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

Lara Trump’s Shocking Hypocrisy Over Tara Reade

Lara Lea Trump

In case you missed it, Trump’s daughter in law Lara, who’s also part of his 2020 campaign, appeared on Fox News’ Judge Jeanine show where she made the highly hypocritical assertion that for Joe Biden to prove his innocence regarding the sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade, he must make all relevant documents available for the public’s perusal. Lara’s assertion is highly hypocritical because her father in law is the poster child for hiding documents from the public, including documents related to sexual assault allegations.

Lara Trump told Judge Jeanine, “I would think if you are being accused of something and you were totally innocent, you would go to any length possible Judge, to try and clear your name including allowing people to open up files like that and make sure you turned over every single leaf to prove your innocence and make sure that people understood that these charges were false and that you did nothing wrong but it’s kind of curious that Joe Biden isn’t allowing that to happen…….it’s not a good defense for him and you know what, going forward, he has a lot of questions to answer. There’s a long time between now and November 3rd election day….”

It is the height of hypocrisy for Lara Trump to make such a demand of Biden when her own father in law has been accused of sexual assault by almost 20 women and has yet to make any document available to the public proving his innocence. Trump for example has been accused of making financial settlements to victims of his sexual abuse. Given Lara Trump’s rationale, her father in law could easily disprove these claims by providing financial records showing that he has never made any such payments/settlements. Why hasn’t he?

Bottom line folks, Democrats have to proceed very carefully with this bogus Tara Reade story which at every turn appears more and more like a Trump campaign operation. The Biden campaign should make every effort to respond fully to Tara Reade’s allegations while at the same time demanding that the Trump campaign do the same regarding the almost 20 sexual assault victims that have accused Trump. Simply put, the Biden campaign should resist any attempt at playing nice with Team Trump. If Biden is forced to answer sexual assault allegations, then the Biden campaign must force the mainstream media to demand answers from Trump too.

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

Trump And McConnell “Whitening” Federal Courts

OutfrontCNN recently did a segment about a sitting federal judge in mississippi rebuking Trump’s attacks on the federal judges, especially judges of color, and likening such attacks to racial attacks by the Ku Klux KLan. The judge raised several issues of concern but the one that caught Yours Truly’s attention was his assertion that a staggering 90% of Trump’s judicial picks are White. This is a shocking statistic that we rarely hear from the mainstream media and should certainly be explored further especially as Trump’s enforcer in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, continues to bend the rules to push through Trump’s judicial picks. The full OutFrontCNN segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

There are already a lot of complaints about how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is bending U.S. Senate rules to pack federal courts with right wing judges. This troubling revelation that Sen McConnell and Trump are essentially “Whitening” the federal courts instead of making them more reflective the country’s current racial makeup should concern everybody. As Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson, the guest in the OutFrontCNN segment correctly pointed out, “We need a federal judiciary that looks like the populace.”

Bottom line, Mitch McConnell bending Senate rules to pack the federal courts with right wing judges is in itself, very detrimental to the judiciary’s image because people lose respect for a court that is viewed to be rigged/biased. With this new revelation that there’s a racial element to Trump/MitchMcConnell’s court-packing, everyone should be calling for an immediate pause to the judicial selection process until such a time as a respectable bipartisan mechanism for filling judicial vacancies can be put in place. Simply put, McConnell and Trump packing the courts with 90% White right wing damages is doing irreparable damage to the federal judiciary and must be stopped for the court’s sake. This is not a partisan issue

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

Trump’s Sister And Federal Judge Abruptly Retires Amid Tax Fraud Probe

In case you missed it MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow recently did a segment about Maryanne Trump Barry’s abrupt retirement from the federal bench

Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s older sister was a judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. According to Maddow, both President Trump and his federal judge sister are currently targets of a criminal tax fraud investigation related to their deceased father’s estate. Maryanne Trump apparently ended up pocketing a staggering $200 million from the tax fraud scheme.

Naturally the tax fraud probe also led to judicial misconduct complaints against judge Maryanne Trump Barry. Her abrupt retirement effectively ends the judicial misconduct proceedings against her exposing once again the gaping loophole in the judicial misconduct process that allows federal judges to walk away with zero accountability.

Bottom line, as Maddow correctly pointed out, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry’s abrupt retirement brings into focus once again the issue of President Trump’s tax returns. It’s becoming apparent with every single passing day that the reason Trump is terrified to release his tax returns is because it is riddled with criminal conduct that will almost certainly lead to his impeachment.

Sadly, the so-called “moral values” “evangelical christians” occupying today’s Republican Party are the ones helping him hide his tax returns and the criminal conduct embedded in them.

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

Tyrannical DHS Is Arraigning 2 Year Olds In Immigration Court

DHS recently arraigned 2 year old Fernanda Jacqueline Davila, a Honduran, before an Immigration Judge

A very troubling New York Times piece says Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s DHS which already shocked Americans with its cruel & inhumane family separation policy a few months ago, is now arraigning migrant children as young as 2 years old before immigration judges—2 year olds folks!!

It is well known that court settings can be very intimidating to a lot of adults–even traffic court. Can you imagine how scared a 2 year old would be being asked questions by an Immigration judge without their parents, in a court with uniformed law enforcement officers? The poor Honduran girl was probably so tormented by her immigration court experience, she will remember it for the rest of her life.


These horrendous scenes we are witnessing with secretary Nielsen’s DHS never used to happen in previous administrations–this callous disregard for the welfare of migrant children. You don’t have to take Yours Truly’s word for it, here’s what the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges Ashley Tabaddor said: “We rarely had children under the age of 6 until the last year or so.”

Previous administrations have always gone to great lengths to ensure the young children of immigrants are spared as much as possible from the emotional trauma stemming from the decisions of their parents to bring them across the border. It is very clear that such caution has been thrown out of the window by the current Trump administration and certainly by Secretary Nielsen’s tyrannical DHS where seemingly even 2 year old migrant children are fair game.

Bottom line little Fernanda Jacqueline Davila and other very young migrant children should not be arraigned in immigration court. Surely there are other humane, civilized ways DHS could handle their immigration cases without subjecting them to this needless emotional torture. DHS does this simply because it has the power to do it. Tyranny is defined as “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.” Now you understand why Yours Truly routinely refers to Sec Nielsen’s DHS as “Tyrannical DHS”.

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