Categories
bill Devil hell Hr 1 Intelwars mike lee Voting

Sen. Mike Lee says Dems’ new voting? expansion bill is ‘as if written in hell by the devil himself’

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is not a fan of Democrats’ so-named For the People Act of 2021, saying Wednesday that the legislation known as H.R.1 is “as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

What are the details?

Lee was asked about the federal voting expansion effort on “Fox & Friends,” where co-host Steve Doocy reminded the audience that the measure:

  • Implements mandatory automatic voter registration nationwide
  • Allows voters to substitute a photo ID with a ‘sworn written statement’
  • Expands mail-in voting
  • Restores voting rights for convicted felons, and
  • Encourages statehood for the District of Columbia

“What’s your biggest problem with the way the Democrats want to redo how we vote in America?” Doocy asked Lee.

“I think I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words ‘but,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the,'” the senator replied. “Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

The Republican from Utah explained, “This takes all sorts of decisions that the federal government really has no business making. It takes them away from the states, makes them right here in Washington, D.C., by Congress — apparently in an effort to ensure and institutional, revolutionary Democratic Party of sorts. One that can remain in power for many decades to come.

“It does this by taking away these decisions,” Lee continued. “Elections in America have always been conducted at the state and local level. They are completely flipping that principle on its head so that these things can now be micromanaged from Washington. That’s wrong. That’s really wrong. It’s bad policy.”

He added, “As much as anything else, it’s wildly unconstitutional.”

You may watch Lee’s interview in its entirety below. The discussion on H.R. 1 begins at around the 2:20 mark:


Fox and Friends 7am 3/10/21 | FOX BREAKING NEWS Mar 10, 2021

www.youtube.com

H.R. 1 already passed the House in a 220-210 vote last week, and is set to be taken up by the Senate where Democrats are also in control.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted at the beginning of the month, “Despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in Republican state legislatures. Make no mistake: They must be opposed by every American who cherishes our democracy. This Senate is working to pass the #ForThePeople Act to renew democracy and our elections.”

Share
Categories
bill Devil hell Hr 1 Intelwars mike lee Voting

Sen. Mike Lee says Dems’ new voting? expansion bill is ‘as if written in hell by the devil himself’

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is not a fan of Democrats’ so-named For the People Act of 2021, saying Wednesday that the legislation known as H.R.1 is “as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

What are the details?

Lee was asked about the federal voting expansion effort on “Fox & Friends,” where co-host Steve Doocy reminded the audience that the measure:

  • Implements mandatory automatic voter registration nationwide
  • Allows voters to substitute a photo ID with a ‘sworn written statement’
  • Expands mail-in voting
  • Restores voting rights for convicted felons, and
  • Encourages statehood for the District of Columbia

“What’s your biggest problem with the way the Democrats want to redo how we vote in America?” Doocy asked Lee.

“I think I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words ‘but,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the,'” the senator replied. “Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

The Republican from Utah explained, “This takes all sorts of decisions that the federal government really has no business making. It takes them away from the states, makes them right here in Washington, D.C., by Congress — apparently in an effort to ensure and institutional, revolutionary Democratic Party of sorts. One that can remain in power for many decades to come.

“It does this by taking away these decisions,” Lee continued. “Elections in America have always been conducted at the state and local level. They are completely flipping that principle on its head so that these things can now be micromanaged from Washington. That’s wrong. That’s really wrong. It’s bad policy.”

He added, “As much as anything else, it’s wildly unconstitutional.”

You may watch Lee’s interview in its entirety below. The discussion on H.R. 1 begins at around the 2:20 mark:


Fox and Friends 7am 3/10/21 | FOX BREAKING NEWS Mar 10, 2021

www.youtube.com

H.R. 1 already passed the House in a 220-210 vote last week, and is set to be taken up by the Senate where Democrats are also in control.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted at the beginning of the month, “Despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in Republican state legislatures. Make no mistake: They must be opposed by every American who cherishes our democracy. This Senate is working to pass the #ForThePeople Act to renew democracy and our elections.”

Share
Categories
gun control guns Intelwars Joe Biden Merrick Garland mike lee Second Amendment

Merrick Garland admits his DOJ would ‘advance’ Joe Biden’s gun control agenda: ‘Entitled to pursue’

Merrick Garland, the nominee for attorney general, admitted Monday that the Department of Justice would most likely enforce President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda.

What did Garland say?

Garland revealed his philosophy toward the Second Amendment during questioning from Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R).

Lee asked, “Do you support banning of certain types of firearms?”

“Well, as I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all his professional life on this question,” Garland responded.

“The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law,” he continued. “Where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

Garland, however, conceded the Supreme Court has given “a little indication” about the extent of the Second Amendment, a reference to
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, two landmark Supreme Court cases affirming the fundamental nature of Second Amendment rights.

Garland later said his view is “totally controlled” by those Supreme Court precedents.


Senate holds Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing

youtu.be

What about Biden’s gun goals?

Biden has made gun control a central concern of his political agenda, both throughout his presidential campaign and since taking office last month.

Biden’s aggressive gun control agenda includes, among other promises:

  • Banning the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” which Biden calls “weapons of war”
  • Restricting Americans to one firearm purchase per month
  • Ending online firearm and ammunition sale
  • Putting “America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns”
  • Requiring “gun owners to safely store their weapons”

While the constitutionality of assault weapons bans have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court — the high court rejected hearing 10 gun-related cases last year, which included cases involving assault weapons bans — the court has already ruled on at-home safety restrictions.

While many states require gun owners to keep firearms out of access for minors, there is no federal law mandating the safe storage of firearms.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that a portion of D.C.’s firearm regulations that required all firearms in a home be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” was unconstitutional.

Still, the Supreme Court has affirmed that some restrictions on the Second Amendment are not unreasonable, and therefore permissible. Where the proverbial line in the sand exists, though, has not been made clear, and will likely be established in due time.

Anything else?

The White House confirmed last week that Biden may use executive action to enact his gun control agenda.

Biden earlier used the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, tragedy to push for gun control.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden said on Feb. 14.

Share
Categories
IMPEACHMENT Intelwars mike lee Mitt Romney Utah gop Votes

Utah GOP issues statement supporting both Romney and Lee after differing impeachment votes

The Utah Republican Party has issued a statement in support of GOP Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee from the state, despite their differing votes over whether former President Donald Trump should have been convicted in his second impeachment trial.

What are the details?

Over the weekend, the split Senate voted 57-43 in favor of convicting the former president on one charge of inciting an insurrection over his actions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, but acquitted Trump after falling short of the 67 votes that was needed to secure a conviction.

Seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of conviction, leading some state GOP organizations to issue condemnations against members who bucked the party by voting to find Trump guilty.

Romney — a longtime Trump critic and former Republican presidential nominee was one of the members who voted to convict the former president, while Lee determined that “acquittal was the only option [he] could deem consistent with the law, the facts, and the Constitution.”

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that following the vote, a petition was circulated online among Utah Republicans calling for Romney to be censured for his vote. It reportedly “concludes Romney used his ‘senatorial power and influence to undermine’ Trump and claims ‘Romney appears to be an agent for the Establishment Deep State.'”

But in a statement on Monday, the state GOP came to the defense of Romney and Lee, saying that “our senators have both been criticized for the vote.”

What did the state GOP say?

The state party began by quoting the late President Ronald Reagan’s declaration that within the GOP’s “tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method … [but] unity of thought does not require unanimity of thought.”

The Utah GOP wrote:

The violence at the US Capitol on January 6 was horrific and inexcusable. Utah’s United States Senators each experienced those events firsthand, and then relived them during the Democratic House Managers’ relentless video-driven impeachment presentation. In the end, each of our senators voted differently.

Our senators have both been criticized for their vote. The differences between our own Utah Republicans showcase a diversity of thought, in contrast to the danger of a party fixated on ‘unanimity of thought.’ There is power in our differences as a political party, and we look forward to each senator explaining their votes to the people of Utah.”

Share
Categories
Big tech hearing Facebook Intelwars mike lee Senate Judiciary Committee Social media censorship Twitter

Mike Lee demands apology from Sen. Dianne Feinstein for implying Trump tweets inspire violence

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Wednesday called on his colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to recant a statement implying President Donald Trump’s tweets incite violence and apologize.

Feinstein’s remarks were made Tuesday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter. During her time to speak, Feinstein raised concerns about Trump’s claims that he won the election, asking if Twitter’s warning label on Trump’s tweets “do enough to prevent the tweet’s harms.” She also referred to the Nov. 5 arrest of two armed men by Philadelphia police near the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where ballots were being counted.

“I’m really struck by it, that people armed with assault weapons as a product of a tweet could rally outside an election office,” Feinstein said. “And I think it’s really a serious issue that needs to be considered and there need to be, once you signal that and people respond to it, it has to be in some way abated or some way pointed out or restructured on the internet itself.”

At the hearing, Lee responded to Feinstein, pointing out that “the only violence I’m aware of has occurred in connection with Antifa, Antifa’s response to pro-Trump peaceful rally attenders.”

Appearing on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Wednesday, Lee called on Feinstein to recant her remarks.

“You had Washington, D.C., full to overflowing with peaceful Trump protesters, people protesting or signaling their support for President Trump and showing gratitude for them. Not one act of violence was attributed to them,” Lee said. “Meanwhile, you had people shooting industrial strength fireworks into places where they were eating. You had people approaching and beating up and saying vile things and putting people in physical danger, including elderly people, including women and children. All of this was done by Trump-haters, by Antifa people who couldn’t handle the fact that there were people peacefully showing their support for President Trump.”

“So I don’t know what my colleague Sen. Feinstein is talking about, but I thought that was an inappropriate comment,” he continued. “Not one act of violence has been linked to President Trump in connection with events surrounding this election and I think she needs to recant her statement and apologize.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey faced questions from lawmakers Tuesday on censorship of social media posts challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election and suppression of conservatives and Trump supporters leading up to the election. Republicans generally demanded answers on whether social media companies were publishers or platforms and how they should be regulated while Democrats raised concerns about the spread of misinformation on social media and wanted to know what Facebook and Twitter were doing to stop President Trump from tweeting statements they say are inaccurate or false.

After the hearing concluded, Lee told Fox News that Congress is headed for “a major overhaul” of the legal protections social media companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act.

“No matter what, they’re now headed for a major overhaul of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act. It is going to subject them perhaps to some liability, there could be other changes that take them outside of the 230 protection if they don’t stop providing misinformation, if they don’t stop lying to their own customers,” Lee said.

Lee added that Facebook and Twitter could be “subject to aggressive action by Federal Trade Commission” under current law “because they’ve engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practice.”

“Yesterday they made very clear that they’ve lied to their own customers, they’ve lied to the American people, they’ve coordinated with other people on the left in order to punish the right and make sure that the left wins. This isn’t fair, especially when they speak in terms that make them sound like they’re some sort of state-sponsored media. They’re speaking with an air of officialdom in this and that’s not right, the American people aren’t going to stand for it.”

Share
Categories
Big tech Facebook Intelwars mike lee Senate Judiciary Committee Social media censorship Twitter

Sen. Mike Lee: Facebook and Twitter are guilty of ‘deceptive trade practice’ and could face consequences

Ahead of Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Big Tech censorship and the 2020 election, committee member Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said “big social media platforms” are guilty of “deceptive trade practice” and need to be held to account.

Speaking on Fox News, Lee criticized Facebook and Twitter for promising their customers a platform to freely express themselves and engage with other users without political bias and delivering a service that unfairly punishes conservative viewpoints.

“The more we uncover about how they’re operating their businesses, the more we can see that these big social media platforms are in fact offering one service and providing another,” Lee said. “In other words, they’re claiming that they’re politically unbiased, that they’re not putting their thumb on the scale between one side of the political spectrum and the other. And so they lure their customers in thinking that they’re going to have an unbiased experience.”

“In practice, this is not how it works,” he continued. “In practice, what they’re doing is steadily putting their thumb on the left side of the scale. That’s a problem. That’s a deceptive trade practice and they need to be held accountable for that.”

Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter respectively, were again summoned to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday on censorship and their disinformation policy enforcement against users posting complaints of voter fraud and other information challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In recent weeks, Twitter has put a warning label on any tweet sharing claims about election results that differ from official race calls. Facebook caused outrage among conservatives after the pro-Trump group “Stop the Steal” was removed after gathering over 360,000 followers.

“You don’t see the same type of action occurring on the left,” Lee said. He acknowledged that social media companies are also criticized from the left but drew a distinction, saying that Republicans complain of censorship while those on the left want more of it.

“The people who are actually getting censored, with some rare and less visible exceptions, are overwhelmingly Republican, conservative, pro-life individuals and organizations. You don’t see that happening on the left,” Lee said.

He warned that Facebook and Twitter could face legal consequences under current law if they don’t change their practices.

“I want them to offer the service that they claim they’re going to be offering to their customers. When their customers get on one of these platforms they expect to get both sides, they expect that both sides will be treated fairly, and that’s not what’s happening,” Lee explained. “That’s a deceptive trade practice, and that’s putting them potentially squarely in the crosshairs of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.”

“They don’t want to be there and they shouldn’t be there,” he said.

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett ed markey Election 2020 Intelwars mike lee Supreme Court us senate

Mike Lee, furious, calls on fellow senator to take back the ‘worst’ thing any Democrat has said about Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) lambasted one of his Democratic colleagues Tuesday for calling the originalist judicial philosophy racist, sexist and homophobic.

Ahead of the Senate vote confirming Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court Monday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) bashed Barrett’s originalist judicial philosophy on Twitter, accusing originalism of being “just a fancy word for discrimination.”

Markey, who is up for reelection this year, also demanded that the Senate abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.

Lee, in an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” said Markey’s comments were “patently irresponsible” in a rare show of anger.

“Of all the irresponsible and inflammatory statements I’ve heard over the last few weeks, and I’ve heard some doozies, this might well be the worst,” Lee said.

“If you think about what he is really saying there, Senator Markey has essentially said that our Constitution is racist. And an effort to understand it, understand its words at the time they were written, is itself racist and bigoted. I can’t think of a statement that has a greater tendency to undermine the foundation of our constitutional republic. I hope, expect, and demand that Sen. Markey retract his statement. It’s irresponsible; he can’t defend that,” Lee said.

Watch:

Earlier in the interview, Lee said he attended the swearing-in ceremony for Justice Barrett.

“It was a fantastic moment,” Lee said, praising President Trump for nominating her.

“This was the SCOTUS trifecta that he managed to pull off, in his first term alone having put three justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. That doesn’t happen very often, and I’m glad it did, and I think he might well have saved the best for last, Justice Barrett is going to be terrific.”

Going on to explain why he supports Barrett’s originalist philosophy, Lee said the reason she is “making the heads of Democrats explode everywhere” is because “they don’t want the courts to be limited to judging institutions. They want them to be institutions of social change, of social policy, they want them to take debatable matters beyond debate.

“They want something much bigger, much grander than what the Constitution actually allows. Justice Barrett sees the elegant simplicity of the fact that you want judges to interpret the law based on what it says,” he continued.

Responding to Democratic calls to pack the Supreme Court, Lee said such an effort is “threatening serious damage to the judicial independence of the Supreme Court.”

Share
Categories
affordable care act Amy coney barrett chuck grassley Election 2020 Intelwars mike lee Patrick Leahy roe v wade Senate confirmation Senate Judiciary Committee

Amy Coney Barrett invokes Ginsburg rule, refuses to answer questions on specific court cases

Judge Amy Coney Barrett followed in the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s footsteps Tuesday during the second round of her confirmation hearings, refusing to answer questions from senators about how she would rule on particular cases that may come before the Supreme Court.

Barrett faced questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats on abortion and Roe v. Wade, pending court cases on the Affordable Care Act, and hypothetical scenarios about the election being resolved by the Supreme Court. In each answer, Barrett reiterated her position that it would be inappropriate to give her opinion about a specific case, citing Justices Ginsburg and Elena Kagan who gave similar answers during their confirmation hearings.

In one exchange with committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Roe v. Wade, Barrett said that expressing her personal opinion on that landmark abortion rights case would tell potential litigants “that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”

“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided?” Feinstein asked.

“Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can,” Barrett answered. “I think on that question, you know, I’m going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent, or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. And I think that in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated … it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.”

“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” Barrett explained.

Barrett’s answer is modeled after the so-called “Ginsburg rule,” which was a standard established in the 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ginsburg by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). Biden asked that senators refrain from asking questions about “how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her.” His rule established that Ginsburg had no obligation to answer questions about cases that might come before the Supreme Court or her personal views on court precedent.

As Ginsburg herself explained during her hearing, “a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Barrett if she agreed with Ginsburg’s standard.

“Yes, I agree the Ginsburg rule reinforces judicial independence,” Barrett replied.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also cited the Ginsburg rule during his time to speak, responding to one of his Democratic colleagues who accused Barrett of using a “political talking point” by invoking Ginsburg and Kagan’s precedential refusal to answer questions on specific cases.

“To the extent that that’s what any colleague has suggested, I’d remind that colleague that’s just wildly incorrect,” Lee said.

Barrett also repeatedly made clear that she has not made any promises or commitments to either the executive branch or the legislative branch about how she would rule on specific cases as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Barrett on the Affordable Care Act and a hypothetical election dispute, inquiring as to whether Barrett would recuse herself if the election did come before the court.


WATCH: Sen. Patrick Leahy questions Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett

youtu.be

“Sen. Leahy, I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA and with any election dispute that may or may not arise,” Barrett said. “I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule.”

“I also think it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result,” she added.

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett Intelwars mike lee Ron Johnson Senate confirmation Supreme court nomination Thom tillis Tom Cotton us senate

GOP senators vow COVID won’t stop them from confirming Amy Coney Barrett: ‘I’ll go in a moon suit’

Amid speculation that positive coronavirus tests will interrupt Republican efforts to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, GOP senators are signaling they will do whatever it takes to ensure that President Donald Trump’s nominee receives a floor vote.

One senator who tested positive for COVID-19 even vowed to show up in “a moon suit” to vote if need be.

It was Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who made the astronomic promise in a radio interview Monday, the Daily Caller reported. Johnson tested positive for coronavirus Friday, but has so far not presented any symptoms. Speaking to KHOW-AM, Johnson said he feels “perfectly fine” and vowed to be present for a confirmation vote on Barrett’s nomination.

“If we have to go in and vote, I’ve already told leadership I’ll go in a moon suit,” Johnson said.

Johnson is one of three Republican senators who announced positive coronavirus tests in a 24-hour-span over the weekend. The first was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who attended the White House ceremony announcing Judge Barrett as Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader GInsburg. Lee sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct confirmation hearings for Barrett. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, was the third Republican to test positive for the virus over the weekend. He and Lee have each reported mild symptoms.

In response to the positive tests, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called for the immediate postponement of Barrett’s confirmation hearings.

“We now have two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who have tested positive for COVID, and there may be more,” Schumer tweeted. “I wish my colleagues well. It is irresponsible and dangerous to move forward with a hearing, and there is absolutely no good reason to do so.”

GOP Leader McConnell over the weekend announced a temporary halt to Senate activity, but said Barret’s confirmation hearing will move forward on Oct. 12.

Some have speculated that positive coronavirus tests may prevent Republicans from confirming Barrett to the court before Election Day.

“McConnell can only afford to lose three Republican senators’ votes and still push through a Supreme Court nominee, and he can’t risk exposing his members over the next several weeks to an unpredictable and relentless virus,” Lauren Fox wrote for CNN.

Fox pointed out that “both Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have already said they won’t back any GOP nominee ahead of Election Day. We are still weeks away from a floor vote, but that leaves little room for McConnell to find the votes if members of his conference contract or remain sick with Covid-19.”

She also noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee, composed of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats, needs a quorum to begin confirmation hearing proceedings. “In order to have a quorum, Graham needs at least one of the two — Lee or Tillis — to be back. The fear is that if both were out, Democrats could boycott and keep Graham from having a quorum,” Fox said.

Republican senators say they are intent on being present for votes.

In a statement, Sen. Lee announced he would self-isolate for 10 days and said he has assured GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that he “will be back to work in time to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also spoke to this issue over the weekend. Cotton does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, but he did express confidence every senator who needs to be present will vote, going as far to say in an interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo they will be “wheeled in” to the floor.

“Several of the senators who are in isolation right now would come out of isolation before those hearings begin. But the Senate Judiciary Committee has also conducted 20 hearings this year, that have either been in part or in whole virtual,” Cotton said. “Many Senate Democrats are now saying we couldn’t possibly do a virtual hearing or demanding throughout this year, going back to March, that all committees be conducted over Zoom or Webex or some other virtual hearing.”

“So the hearing is going to go forward, no doubt in my mind starting a week from tomorrow, Maria, and then on the Senate floor later this month,” Cotton continued. “First off, I think every senator who currently tested positive or is in isolation will be back to work under normal conditions, as other senators have been as well, like Rand Paul or Tim Kane. But if that’s not the case, Maria, there is a long and venerable tradition of ill or medically infirmed senators being wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor.”

Cotton cited the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) famously voting from a wheel chair in 2009, using hand signals to indicate “aye” or “nay.” Other United States senators in history have appeared to vote in the Senate despite medical conditions, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who each appeared for votes after undergoing surgery for brain cancer. In 1964, Democratic Sen. Clair Engle broke a filibuster in the Senate and voted for the Civil Rights Act while suffering from a brain tumor and unable to speak. He pointed to his eye to signal his “aye” vote.

“I’m confident that every senator will be in attendance when his or her vote is needed,” Cotton said.

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett Barbara lagoa Intelwars mike lee Scotus pick supreme court nominee

WATCH: Sen. Mike Lee reveals his preference for Supreme Court nominee

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to talk about why he believes President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider and vote on the nominee, also weighed in on another Supreme Court contender: Judge Barbara Lagoa. Lee said he would not be comfortable confirming Lagoa without learning more about her history as it pertains to upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Federal troops George floyd riots Intelwars Lindsey Graham mike lee Muriel bowser National Guard Washington D.C.

DC mayor to President Trump: Federal troops are ‘inflaming demonstrators’ and I want them out

The Democratic mayor of Washington, D.C., penned a letter to President Donald Trump requesting that he “withdraw all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence” from the city.

Muriel Bowser added in her letter, dated Thursday, that since the city’s curfew and state of emergency are over — and protesters have been “peaceful,” and the city is “well equipped to handle large demonstrations and First Amendment activities” — the troops are no longer needed.

‘Inflaming demonstrators’

Bowser also said she’s “concerned that unidentified federal personnel patrolling the streets … pose both safety and national security risks” — and that they’re “inflaming demonstrators and adding to the grievances of those who, by and large, are peacefully protesting for change and for reforms to the racist and broken systems that are killing black Americans.”

She also said when federal personnel mix with city police, it “can breed dangerous confusion such as when helicopters are used in a war-like tactic to frighten and disperse peaceful protesters.”

Kicking out the National Guard from hotels?

In addition, there have been rumblings that Bowser was canceling hotel accommodations for members of the Utah National Guard, which set off Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham:

Graham, of South Carolina, added in subsequent tweets that “I will do everything possible to push back against this outrage against the men and women of our National Guard. They left their homes and businesses in Utah to protect homes and businesses in our nation’s Capital. The Mayor of D.C. should thank them — not evict them!”

He also said, “Federal taxpayer dollars come from all 50 states to help D.C. Why should we continue to provide federal funding to an entity who refuses to allow lawfully assembled National Guardsmen a place to sleep?”

Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was similarly outraged, noting that “more than 1,200 troops from 10 states are being evicted. This is unacceptable.”

How did Bowser respond?

Bowser answered Lee in a tweet of her own:

“Senator — until they are recalled home — which I have formally requested from the President, your troops are in D.C. hotels,” she wrote. “However, D.C. residents cannot pay their hotel bills. The Army can clear that up with the hotel today, and we are willing to help.”

‘Keep in mind that that’s the people’s house’

Bowser on Thursday criticized the placement of additional fencing and barriers around the White House amid protesting and rioting, saying “keep in mind that that’s the people’s house.”

“It’s a sad commentary that the house and its inhabitants have to be walled off,” she added. “I think that’s a sad commentary. We should want the White House opened up for people to be able to access it from all sides.”

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Chuck Schumer Constitution Constitutional rights DOJ Intelwars Justice Department Justin Amash mike lee National Emergency

‘OVER MY DEAD BODY’: DOJ’s request for new ’emergency powers’ over coronavirus met with swift condemnation

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for new “emergency powers” amid the coronavirus outbreak, including the power to ask chief judges to indefinitely detain people without trial.

The DOJ has proposed numerous emergency measures, according to Politico, which obtained and reviewed documents the DOJ sent to lawmakers.

From Politico:

In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

As Politico noted, the proposal — which would essentially permit indefinite detention — would likely violate a person’s right to appear before a judge and seek release after being arrested, a constitutional right known as habeas corpus.

Specifically, the Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

According to Politico, the DOJ is also asking to “pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies” as well as “expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent.”

The reported proposals were met with swift bipartisan condemnation.

“OVER MY DEAD BODY,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded. “If this is a joke, it’s not funny. If it’s not a joke, we’ve got much bigger problems. @realDonaldTrump, please refute and disavow this immediately.”

“Two Words: Hell No,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded.

“Congress must loudly reply NO,” Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) responded.

Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the power grab “abhorrent.”

“There’s a long history in this country and in other countries of using emergencies as times to really start to encroach upon people’s civil rights. And in fact, this is a time when we need them the absolute most,” she said on CNN Sunday. “It does not matter how urgent times are. We have to make sure that we retain our civil rights. And there’s no reason for us to be waiving folks’ civil rights in an emergency.”

Share