Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Everybody Hates the New Republican Replacement for ObamaCare; Thus, it Must Be Good Enough to Pass the House of Representatives Tomorrow

Everybody Hates the New Republican Health Care Plan; It Must Be Good The House of representatives is scheduled to vote on Phase I of the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. The assumption is that there would not be a vote unless the Speak of the House, the Majority leader, and the Whip knew they had the votes. Seemingly everyone is opposed to the Republican plan. Thus, it must be good. One of the jokes about a good compromise is that both sides are unhappy. This is a list of those lining up against The American Healthcare Act:” AARP The American Hospital Association Federation of American Hospitals America’s Essential Hospitals American Medical Association American Nurses Association National Nurses United American Academy of Family Physicians American College of Physicians American Public Health association National Physicians United Association of American Physicians and Surgeons National Disability Rights Association Families USA AFL-CIO AFSCME National Council of La Raza Club for Growth Freedom Works Heritage Action for America Americans for Prosperity The Koch Brothers Presumably every Democrat in Congress. The Freedom Caucus of conservative House Republicans. So much Sturm und Drang. The media is proclaiming the Republicans lack the votes in the House and that it would be DOA at the Senate. Maybe, but if the Republicans have a secret plan to pass the Bill as they really want. First, they should pass it by one vote in the House and send it to the Senate. The Senate in turn will may several amendments to the bill, substantially changing he House bill. It would then go to a conference committee, the differences will be ironed out, and the final bill will placate the conservatives. Conservative critics are correct. The House bill is not a total repeal. Nor can it be! ObamaCare is a disaster, unraveling before our eyes. It is sinking almost as fast as Sears. The republican Congress will never bail out Obamacare in its present form. Yet, they cannot let it die on their watch. They will be pilloried if they kill it without a satisfactory replacement. The American medical system was cracking eight years ago. ObamaCare broke it, shattering it into pieces. Repealing Obamacare without any replacement will not, and cannot, put the pieces back together again. Killing the entitlement of ObamaCare will destroy the Republican electorate in at least the short term. Several provisions of ObamaCare are basically untouchable: 1 Keeping children on parents’ policies through age 26; 2 Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause; and 3 Eliminating the cap on benefits. The pre-existing conditions coverage and the end of the cap are what drive up the cost of ObamaCare, which tried to cover these costs through a seemingly infinite number of taxes. It fails because it violates the basic economics principle of supply and demand. It radically increases demand, while freezing supply. Other constraints are not striping the Medicaid and ObamaCare recipients off the coverage rolls. Finally, repeal and replace lacks 60 votes in the Senate. Unless the Senate Republicans repeal the filibuster, they are constrained by the Senate rules of reconciliation. Hence, the dance of a partial repeal followed, theoretically, by two more rounds of legislation. The Republican bill lacks several cost savings measures, including malpractice and defensive medicine, driven by malpractice litigation. Nor does it offer insurance across state lines. The litigation reforms are actually in another measure going through Congress at this time. The proposal repeals most, but not all, of the ObamaCare tax increases. It delays, but does not end the Cadillac tax. It will turn Medicaid over to the states with block grants. It will result, with the help of Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, much of the mandated coverage which drives up the costs of medical care. The reviled, and often ignored, individual mandate will become history. I still think the mandate is unconstitutional, but Chief Justice Roberts went through judicial conniptions to uphold it. The house should pass it. One final thought. Ignore the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO was in bed with the Obama Administration, working with the Democrats to massage the costs and taxes to make it look like an economic winner. In essence, the CBO helped cook the books on ObamaCare. Repeal, amend, conference committee, and replace ObamaCare.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

President Trump Has Ignited Yet Another Media Storm, This Time Accusing President Obama of Wiretapping Him

Once again the media is in a tizzy over a “supposed outrageous claim” Saturday by President Trump- this time a tweet claim that President Obama may have ordered a wiretap of his campaign. He tweeted: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Most media reports are outraged that he made this claim without any proof. Denials reverberated among the media and network news. And yet, we need to remember the ringing lyrics of Buffalo Springfield: “There’s something happening here What it is ain’t exactly clear.” Here’s the problem. At least two of President Trump’s private phone conversations to the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of Mexico have been leaked, complete with transcripts. A separate phone call by General Flynn, while still a private citizen, to Russia Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, intercepted by the FBI in 2016, was leaked in February 2017, costing the general his position as the National Security Advisor to the President. The New York Times on January 10, 2017 reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Department of the Treasury had been monitoring Trump associates suspected of Russian ties. Wiretaps showed no connection between the Trump Campaign and the Russians. The Obama Administration last June petitioned the FISA Court for permission to wiretap the Trump and his advisors. It was rejected. They again petitioned in November, this time not naming Trump. It was granted. Denials of come from a variety of sources. Obama spokespersons are indignant, denying everything. Josh Ernest, outgoing Press Secretary of President Obama, said no President “has the authority to unilaterally order the wiretapping of an American citizen ….” You need the FISA Court to issue an order. Ben Rhodes, not a font of veracity in the Obama Administration, got the same talking point: “No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from persons like you (Trump).” Both are technically correct, but plain wrong. The statute provides: “The President through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order ….” If the Attorney General makes specific certifications. Ben Rhodes was instrumental in obtaining Congressional approval of the Iran Agreement. He afterwards said in a New York Times magazine article: “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns …. They literally know nothing.” The story he created for them, the lie, was that the change in Iranian regimes meant the U.S. was now dealing with the moderates who will be in a position to improve the lives of the Iranian people. The reporters swallow the spin, hook, line, and sinker. The agreement is approved and over $1 trillion in cash is sent to the mullahs to persue their military and terrorist ambitions. Kevin Lewis, another former Obama Spokesman two days ago said [N]either President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance of any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” In 2013 the Justice Department tapped the phone and emails of Fox News correspondent James Rosen in a leaks investigation. The Justice Department in seeking the warrant labeled Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” and called him a “flight risk.” They also got the records of his parents. Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the investigations. As was later discovered, the Attorney General had signed off on the Rosen File. His Justice Department also subpoenaed the records of 20 Associated Press reporters. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Irony, say of Trump: “You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge. It’s a tool of authoritarianism.” Embattled FBI Director James Comey Immediately called upon the Justice Department to repudiate the Trump Statement, yet another error in Judgment by the FBI Director. James Clapper, the former Director of National Security, who blatantly lied to Congress on March 12, 2013, said “There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate, or against his campaign.” He added he would have known if a FISA request to wiretap Donald Trump had been granted to the FBI, and none was. He said “Absolutely, I can deny it.” Of course, the tap does not have to be directed at President Trump, but at his associates, in which case he would be opportunistic “collateral damage” Senator Ron Wyden asked Clapper in 2013 “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Director Clapper responded: “No, sir. Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collapse, but not wittingly.” A history of misrepresentations, prevarications, and outright lying characterized the 8 years of the Obama Administration. President Obama July 21, 2015 denied on John Stewart’s Daily Show, the epitome of fake news, the IRS had discriminated against conservatives, especially the Tea Party, from 2010 through the 2012 Election. He blamed Congress for “passing a crummy law.” He earlier feigned “outrage” at the IRS’ actions. President Obama uttered yet another major misrepresentation on Augus8 8, 2013 on Jay Leno “We don’t have a domestic spying program.” The Snowden Wikileaks proved the contrary. Remember these phrases: “Shovel ready jobs” “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” “If you like your insurer, you can keep your insurer” Attorney General Lynch and her Justice Department petitioned the FISA Court in June 2016 for permission to tap Donald Trump’s phones, ostensibly because of a suspected link between the Trump Campaign and the alleged Russian interference in the election. The Court’s response was one of the few times it has denied a request. They returned in October, seeking permission to monitor a computer in Trump Tower. The allegation was that the sever was linked to a Russian bank. No evidence was found, but significantly the tap continued for “national security” reasons. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton lied to the American people on Benghazi. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling on Operation Fast and Furious by ATF. There’s enough here for a Watergate, but the publishers of the Washington Post, which made its bones on Watergate, and the New York Times are interested in bringing down President Trump rather than their hero, President Obama. “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

Friday, March 3, 2017

The Democrats Are Bereft of Ideas: The Faux Russian Connection - Now With Attorney General Sessions

President Trump campaigned with ideas. He has accomplished much in the first 40 days despite the Senate Democrats slow-walking his nominees. They hope to both find damming information about the nominees and to delay the initiation of President Trump’s program. He still has hundreds of appointments to be confirmed, including two cabinet appointments.. The Democrats are not offering positive proposals to the American people. Their only position is to stay the course with the failing ObamaCare. They asked Steve Beshear, the 72 year old former Governor of Kentucky, to deliver the Democrat’s response to President Trump’s Speech. His listless speech proved to the American people that the Democrats are out of ideas. Where are the adults in the Democratic Party? The Democrats and media act like they remain in the denial stage. They still cannot believe that their anointed one, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost to Donald Trump. Hillary was measuring the White House drapes. Senator Schumer was salivating about becoming the Senate Majority Leaders. Representative Nancy Pelosi expected to reclaim the Speaker’s gavel with the anticipated Clinton landslide. The Republicans were to be consigned to Trotsky’s ash heap of history. The Republicans swept the elections on November 8 from the local level to the Presidency. The Democrats still can’t figure it out, so they blame it on the Russian Connection, the Russian Link, the Russian Conspiracy. Their latest focus of attack is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who met twice with the Russian Ambassador last year. One meeting was a large public meeting and the other was in his office with two senior aides and perhaps a junior aide present. The argument is that then Senator Sessions committed perjury when he answered “No” to a question as to whether he had met with the Russians. The actual question was longwinded and ambiguous: Senator Franken: “CNN just released a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that ‘Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say ‘there ws a continuing exchange of information between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’ Again, I’m telling you this as it is coming out, so you know. But it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign, what will you do.?” Senator Sessions: “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I am unable to comment on it.” They had no problems when Secretary Clinton’s State Department approved the sale to Rosatum, a Russian company, of a Canadian company controlling 20% of the United States uranium supply. They were unconcerned that former President Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee and the Clinton Foundation at least $2.35 million from the Russians. They were quiet when President Clinton on March 26, 2012 in Seoul said to Russian President Medvedev “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” They had no complaints on March 6, 2009 when Secretary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a “Reset button” to symbolize a change in Russo-American relations. Symbolically, the reset button didn’t work. More significantly, the Russian word used did not translate to “reset” but “overloaded.” The Democrats were silent when Russia seized the Crimea. They remain quiescent as Russia sponsors and forments a rebellion in eastern Ukraine. And now they raise the Red Scare! Their Red Scare is highly selective. The Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak gets around. He was at President Trump’s presentation Tuesday before a Joint Session of Congress. Not only was he present, but he even sat with the Democrats. President Trump tweeted out a photo today of Senator Schumer eating a donut and drinking coffee with Vladimir Putin. President Trump suggested an investigation of Senator Schumer. Many did not understand President Trump’s ironic humor. His idea is no more preposterous than the attacks on Attorney General Sessions. Former Senator Barbara Boxer said that Senator Durban organized a group meeting of Senators to meet with the Russian ambassador. 30 Democratic Senators met with the Ambassador in 2015 to be briefed on the pending vote on President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Agreement. Three of the Senators reportedly changed from undecided to positive votes on the agreement. Senator Clare McCaskill and Representative Nancy Pelosi seem to suffer from early memory loss. Senator McCaskill said she never met with the Russian ambassador, but her tweets showed at least two meetings with the ambassador. Representative Pelosi also claimed to have never met him, but a photo has surfaced of the two of them at a table with Putin. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Attorney General should be above reproach. That maxim did not exist when Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton for 30 minutes on the tarmac at Phoenix Airport when his wife, running for President, was under investigation for her private email server. Senator Diane Feinstein said she once had lunch with the Russian Ambassador. Senator Joe Manchin also met with the Russian ambassador. The Democrats are engaged in the Big Lie with the “Russian Connection.” If you tell a monster lie often enough, it acquires credibility. The only reason these slanders have any credibility is that the mainstream media highlights them. No evidence has been uncovered to show the Russians changed one vote in the election. No evidence exists to show a link between the Trump Campaign and the Russians with respect to the election. Even President Obama said no link existed. As Gertrude Stein once said: “There is no there, there.” The Congressional Democrats are playing to their base, their shrinking base.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

President Trump Became President last Night

President Trump is not the great orator that President Obama is (not many all), but he nailed his speech to Congress last night. He was asked all throughout the campaign to elevate his speeches, to show Americans he could be Presidential President Trump soaredt last night. Even some of his staunchest critics on the left, such as Van Jones, said he became President last night. President Trump painted with words a vision of greatness and rebirth for America – a vision which the American people have been anxiously waiting for. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not deliver that message. It would not have been believable. The American people believe in American Exceptionalism. President Obama did not. He believed in the America of suppression, racism, sexism, homophobia. He believed the police are the domestic oppressors of the Black community and America’s military is the global oppressor. He believes fossil fuels are the source of global climate warming. President Trump believes in American Exceptionalism. He spoke to the people of American Exceptionalism. President Trump announced an end to the War on Police last night. President Trump announced an end to the War on Coal last night. President Trump announced his priority was employment, not the environment. The Democrats and mainstream media last night were expecting the snarky Trump, the insulting Trump, the vitriolic Trump, the egomaniac Trump, the bombastic Trump, the tweeting Trump, the truculent Trump. They heard President Trump, the statesman. Donald Trump was elected President on November 8, 2016. He was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. He has been acting as President since then. The skeptics though, the bitter partisans, viewed him as an interloper, who really wasn’t elected. They keep talking about impeachment and psychiatric exams. Rosie O’Donnell is mouthing off about an overthrow of the government and treason. The Democratic women in Congress wore white yesterday to show solidarity with the suffragette movement. White is also symbolically the color of surrender. The Democrats sat frozen on their hands during President Trump’s speech. They knew! President Trump seized the moment. They were impotent. The Democrats did not formally surrender last night, but they quickly fled after President Trump’s speech. Significantly, they did not race to the mikes to expound their talking points. President Trump silenced them, at least temporarily. President Obama may be a great orator, but the audiences of American people started tuning him off. His message was not connecting with the people. President Trump used the unholy trinity of words “I, me. mine” significantly less than President Obama. He spoke to the American people as their leader with a well thought out vision of America, He appealed to the “Spirit of America.” He did not provide a checklist, unlike President Clinton, of low expectations appealing to distinct Democratic constituencies. Some of the media remain, to use William Safire’s term, the “nattering nabobs of negativity.” The fact checkers will continue fact checking. They will continue to magnify disputes within the Republican party. They criticized his speech for lack of specifics. It was leaving too much to Congress to work out. These ‘pundits” fail to understand that Congress enacts legislation. They must have been enraptured by President Obama’s unilaterally legislating. Their viciousness will not work now; it did not work during the general election. If President Trump turns around the economy, their slings and errors won’t stick.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Did You Know Today Was "Not My President Day"?

Today is President’s Day, a holiday when we celebrate one of our greatest Presidents, George Washington. Then it became resident’s Day to celebrate both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln., and then perchance all our Presidents. But not to those who have celebrated today “He’s Not My President” Day. Today was to be an organized, nationwide “He’s Not My President Day.’ They turned out in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as Ann Arbor, Atlanta, Augusta, Maine, Austin, Baltimore, Concord, New Hampshire, Dallas, Denver, Gainesville, Grand Rapids, Greensboro, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Missouri, Marquette, Michigan, Nashville, New Paltz, New York, Pasadena, Portland, Rapid City, Salt Lake City, San Diego, and Santa Barbara. They even showed up in Anaheim, near The Happiest Place on Earth. They were inflamed, energized, dedicated, intense. They marched, rallied, protested, demonstrated. They chanted and screamed. They held up signs: “Not My President” “Nyet My President” “Never My President” “Not My Values, Not My President” “Not My Cheeto” “Resist” “Revolt” “Impeach” “Trump is Treason” “Treason” “Dump Trump” “The Art of the Liar” “Impeach the Liar” “Impeach Trump and His Posse” “You Can’t Fix Stupid, But You Can Impeach” “Flush the Dump” “Arrest” “Uphold the Constitution Now” “We Are the People” “Repair and Replace Trump” “Trump is Brutal” “Orange Fever” “Uphold the Constitution” “Love Trumps Hate” “Just Say No to Fascist Pigs” “No, Refuse to Accept a Fascist America” “No Human is Illegal” “No Ban, No War” “History is Watching” “Happy President’s Day I Hope It’s Not Our Last One’ Two of the classier signs were: “Smart People Hate You” and “F U Trump” Yes, they were enthusiastic, boisterous, energized. But the sounds of silence were deafening. All that was missing were people. Not the millions of the Women’s March after the Trump Inauguration. Not hundreds of thousands. Not tens of thousands. Two dozen in Miami 200 in Salt Lake City Probably no more than 25,000 nationally, if that. The celebrities were missing. The unions were missing. The Democratic politicians were missing. BLM was missing. No mention of Hillary Clinton during the “Not My President Day” rallies. President Trump’s rally in Melbourne, Florida two nights ago drew 9,000. Here’s my personal view on “He’s Not My President.” President Obama was President for 8 years. President Obama was never my President – not even for a day. But he was our President. President Obama was America’s President. The United States only has one President at a time. I always recognized President Obama as America’s President. President Trump is both my President and our President. President Trump is America’s President.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

What's President Trump to do with the Invigoration Order and the Ninth Circuit?

A liberal judge and a circuit court outside the judicial mainstream put the kibosh, at least temporarily, on the President’s Executive Order. I still believe the enjoined order is constitutional, but the rollout was poorly executed. Any decision and action taken needs to set forth the factual and legal basis for the order. The Administration and Justice Department need to detail the legal authority for the Order, the President’s discretion, and the court’s lack of jurisdiction: No longer should the U.S. attorneys have to say they don’t know. Several refugees from the 7 proscribed countries have either committed terrorist acts, or HAVE been arrested prior to committing terrorist attacks, both in Europe and the United States. What are the options? Let’s start with a presumption that no matter what course the Administration chooses, it will be prepared this time. The law and facts support the Executive Order, but neither the Order itself or the government’s lawyers presented a good case for it. The new filings will consist of the 1) 1948 Supreme Court decision in Citizens & Southern Air Lines case 2) The Immigration Nationalization Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter) Act 3) The December 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which listed the 7 countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan Syria, and Yemen, the 7 countries in the Executive Order 4) President Obama’s 6 month halt in processing visa applications from Iraq, 5) The list in the United States and overseas of the terrorist attacks and planned attacks by refugees from the 7 named countries 6) The Muslin countries representing 85% of the world’s Muslims, which were not named in the Executive Order. They include Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the non-Muslim country of India, and the list goes on. It is not an anti-Muslim executive order. 7) Quote Syria’s President Assad about terrorists hiding amont the refugees The normal action would be a quick appeal to the Supreme Court since time is of the essence. These though are not normal times. That approach has its risks. Justice Kennedy hears the emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit. He’s increasingly unpredictable, plus the standard 4-4 split on the Supreme Court could result in another loss for the President. Tie votes automatically affirm the lower court ruling. The Justice Department could request an en banc hearing from the Ninth Circuit, but the odds are against the government. The Justice Department could proceed to the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled by Judge Robard. Presumably the government’s attorneys would be better prepared this time. If they are, they could present an overwhelming legal and factual case. The judge should reverse his earlier order, but would still probably hold against the Administration. That would clearly appear as a political and not judicial decision. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit panel would probably meet the same fate. This approach will take time. The easiest solution is to withdraw the existing executive order followed by issuing a new order, narrowly tailored and carefully drafted. The only problem with that approach is that it leaves on the books the dangerous precedence of the Ninth Circuit. A fifth approach would be to have the Justice Department request Chief Justice Roberts to consolidate all the pending cases in one court, preferably outside the Ninth Circuit. The Chief Justice has the power to do so. The Democrats should not rejoice. It is only a temporary, pyrrhic victory. We can view it as a rookie mistake. The Justice Department was in transition at the time. President Trump is very smart. He won’t make the same mistake twice. He will be more prepared in the future, His Administration will be dotting the “I’s” and crossing the “t’s” on future orders. The Ninth Circuit has four vacancies. President Trump will name conservatives to those positions.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The Democrats New Strategy: The Ninth Circuit versus President Trump

The Democrats are struggling to find a successful strategy to confront President Trump and the Republicans. Boycotts, marches, demonstrations, the occasional riot, speeches, petitions, filibusters, slow walking cabinet nominees, threats have failed to stop the Republicans. They won. As President Obama once said: “I won.” He also said “Elections have consequences.” Daily attacks by the media, celebrities, late night TV hosts, and academics as well Saturday Night Live have not dented the President’s agenda. The teacher unions did not block the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. The Civil Rights Movement did not stop the Senate’s approval of Senator Sessions as Attorney General. Andrew Puzder will undoubtedly become Secretary of Labor, Congressman Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Greg Pruitt as EPA Administrator, Dr. Ben Carson to Housing and Urban Development, Steve Mnuchin to Treasury, and Judge Neil Gorsuch will be on the Supreme Court soon. Accusations, calumnies, contempt, defamation, denunciations, expletives, excoriations, fact checkers, fear, harangues, mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, rants, raves, and threats will not stop the process. Elections have consequences. Cries of fascism, racism, and sexism don’t change the outcome. The Republicans held the Senate last November. The votes may often be along party lines, but 52 will beat 48 every time. 50 with the Vice President will defeat 50 without. The Democrats have been flailing for three weeks, but may have now found the strategy to trump Trump. The party of trial lawyers will unleash the lawyers, led by a few state attorney generals. They will file scores of law suits in favorable jurisdictions, preferably in the Ninth Circuit, looking for a pliant district court judge and court of appeals. The Ninth Circuit is notoriously liberal. Both the district court and appellate judges in the coastal states, whether appointed by Democrat or Republican Presidents, veer to the left, the far left, of the political spectrum. The reason is because of the Senate custom known as Senatorial courtesy. The two Senators from each state have a veto power over the appointment of federal judges who will sit in their states. California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington have consistently elected liberal Democrats for decades. California last saw a Republican Senator in 1992, Oregon in 2009, and Washington in 2001. Very few conservatives made it through their gauntlet in recent years. Conversely, conservative judges emerge from Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana Nevada, and Utah, but the population and the largest number of federal judges are in California. The Ninth Circuit sits in San Francisco, Pasadena, Portland, and Seattle. The liberal/progressive judges do not believe in the Rule of Law but rather what until recently was referred to as the Rule of Man. They do not feel bound by the Constitution, which they will meld to their wishes and whims. They are not restricted by statutes or precedence. Nor often by the facts. They believe they can judicially legislate as they wish, which is usually on the progressive side. Thus, they have become politicians masquerading as judges. The bias was clear in the unreasoned, specious decision by Judge James Robart in issuing an injunction against the temporary immigration ban after only a few minutes of a hearing. The bias was further made clear by the hostile questioning by the two liberal judges on the appellate panel hearing the appeal. These three judges were not interested in the law, either constitutional or statutory, which grants the President vast powers in immigration cases. The starting legal premise is simple. Non-citizens have no constitutional or statutory right to enter the United States. The second premise is that both the Constitution and statures bestow power on the President to exclude aliens from entering the United States. My guess, based on the makeup of the three judge panel and the harsh interrogation of the government’s attorney, is that the decision will be 2:1 in upholding Judge Robart’s injunction. The Ninth Circuit was the most conservative when I was in law school, but that flipped under President Carter, and has only become increasingly more progressive since then. It is often to the left of the Supreme Court’s progressive wing. The Ninth Circuit has a well-earned reputation as being consistently, but not always, the most overruled court of appeals by the Supreme Court – not just in the number of decisions, but in the percentage. Here’s some statistics that tell the story about reversal rates of the Ninth Circuit by Supreme Court term: 2015-16 8/11 80% 2014-15 10/16 63% 2013-14 10/11 92% 2012-13 10/12 86% 2011-12 17/24 71% 2010-11 19/26 79% 2009-10 15/18 60% 2008-09 13/16 81.3% 2007-08 8/10 80% 2006-07 18/21 85% 2005-06 15/18 83.3% 2004-05 16/19 84% 1998-99 13/18 72% 1997-98 28/29 96.6% Roughly 80% of the Ninth Circuit’s opinions reviewed by the Supreme Court from 1999-2008 were reversed by the Supreme Court, A large number of the Supreme Court reversals were unanimous or per curium (also unanimous opinions), which means that not even one of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court could agree with the Ninth Circuit opinionsThe ninth Circuit was that far outside of the judicial mainstream. The obvious question is why do the Ninth Circuit judges persist in consistently being outside the judicial mainstream? The answer is because the Court usually decides between 90-100 opinions annually. Judge Steven Reinhardt, the most activist and reversed judge on the circuit, said it best “They can’t catch them all.” His wife is the former executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. My predictions for the Ninth Circuit: 1 There are currently 4 vacancies on the court. President Trump will not appoint and the Republican Senate will not confirm liberal Democrats to the Court; 2 Momentum is building to break up the Ninth Circuit. It will succeed.