Nation

Liberal Justice Breyer Warns Against Court-Packing

As Democrat President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court commission continues to explore strategies like court-packing to shift the political balance of the Supreme Court, liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer explained in a Fox News interview how adding justices to the Court would

More
Justice Stephen Breyer

Liberal Justice Breyer Warns Against Court-Packing

As Democrat President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court commission continues to explore strategies like court-packing to shift the political balance of the Supreme Court, liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer explained in a Fox News interview how adding justices to the Court would cause Americans to “lose trust” in the institution.

“President Biden has appointed a commission to come back to him in November and discuss — weigh in on possible reforms to the court,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Breyer. “What do you think of the idea of increasing the number of justices on the court?”

“Well, if one party could do it, I guess another party could do it,” Breyer responded, adding, “On the surface, it seems to me you start changing all these things around, and people will lose trust in the court.”

In the same interview, Breyer also explained that why he had not stepped down amid calls for his retirement from Democrats who want to appoint his successor while they control the Senate. Breyer said he would not retire based on the political “balance” of the Court.

“I didn’t retire because I had decided on balance I wouldn’t retire,” Breyer said.

Late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likewise warned against packing the Court in a 2019 2019 interview with NPR.

“I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges,” Ginsburg said. “I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

Ginsburg said she agrees with the current number of Justices, she observed, “Nine seems to be a good number, and it’s been that way for a long time.”

Ginsburg explained that politicians expanding the Supreme Court to shift its political balance would politicize the institution that is intended to be apolitical.

“If anything would make the court appear partisan it would be that,” she said. “One side saying when we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to. So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.”

/

Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Eviction Moratorium

On Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the latest eviction moratorium imposed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) over the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The CDC’s moratorium was originally slated to expire on December 31, 2020,” the Justices wrote in their ruling. “But Congress extended it for one month as part of the second COVID–19 relief Act. As the new deadline approached, the CDC again took matters into its own hands, extending its moratorium through March, then again through June, and ultimately through July.”

The 1944 public health law the CDC was drawing its power from “has rarely been invoked—and never before to justify an eviction moratorium. Regulations under this authority have generally been limited to quarantining infected individuals and prohibiting the import or sale of animals known to transmit disease. (banning small turtles known to be carriers of salmonella).”

SCOTUSblog reported, “The decision on the eviction moratorium was a decisive rebuke for the Biden administration, with the majority writing that it ‘strains credulity to believe’ that the public-health law at the center of the case gives the Centers for Disease Control the power to enact the moratorium. ‘If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue,’ the court stressed, ‘Congress must specifically authorize it.’”

In response to the ruling, the Biden administration released a statement that listed entities it urged to stop evictions – Congress was noticeably absent from the list.

“In light of the Supreme Court ruling and the continued risk of COVID-19 transmission, President Biden is once again calling on all entities that can prevent evictions – from cities and states to local courts, landlords, Cabinet Agencies – to urgently act to prevent evictions,” the statement said.

Seth MacFarlane Tucker Carlson
/

Seth MacFarlane Hates Fox: But Will He Give Their Money Back?

Here we go again with yet another celebrity whining about Fox News.  Here’s the headline from HuffPost:

Seth MacFarlane Rips Fox Over Tucker Carlson, Wants ‘Family Guy’ On ‘Any Other Network’
“This marriage isn’t working anymore.”

The story reports that MacFarlane tweeted this:

“Tucker Carlson’s latest opinion piece once again makes me wish Family Guy was on any other network. Look, Fox, we both know this marriage isn’t working anymore. The sex is only once a year, I don’t get along with your mother, and well… I’ve been having an affair with NBC.”

Since MacFarlane’s tweet was dated August 1st – a Sunday, when Tucker is not on the air – one assumes that the reference is to Tucker’s last show of the previous week. In which Tucker focused on the fact – say again the fact – that people who have gotten vaccinated have later gotten Covid. Again, that is fact.

Recall that when the vaccine first appeared, Americans were assured that they would not get Covid if they got vaccinated. To refresh, here is a typical example of the point, this one that appeared in a Washington Post Op-Ed in a piece written by Dr. Leana Wen, a medical analyst for CNN. Dr. Wen was disturbed at the sight of a then-recent Biden address to Congress, in which the vaccinated Biden was masked, as were Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Harris and many Members of Congress.  Dr. Wen’s headline was this:

“With masks and distancing, Biden’s speech sent the wrong message about the power of our vaccines.”

She wrote:

“With his speech before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, President Biden missed his biggest opportunity to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

…If I didn’t know better, I would have thought this was six months ago, before Americans had access to safe, highly effective vaccines.

…Imagine if Wednesday’s joint session had required that all attendees be fully vaccinated. Those who were not vaccinated were not welcome. But those permitted in could walk into the room, take off their mask, sit next to one another, and listen to a presidential address — just as they did in 2019.

The science shows that could have been done. It would have sent an unequivocal message that vaccines are safe, effective and the key to ending the pandemic. Instead, the American people got a different message, one that could impede the nation’s vaccine progress at a time when we can least afford it.”

Got that, Seth? There was a prominent doctor, a CNN medical analyst no less, assuring one and all that the “unequivocal message” is “that vaccines are safe, effective and the key to ending the pandemic.”

Tucker Carlson’s sin was to point out what is now blatantly obvious. He pointed to a statement released that day by the CDC that admitted that, yes indeed, it was possible for vaccinated people to still catch Covid. Apparently, citing the CDC was too much for MacFarlane. Hence his hissy fit.

So the question? Since MacFarlane is so upset with Fox for airing the truth-telling Tucker Carlson – will he give back all that Fox money that was paid to him? After all, if he feels the network is so terrible and a dangerous blight on humanity, why keep all the millions Fox has paid him for The Family Guy?

In reality, what we have here is yet another whiny Hollywood-style lefty who can’t abide intellectual diversity and, unable to silence Tucker Carlson, he wants to pick up his toys and go home.

But not to worry. He’ll keep all those Fox millions.

To which the right response is: Bye Seth.

Give back the money, maybe?

Hubbard
/

Scientist On BBC: Trans Athletes Have Advantages Over Female Athletes

On Monday, professor Ross Tucker discussed transgender athletes on BBC airwaves and explained the permanent advantages transgender females (biological males) have over actual females.

“The rules state that the [trans] athlete has to reduce their testosterone level,” the BBC presenter said. “In your view, Ross, is that enough to allow a trans woman to compete in an event like weightlifting?”

“No, it’s not. That’s the short answer,” Tucker responded. “The problem is that there’s an asymmetry where, once testosterone has done its job, and viewers will know what that job is — it’s basically the development of male characteristics which we see so prominently during puberty and adolescence, so we’re talking muscle, bone, decreased body fat, increased heart and lung size — all of which adds up to strength and performance advantages.”

“Once those are laid down by testosterone’s effects you can’t undo them simply by lowering the testosterone level,” he continued. “And there are now ample studies that have demonstrated this. And so, therefore, the conclusion is that even the suppression of testosterone, as is required, leaves behind a considerable residual advantage that then means it’s unfair to cross into the woman’s sport category.”

According to a 2013 study, the effects of testosterone on the accrual of myonuclei is likely permanent. In the study, “Female mice were treated with testosterone propionate for 14 days, inducing a 66% increase in the number of myonuclei and a 77% increase in fibre cross-sectional area. Three weeks after removing the drug, fibre size was decreased to the same level as in sham-treated animals, but the number of nuclei remained elevated for at least 3 months (>10% of the mouse lifespan). At this time, when the myonuclei-rich muscles were exposed to overload-exercise for 6 days, the fibre cross-sectional area increased by 31% while control muscles did not grow significantly.”

Brendan Boyle
Brendan Boyle
/

Dem Congressman Introduces Bill to Block Trump from Becoming Speaker of the House

Democrats are still so afraid of Trump and his influence they are passing laws to banish him from positions he has no interest in. Pennsylvania democratic congressman Brendan Boyle has introduced the MEMBERS ACT which would end a current House of Representative’s loophole. If passed and signed into law, only elected members of the House of Representatives would be able to become the Speaker of the House.

Currently, the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a member of the House. Boyle’s panic comes after Republican lawmakers and commentators have merely mentioned the suggestion of Trump being appointed Speaker by Republican lawmakers if they regain power in the 2022 midterm elections.

“The Speaker of the US House is second in the United States presidential line of succession,” said Boyle. “That Donald Trump’s name would even be tossed around as a potential speaker in the people’s house, should serve as an alarm bell that our current requirements need to be amended in the name of protecting our nation and our democracy” added Boyle.

Although all Speakers in US history have been incumbent members of the house, technically a lawmaker can nominate whoever they want for the role of the top-ranking leader during roll call at the beginning of each session of Congress.

When interviewed by radio host Wayne Allyn Root last month, Trump said the idea was “so interesting.” In the weeks since, however, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the former president has “zero desire to be Speaker.”

1 2 3 58