American Thinker: Can the Union Endure?

In yet another article predicting either civil war or other dissolution of the United States, here is American Thinker take on where the US is going. Can the Union Endure? I think the author speaks with overconfidence on the ease of a conservative victory but there are other valuable tidbits.

At this point, Red and Blue America are not even speaking the same language.  We stand near the point of what divorce lawyers term “irreconcilable differences.”  In increasingly strident and self-assured tones, the Left believes it is morally superior, intellectually untouchable, and wholly justified in pursuing whatever extralegal, corrupt, or violent methods available to implement their ideology.

Talk of a breaking point has been circling conservative circles for some time, with three tangible options arising from the chatter:

1) continued focus on barely winning elections, appointing “conservative” judges that uphold Obamacare, keeping Arizona from going blue, etc.;

2) a “divorce” of sorts that peaceably divides the United States into permanent blue and red territories, or;

3) civil war…

Civil war in present-day America would not consist of professional armies mowing each other down across empty fields.  It would be a house-to-house, street-by-street massacre, more akin to Hotel Rwanda than the battlefields of the American or even the Russian and Spanish civil wars.

The majority of the fighting would be carried out not by professional armies, but by private citizens, vigilantes, partisans, ad hoc neighborhood units, and the like.  People on both sides would use the breakdown of order to settle private scores and commit crimes of opportunity.  Others would kill indiscriminately based on “offenses” such as voting records, yard signs, etc.

Schools would close.  Hospitals would become graveyards for the untreated.  Water purification plants, oil refineries, and transportation hubs would be sabotaged.  Even in red states, food and energy supplies would be unreliable.  Sympathizers would be targeted, mobs would destroy, and homes would burn.  Bombings that bedeviled Great Britain during the Troubles or present-day Afghanistan would become the norm here…

American Thinker: Democrats Are Pushing America into Civil War

In this short article at American Thinker, author William Gensert adds another voice to those talking about the possibility of another civil war and he, too, recognizes the danger growing in Virginia.

Democrats Are Pushing America Into Civil War

…Graciously, the left had given Americans the opportunity to do as they were told, and they refused, costing the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2016.  There will be no more trying to rally Americans around to their way of thinking.  “The people,” going forward, are the enemy.  Because of that, the left will be forced to give us the government we “deserve to get… good and hard.”

When the enemy stands between those with blinding hatred in their hearts and the power they crave, there is nowhere else for them to go but to war.

There is just one problem with their strategy, Americans see what the Democrats have planned for them.  Americans understand what is coming.

They are coming for those who will not acquiesce to the left’s plans for America.  All that remains is how the people will react. Normal Americans have had enough — they are going to fight.

Trump can only do so much with the media and the Democrats in their entirety opposing him — so far, it’s miraculous how successful he has been against such odds.  The left’s tactics have changed, as we’ve seen in the recent actions in Virginia.  With the Democrats taking over the state government, the first legislation they have proposed for the next state legislative session is nothing more than gun confiscation.

Make no mistake, Virginia is a test.  Unable to depose the president, they will proceed on a state-by-state basis to create the nation they long for.  And disarming Americans is crucial for the Democrats as a first and necessary step, because an armed populace can say, “No!”

Will Virginians willingly give up their guns to the Democrats?  Some might. After all, Virginia is proximate to D.C. and many will obey.  Yet, many will not.  Virginia will be the future, because the Democrats will brook no dissent.  They will come heavy and hard and it won’t be long before there is gunfire, and someone is hurt or killed…

Click here to read the entire article at American Thinker.

‘You’re Fired, Judge’: Sanctioning Federal Judges for Bad Behavior

The subject of judicial misconduct having come up recently in local conversation, the following American Thinker article from last year provides some additional thinking/acting points.

The Constitution only allows federal judges to serve during “good behavior.” This “good behavior” limitation on judicial tenure derives from one of the oldest and most well-established legal principles of our founding and English legal history. This limitation on appointed officials holding office pervades our founding revolutionary-era state constitutions. It’s time for Trump to consider activating the power of the political branches to fire badly behaving judges. Time to drain the judicial swamp.

Recent Obama appointees, including associates of Obama since law school, earned the enmity of a wide range of legal and scholastic critics over their travel ban rulings. How bad was it? Even #NeverTrumpers and liberal lawyers came out in a chorus of condemnation against the Hawaii and Maryland judicial actions. #NeverTrump lawyer David French, lawyers at National Review, and liberal-leaning law professor Jonathan Turley each criticized the decision. Liberal Democratic law professor Alan Dershowitz noted that the judges would have never done this to Obama, even if the executive order was identical. Anti-Trump critic David Frum of the Atlantic criticized the decision. Even five Ninth Circuit judges, sua sponte, amended their prior statements to criticize these judges’ actions as without precedent.

Why the unison of condemnation? Because, as one law professor noted, much of the Hawaii judge’s actions were based on judicial acts of “misleading.” That’s polite, diplomatic, I-might-be-in-front-of-that-judge-someday way of saying that some of these anti-Trump, anti-travel ban judges were not honest. If private lawyers had acted the way these judges did, they could be sanctioned and could lose their license and livelihoods, be thrown out of court, or even charged with a crime. That is why Judge Alex Kozinski authored two amendments to his prior dissent to specifically criticize the basis of the Hawaii judge’s ruling.

What can Trump or Congress do about it, if they believe these federal judges exceeded their authority and engaged in disreputable conduct?

The Constitution provides two restrictions on the tenure of a federal judge: first, if they misuse or abuse their office, then the Constitution, under Article II, section 4, authorizes Congressional quasi-criminal remedies of impeachment. The impeachment provision applies to the President “and all civil officers of the United States” whenever their conduct constitutes “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Historically, the latter provision has been rejected for purely private conduct. That is why both Alexander Hamilton and Richard Nixon were not impeached for either tax evasion or financial misdeeds, though both were accused of one or the other. Bill Clinton successfully argued against conviction on the grounds his perjury, though in office, derived from a purely personal matter, rather than a presidential one.

 The Constitution provides a second, separate restriction on the tenure of a federal judge: Article III of the Constitution limits a judge’s tenure to continuous “good behavior…”

Continuing reading the article at American Thinker by clicking here

The Heritage Foundation has its own brief essay on the good behavior clause .

…Still, both the language and the weight of historical evidence indicate that the Good Behavior Clause was intended to refer to life tenure rather than to a distinct standard for removal. However, just as the Good Behavior Clause reminds the other branches that the judiciary is truly independent, it also reminds judges that life tenure is not a license for the wanton or the corrupt. It is in this sense both a shield and a sword—an affirmation of judicial independence and a reservation for judicial removal.