John Kennedy: Democrats Will Accuse Barrett Of ‘Drowning Little Newborn Puppies’ Before It’s Over

 “It’s only in Monday,” Kennedy quipped. “So far, Judge Barrett has been called a religious bigot, a racist, an antifeminist, anti-public health. Her opponents haven’t gotten around yet to calling her an alien lizard person, but it’ll come. Before it’s over with, I’m afraid, that they will accuse her of drowning little newborn puppies.”

“That’s not what this is all about though, and I think almost all of my Democratic colleagues know that none of these things are true,” he continued. “This is what they’re upset about. Judge Barrett is a Constitutionalist, which means she’s a Madisonian, which means she believes in the separation of powers, which means she believes that federal judges are not politicians in robes, which means she believes that the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to be a mini Congress, which means that she believes that federal judges are not supposed to try to rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday to advance a political or social agenda that they can’t get by the voters, which means that she believes that the law is not supposed to be politics practiced a different way.”

A modest proposal

Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson has ruled that the Virginia law that requires abortions to be performed by doctors is invalid during the first trimester, opening the way for pretty much anybody to abort babies, giving those who once performed abortions with coat hangers in back allies an opportunity to resume their old trade.

Now that Judge Hudson’s superior wisdom has prevailed, I have a suggestion for the Virginia legislature: go out of business. It would save Virginia taxpayers a lot of money if we simply turned the lawmaking and rule-setting function over to the judiciary and eliminated the legislative middlemen. Being ruled by un-elected judges with the Solomon-style wisdom of Judge Henry E Hudson also removed the burden on the citizens to bother voting for the people to represent them. 

We can hardly wait for one of Judge Hudson's associates to rule that post-birth abortion is not only legal, but a judicial sacrament.

A win-win for everyone.

Is Trump right about judges' leanings? Maybe, review shows

That's the AP headline.  The real answer is YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY ARE!

TRUMP RESISTERS IN ROBES: THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S TRAVEL BAN DECISION

The Fourth Circuit’s decision can only be understand as part of the left’s resistance to President Trump.

No one should be surprised that the federal judiciary has enlisted in the resistance. It is, to borrow Trump’s rhetoric, a swamp.

The reputation of the judiciary is already sinking. If voters believe that it’s allowing voter fraud, it will sink much further.

Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law

Stealing elections courtesy of the Fourth Circuit.

Ruling in favor of voter fraud ... (if you know any of these people public shaming is acceptable)

Roger Gregory
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Paul V. Niemeyer
Diana Gribbon Motz
William Byrd Traxler Jr.
Robert Bruce King
Dennis Shedd
Allyson Kay Duncan
G. Steven Agee
Barbara Milano
James A. Wynn Jr.
Albert Diaz
Henry Franklin Floyd
Stephanie Thacker
Pamela Harris
James Dickson Phillips Jr.
Robert F. Chapman
Clyde H. Hamilton
Andre M. Davis

The Revolt of the Judges

Glenn Reynolds:

They are setting Trump up for a Jacksonian moment. And he knows it, too, as his wreath-laying signals. This will not end well.

Ace of Spades:

If judges aren't going to accept that Trump is actually the President and has all the powers they were more than willing to concede Obama had (way more than willing, actually), then why should Trump accept that the judges have the powers they believe they do?

Josh Blackmkan asks:

".. whether the judiciary has decided to treat Trump as if he's not really president. He says that judges who seem to be taking their cues as to how to read Trump's public statements (in the most uncharitable light possible, of course) are practicing a new judicial doctrine which might be called "MSNBC deference."

The Liberals in the judiciary appear to question Trump's legitimacy by questioning his motives rather than judging based on the law.  They view his as fundamentally different.  If they are right, they may not understand that Trump will not accept their legitimacy if they do not accept his.   trump is different; he's taken on the entire bipartisan Ruling Class and so far he's winning.  The judges may be creating their own nemesis.

Heroic Judge Peter Jaklevic Defends Justice System From Anarchy of Jurors Maybe Not Convicting Everybody

Here's the picture of the latter-day Caesar:

Mecosta County District Court Judge Peter Jaklevic is a former career prosecutor, like all righteous judges, and knows the purpose of jurors: to convict like they're told.

So when Keith Wood — a wild-eyed former pastor and current lawless anarchist — began distributing seditious incitement to destroy the judicial system, Judge Peter Jaklevic knew just what to do: arrest him.

A 39-year-old former pastor was arrested and jailed in Mecosta County after he handed out fliers informing people about jury nullification in front of the county courthouse.

Keith Wood said he was handing out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association on Nov. 24 while standing on the sidewalks along Elm Street.

The Fully Informed Jury Association, and idea-terrorists of its ilk, promote the dangerous notion that Americans selected for jurors have a right — even an obligation — not just to follow the orders of judges, but to exercise their conscience and judgment in evaluating the state's exercise of power over individuals. Such incendiary nonsense threatens the very premise of our justice system, which is that jurors will act as obedient foot soldiers in the government's glorious and righteous efforts like the Great War on Drugs.

Read the whole thing.