separation of powers

The separation of powers and its role in protecting individual liberty and the rule of law can sound pretty abstract. I confess it seemed that way to me in my high-school civics class. I came to appreciate the genius of the Founders’ design more fully only years later, when as a judge I saw what happens to real people in real cases when the separation of powers goes unattended. It’s one thing to study the theory of the separation of powers. For me, it was another thing to witness how its disregard affects the lives of real people in real cases. Neil Gorsuch’s book A Republic, If You Can Keep It, will be published this month.

In a statement released through the Conservative Action Project 109 leaders of the conservative movement demanded that the Senate promptly confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh so the Supreme Court will have a full complement of nine sitting justices when the next term of the Court begins on October 1, 2018.

In the near term, months of televised Anti-Catholic bias from Democrats as they try to block the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh could solidify the Catholic voting trend demonstrated in the 2016 election, giving Republicans a huge advantage in the 2018 midterm and 2020 presidential elections.

While liberals are going nuts making Judge Brett Kavanaugh out to be a rightwing ideologue, his record tells a different story of a judge committed to applying the law and the Constitution as written. That may be a radical idea to liberals and Democrats, but it is the view that held sway in our judiciary for almost 150 years.

The nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice may be the most important decision of the Trump presidency and will define President Trump’s legacy for generations to come. We urge President Trump to choose a nominee who will be not just good, but great in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the potential nominee who most fits that profile is Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Scalia was noted for upholding the rule of law, respecting the proper role of the judiciary, and acknowledging the separation of powers. Unlike Justice Souter, he was never sidetracked by trying to appease or please his progressive colleagues in their pursuit of political correctness over the constitutional rule of law.

The majority of the Supreme Court rejected the claim that Trump's Executive Order illegally discriminated against Muslims, concurring with Chief Justice John Roberts that, “The sole prerequisite set forth in federal law is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here.”

Deputy Attorney General  Rod Rosenstein's government within the government has now crossed a line that is unacceptable. Rep. Mark Meadows has drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. We urge CHQ readers to call Rep. Meadows, the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044) urge him to file the articles of impeachment against Rosenstein immediately.

This isn’t about protecting the integrity of an investigation that long-ago jumped the rails of its original charge to investigate the non-existent collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It is merely a Democratic campaign tactic to send a message that the Senate is willing to stand up to President Trump.

The reasoning in Myers v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in 1926, applies to the President’s ability to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller if he so chooses. Congressional attempts to “protect” Mueller from the President’s clear constitutional authority are intentional efforts to precipitate a constitutional crisis for the benefit of those who think impeaching President Trump will benefit them politically.

Our friend Michael Patrick Leahy has shown that there’s more than willful blindness behind the bizarre rulings against President Trump's Executive Orders on travel from terrorism hotspots. There’s a potential conspiracy involving Democrat holdovers at the Department of Homeland Security, Muslim sympathizers in the media and the shadowy “immigrant rights” groups and Democratic state Attorneys General that have brought the lawsuits to overturn the President’s Executive Order.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s Due Process Clause to require judges to act impartially and with the appearance of impartiality. The conduct of Judge Chuang raises serious questions about his impartiality. We urge Congress to hold hearings on Judge Chuang's impeachment at its earliest opportunity.

Mark Skoda and the patriots of the America First Federation have it exactly right. We urge the House of Representatives to immediately prepare articles of impeachment against Judges Robart, Watson and Chuang and to hold hearings at the earliest possible hour.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald, many of the most liberal lower federal courts have flaunted Heller and the clear language of the Constitution and have been making up their own anti-constitutional rules restricting the Second Amendment.

“We will urge our Representatives [in the United States House of Representatives] to impeach, and for the Senate to try, convict, and remove [Federal District] Judge James Robart in Washington and [Federal District] Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia,” The Spirit of America Rally organizer Mark Skoda told our friends at the TennesseeStar.com.

The need for “extreme vetting” of supposed “refugees” from failed states and terrorist hotspots is demonstrated almost daily in the media, should Judges like Leonie Brinkema and James L. Robart choose to take judicial notice of such news reports. A particularly frightening example was recently revealed during the trial in Sweden of an asylum-seeking war criminal.

If terrorism, as proven in the same court house where Judge Brinkema sits on the bench, isn’t a “rational basis” for President Trump’s Executive Order 13,769 then what, in the Judge’s eyes, would justify pausing immigration from a country known to harbor people hostile to the United States? The answer, of course, is that it is not Judge Brinkema’s role in our federal republic to make such decisions, it is the President’s constitutional prerogative to do so.

We urge CHQ readers to join us in demanding that Representative Robert Goodlatte (VA-6) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee immediately holding hearings on the impeachment of Judge James L. Robart by signing our Impeach Power Grabbing Judges Petition.

The Left was very strategic in filing the challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order and its strategy is unfolding precisely as planned as Far-Left progressive judges in the Ninth Circuit substitute their liberal policies for the plain language of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

We urge Attorney General Sessions to bench Department of Justice attorneys with August Flentje’s civil servant mentality and replace them with experienced conservative litigators who will fight for President Trump's agenda.