Dick Durbin(D-IL) Questioning Kavanaugh

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow yesterday gave a brilliant presentation as to why Kavanaugh is manifestly unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court. Maddow gave several compelling reasons but zeroed in on these two most important disqualifiers, (1) Kavanaugh’s total collapse over FBI questions and (2) Kavanaugh’s hyper partisan political nature which would be a disqualifier for any other jurist.

Kavanaugh’s dramatic collapse when Senator Dick Durbin(D-IL) asked if he would welcome an FBI investigation was by far his most damaging performance. Any reasonable person watching how Kavanaugh appeared intent on avoiding any FBI investigation would arrive at the conclusion that he had something to hide. The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

Kavanaugh looks even worse when you consider the fact that Christine Blasey Ford and the other accusers have all welcomed an FBI investigation meaning unlike Kavanaugh, they know they are telling the truth.


The other very concerning aspect of Kavanaugh’s testimony was his hyper partisan attacks on Democrats. This as Maddow correctly points out, is something totally out of character for any jurist especially one expecting to land on the U.S. Supreme Court and it displays a serious lack of judicial temperament needed for a Supreme Court Justice. Putting everything aside, this lack of judicial temperament displayed by Kavanaugh should also be a disqualifier.

We’d be remiss if we left out the total lack of respect Kavanaugh showed to Sen Amy Klobuchar(D-MN). I mean if there was any doubt in anyone’s mind that Kavanaugh had little respect for women this was all the proof they needed. Kavanaugh’s condescending response to Sen Klobuchar’s fair question shows that his natural inclination is to disrespect women. It is only after advice from one of his staffers that he realized how disrespectful he had been  to Sen Klobuchar, which prompted him to apologize. Very troubling indeed.

Bottom line Kavanaugh’s strange fear of an FBI investigation into the allegations made against him only prove that he is not a truthful person and is clearly hiding something. Nobody, even his ardent supporters after watching how he answered the FBI questions  would ever conclude that the truth was on his side. Simply put folks, a manifest liar like Kavanaugh should not be in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




GOP Is Officially The Anti-Woman Party

Sen Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

As Americans eagerly wait for Thursday’s blockbuster Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Dr Christine Blasey Ford is set to testify, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen Chuck Grassley has decided to schedule a committee vote on Friday–just a few hours after Dr. Ford’s testimony.


This is to date one of the biggest insults the GOP has hurled at women across the country and here’s why. Nobody, including Sen Chuck Grassley knows what will transpire at Dr. Ford’s hearing. There may be new revelations at the hearing that may cause Republicans who have so far been willing to back Kavanaugh change their mind. By convening a Friday Senate Judiciary Committee meeting even before hearing Dr. Ford’s testimony, Sen Grassley and indeed his GOP colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee are saying boldly and loudly to Dr Ford in particular and women generally that the GOP is not interested in what women have to say. The best analogy here would be a judge setting a sentencing hearing even before the trial took place–a total travesty of justice.


Dems must call out Sen Grassley and his Senate Judiciary colleagues for this blatant anti-woman action. Senate Dems must point this out at the hearing which will be watched by millions of women voters. Bottom line folks it is no longer just a cheap shot from liberals–the modern GOP is truly an anti-woman party.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Kavanaugh’s Alma Mater Yale Law Wants FBI Involved

Some 50 Yale Law students and faculty have made a formal request in the form of a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the Senators to have the FBI look into the serious allegations raised by Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh attended Yale Law so it is a very big deal that his own Alma Mater wants the FBI to look into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations. Here are some of the excerpts from the Yale Law letter:

“As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we write as faculty members of Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated, to urge that the Senate conduct a fair and deliberate confirmation process,”

“With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court.”



Bottom line folks its one thing when Senate Democrats or even #TheResistance libs clamor for an immediate pause to Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a result of Ms Ford’s serious allegations. However when Kavanaugh’s own alma mater, the highly prestigious Yale Law is calling for the same thing, there is no choice but to pause Kavanaugh’s confirmation process until such a time as the FBI has probed Ms Ford’s serious allegations. As the Yale Law students and faculty correctly put it, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process “must always be conducted, and appointments made, in a manner that gives Americans reason to trust the court.” What Sen Chuck Grassley and his fellow GOP Senators are doing in regards to Kavanaugh only makes Americans mistruct the U.S. Supreme Court–a sad state of affairs indeed.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Kavanaugh Admits Secrecy Culture At Georgetown High School


Brett Kavanaugh & Mark Judge

After Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford came forward with explosive allegations of attempted rape while the two were in high school, the debate has predictably boiled down to who is to be believed, with the GOP largely siding with Kavanaugh and Democrats with Christine Blasey Ford.




Turns out however that it is Kavanaugh’s own words that may/should sink his nomination.
Yours Truly just stumbled into a newly released video of Kavanaugh in which he revelled in the fact that “what happens at Georgetown Prep (his high school)stays at Georgetown Prep.”


This is the smoking gun of smoking gun evidence and Dems must nail him with it.

Bottom line, while it is hard to ascertain definitively what happened decades ago, the fact that Kavanaugh himself openly admits in this video that there was a culture of secrecy at his high school, for which he takes pride in, should be enough for any reasonable person to believe Christine Blasey Ford’s account of the events and sink Kavanaugh’s nomination.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Why Sen Murkowski Is Highly Likely A NO On Kavanaugh



While mainstream media political pundits have been busy trying to figure out how Sen Susan Collins(R-ME) will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, very little has been discussed about the fact that out of all GOP Senators, it is Sen Lisa Murkowski(R-AL) and not Sen Susan Collins who is most likely to vote NO on Kavanaugh. This point appears lost to all the beltway political pundits.


Luckily it turns out the Lisa Murkowski angle is not lost to one Jennifer Bendery of the Huffington Post who penned a brilliant piece on this subject–an absolute must read folks. Bendery’s article clearly illustrates that contrary to popular belief, Sen Murkowski is under significantly more pressure than Sen Susan Collins when it comes to the Kavanaugh confirmation issue. As a matter of fact, based on Bendery’s reporting, Lisa is almost certainly a NO on Kavanugh at this juncture.

So you say, “@Emolclause you full of it. Why would you make such a gigantic leap of faith on Murkowski?” Here’s why. There is a case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Sturgeon v Frost, in which the court will have to decide who controls Alaska’s waters–the state or the federal government.  As it currently stands, Alaska has federally protected waters where native Alaskan tribes survive on subsistence fishing. Sturgeon’s argument(the plaintiff) is that the state of Alaska should control its own waters not the feds. A win for Sturgeon at the the U.S. Supreme Court would therefore threaten the way of life (subsistence fishing) of the native Alaskan tribes, who played a major role in Sen Murkowski’s election victory. Kavanaugh’s previous decisions at the DC Circuit Court apparently line up with Sturgeon’s argument for state over federal control of Alaskan waters and the locals are making it crystal clear to Sen Murkowski that she must vote NO on Kavanaugh.

Therefore unlike Sen Collins who is pressured by Mainers mostly over Roe v Wade questions, here you have Sen Murkowski who is getting flooded by calls from native Alaskan fishermen who put her in the U.S. Senate, telling her a vote for kavanaugh would literally upend their way of life. This is why Yours Truly argues that Sen Murkowski is under more significant pressure than Sen Collins and is at this juncture an almost definite NO on Kavanaugh. It cannot also be left unsaid that other factors like Kavanaugh’s controversial “vetting” process(hiding documents) and the fact that he is one of the least popular Supreme Court nominees ever, also support Yours Truly’s conclusion that she is less likely to jeopardize the livelihoods of her native Alaskan fishing communities(her voting block) for a Supreme Court nominee as flawed as Kavanaugh–one who there is already talk of impeaching even before he is seated on the high court. Voting for Kavanaugh despite desperate pleas from Alaskan fishing communities, her loyal voting block, would literally make Sen Murkowski the hands down winner of the world’s “most deplorable person” contest.

Bottom line Alaskans, like Mainers must continue putting pressure on Sen Murkowski. There’s a very good chance she will vote NO on Kavanaugh as a result of desperate pleas from Alaskan fishing communities.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Sen Collins Says Kavanaugh Lies Are A “Major Problem”


Sen Susan Collins, one of the Republicans considered likely to vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation has provided the strongest hint yet that she has not yet made up her mind on Kavanaugh but more importantly, that she could be a NO vote.

When a Maine newspaper asked her about Kavanaugh’s lies under oath during his confirmation hearings to the DC Circuit Court, and specifically as relates to Judge Pryor’s “vetting”,  Sen Collins responded that she was not aware of the issue but added, “If in fact (Kavanaugh) was not truthful, then obviously that would be a major problem for me.”

This is very encouraging news for anti-Kavanaugh liberals because as Senator Collins will soon find out, Kavanaugh has not only lied to congress, he has serially lied to congress under oath–felonies!!


Yes Senator Collins, this should be a major problem for you and your fellow GOP Senators thinking of elevating Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line, Mainers should keep up the pressure on Sen Collins. Yours Truly foresees a NO vote in the horizon by Sen Collins and possibly Sen Murkowski over Kavanaugh lies. A luta continua!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Kavanaugh Unconvincingly Denies Talking To TrumpRussia Lawyer


Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA) questioning Kavanaugh at his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s AM Joy show looked into Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s troubling ties to the ongoing TrumpRussia investigation.


It is well known that one of the major hang ups Democrats have with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and possible confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is the appearance that Trump wants him on the high court to shield himself from the ongoing threat of the Mueller probe(TrumpRussia investigation). Dems therefore paid very close attention to Kavanaugh’s answers to pointed TrumpRussia questions from Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA). Kavanaugh initially denied knowing Marc Kasowitz, a prominent lawyer for Trump in the TrumpRussia investigation. Because Kasowitz is such a high profile lawyer known to many in the DC legal circles, many considered Kavanaugh’s denial an outright lie. The full AM Joy segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

On the next day of questioning, the dilligent Sen Kamala Harris brought back the Kasowitz question to see if Kavanaugh would give a more convincing answer this time. Interestingly, Kavanaugh’s response changed a little bit from his previous response. He testified this time that he never talked to anybody at Kasowitz’s law firm about TrumpRussia, but notably he didn’t deny knowing Kasowitz this time as he had done the previous day.

As was correctly pointed out in MSNBC’s AM Joy show, it is totally understandable why Kavanaugh would want to steer clear from a TrumpRussia lawyer during his confirmation hearing to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however does not absolve him from answering truthfully serious questions posed to him at his confirmation hearings.

Bottom line there are many unanswered questions regarding Kavanaugh and the ongoing Mueller probe. If the purpose of the confirmation hearings was to allay fears that Trump wants him on the Supreme Court to shield himself against the threat of the Mueller probe, they certainly did not allay any fears. As a matter of fact Kavanaugh’s evasiveness on this crucial TrumpRussia question only added to the fears and will inevitable negatively impact the credibility of the Roberts Supreme Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out