To President Franklin Roosevelt’s dismay, a Supreme Court bloc of six conservative justices struck down key parts of the New Deal in the 1930s. But by 1945, there was an FDR bloc. He had appointed all nine justices. For much of the 1960s, a liberal bloc was in command.

It’s hardly a surprise when a group of Supreme Court justices makes a point of voting alike. But today’s liberal bloc is different than those of the past. The four liberal justices are not in charge, yet they play a more prominent role than most minorities. This is no accident. They plot to speak with one voice and usually succeed. They’re motivated, cohesive, and disciplined. As a result, they punch above their weight.

The liberalism of all four is reliable, though not identical. Judging by their written opinions, comments and questions at oral arguments, and what they say in interviews and speeches, Sonia Sotomayor is the most liberal, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg close behind. Stephen Breyer is third, followed by Elena Kagan.

The most significant difference among the four is their readiness to compromise and make deals. Breyer and Kagan are the dealmakers. To attract the fifth vote and prevail in a significant case is their fondest dream. They agreed to drop the requirement that states expand Medicaid to get Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote to uphold Obamacare. And they voted with him on the Medicaid maneuver.

(more…)

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Promoting Islam in

Public School

Life, Liberty & Levin 5/12/19 | Mark Levin Fox News | May 12, 2019

The Dark Money That Funded ‘Dark Money’

Liberal groups sponsor a documentary faulting conservative groups that sponsor political advocacy.

In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

(more…)

How Trump is changing the balance of some of the most powerful courts in the U.S.
Reuters

Republican President Donald Trump has made transforming the federal judiciary one of his top priorities. Now in his second year of office, Trump has appointed 26 judges to the U.S. appeals courts — a record pace. Read the full story

Shared from Apple News