I believe Progressive liberals have been running a strategy that involves getting activist judges to violate the law in order to push their Progressive agenda. The only thing that would happen to these judges is their rulings would be overturned. However, they already know they will be overturned, that’s the whole point. Because, in the meantime, while the process makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, lots of time goes by and their agenda gets implemented during that time span. By the time the Supreme Court knocks it down the damage is already done.
Why else would multiple Obama and Clinton appointed judges make rulings against President Trump on issues where the president clearly has Constitutional authority? There is no other reason than to implement an agenda, be it the Progressive agenda overall, or they are acting in part with the ‘Resistance’ movement to destroy our Constitutional system and harm the Trump agenda.
For example, President Trump implemented a temporary travel ban on countries that the Obama administration deemed as terror threats. His ban was to be implemented until the FBI could guarantee that people coming into the country could be properly vetted for terrorist ties and/or activities.
We all remember when various liberal courts shot down President Trump’s travel ban because they really really really did not like him. There is no other reason that makes sense, because the United States has done plenty of travel bans throughout our history for many different reasons. In fact, the United States has done travel bans specifically against Muslims in the past, so there was nothing new or outrageous in Trump’s attempt to bring a sense of sanity to our national security with respect to ISIS telling us they were going to infiltrate the Syrian refugees coming in. People forget that’s the reason why Trump implemented his travel ban in the first place, and context is everything.
Judges in states are now doing the same thing. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday completely renumbered every district in the state, knocking a Democrat and a Republican out of the seat they are both running for in the special election race only a few weeks away.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a new congressional district map that many believe violates the state Constitution as well as the U.S Constitution.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives the states primary authority to regulate federal elections, including congressional redistricting.
Pennsylvania House and Senate districts are referred to as state legislative districts.
Article II, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates that districts be drawn by a five-member commission. Four of these are the majority and minority leaders of the PA House and Senate. These four then select a fifth member to serve as the commission chair. If the four cannot agree, then the PA Supreme Court appoints a chair.
In Pennsylvania congressional redistricting is done through the regular legislative process: a bill defining the district boundaries is passed by both the PA House and Senate and signed by the governor.
Pennsylvania law doesn’t mandate how congressional districts should be redrawn or what criteria should be applied. Instead, the majority party can draw maps any way it pleases, and, depending on which party has the governor’s office usually ends up with exclusive control. That is, if the state House and state Senate pass a bill and send it to the governor, otherwise the current district maps remain.
This way of redistricting was perfectly fine for Democrats when they were the last majority party that drew the maps, and they now wish to violate the law when Republicans are the majority party. Since they cannot legislatively win at this point in time they have resorted to getting the courts to do their dirty work for them, a court that is five Democrats to two Republicans.
The new map is out only weeks after the state high court ruled that the map drawn in 2011 by Republicans was an unacceptable partisan gerrymander. There is nothing in either the U.S. Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution that allows a court to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable or even partisan with respect to redistricting. The very nature of the PA Constitution’s wording of the powers of the majority party over redistricting is what makes it partisan. In this case partisanship is the spoils of elections. It seems that Democrats cry when they can’t win majorities and so, like their national brethren, they resort to hit jobs by liberals on the bench.
The court also allowed for a revised nomination petition calendar for candidates running for U.S. House, moving the nominating period to end March 20, keeping the primary election on schedule for May 15.
The state Supreme Court did this to help Democrats in the state running for office. Why else would they violate the state’s Constitution?
The new map gives the Democrats a nice chance to win at least 8 to 10 of the newly redrawn seats, a nice leap from the current disadvantage of holding only 5 of the 18 seats,” said Mike Mikus a Democratic strategist based in Western Pennsylvania.
The map unfairly takes away the Republican’s Constitutional elected advantage by implementing a system that unfairly helps the Democrats, who are not the majority party.
“This new map, as long as it withstands the legal challenge, is certainly good news for the Democrats. I see no reason under this map that Democrats can’t pick up three to five seats,” said Mikus.
We have to get a handle on this, because it can be demonstrated that these judges have overstepped their bounds. I believe they did it to intentionally help politicians of their own party take over the U.S. Congress. It’s unfair and the U.S. Supreme will more than likely overturn it.
Republicans in the state House have vowed to challenge what the state court did in the U.S. Supreme Court, but what if the high Court doesn’t hear the case until after the mid-term elections? What then?
Don’t think that this will only happen in Pennsylvania. If the Democrats are successful violating the state Constitution this way in Pennsylvania they will surely continue until all 50 states have been overturned by activist courts to get what they couldn’t get legally.
SOURCE: Washington Examiner