Category Archives: Federalist

Migrants without proper identification may apparently opt out of being photographed by TSA upon entry at Miami International Airport.

According to a sign posted on X by conservative podcaster Dave Rubin Thursday, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is allowing migrants to pass through entry points without having their picture taken.

U.S. airport Non-U.S. Citizen Document Validation Using CBP One Technology, the top of the sign reads.

CBP One refers to the mobile application launched in October 2020 that allows migrants to pre-plan their appointments with U.S. customs officials. Last fall, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records made public by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) revealed migrants were exploiting the app to gain entry. Accordingto the Washington Examiner, the app has also been abused by Central American cartels using virtual private networks (VPN) to smuggle people across the border.

The text of the sign posted by Rubin reads as follows:

TSA is partnering with CBP to test the use of CBP One at certain TSA checkpoints to validate adult non-U.S. citizen travel documentation when the traveler does not otherwise have an acceptable form of identification.

How it works: 1. Notify the TSA officer that you are a migrant. 2. The TSA officer will take a photo (optional). 3. If requested, provide your alien identification number or biographic information. 4. Follow officer instruction.

Photo capture is voluntary. You may decline to have your photo taken. If you do not wish to have your phot taken, please notify a TSA Officer. You must still provide your alien identification number or biographical information to the TSA Officer, even if you do not have your photo taken.

CBP One only verifies the information you previously provided to CBP and will not store your information. Because your information is verified through CBP One, TSA will also not store your information as part of this process.

Neither the TSA nor the CBP immediately responded to The Federalists inquiries Thursday morning.

According to a Recent Update on the CBP website, the agency updated the CBP One app in February last year to streamline the photo capture and scheduling process.

Starting April 29, 2023, the agency said, the CBP One application will remove the vulnerability requirement in preparation for the end of Title 42.

The Title 42 program, which empowered border officials to expel migrants quickly back to Mexico, expired on May 11. Conditions along the southern border have continued to deteriorate, with more than 300,000 illegal immigrant encounters in December, setting a newrecordfor the number of encounters in a single month.At least 1.7 million known gotaways have escaped apprehension since fiscal year 2021,accordingto the House Homeland Security Committee. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, 169 individuals caught were on the terrorist watchlist.

[RELATED: Bidens Border Crisis Is As Bad As Ever, His Admin Is Just Better At Hiding It]

Democrats in Washington, however, are holding additional funds for border security hostage to extract tens of billions in more aid to Ukraine. After a meeting this week with the president and congressional leaders at the White House, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer remained defiant.

The president himself said over and over again, that he is willing to move forward on border, Schumer told reporters. And so, we said we have to do both. There were a couple of people in the room who said lets do border first. We said we have to do both together.

On Capitol Hill, House Republicans are moving forward with their plans for impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with their second and final hearing Thursday. The hearing featured two mothers who blamed the loss of their children on the agencys failure to manage the southern border.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Mayorkas border policy is partially responsible for my daughters death, said Josephine Dunn, whose daughter died from fentanyl poisoning.

According to ABC News, fentanyl seizures are up 860 percent since 2019.

The rest is here:

TSA Sign Says Migrants Without ID May Opt Out Of Photos - The Federalist

Image CreditFDRLST / Canva

The nations ruling class holds deeply authoritarian opinions widely divorced from the rest of the American electorate, finds a survey out this week. It found nearly 60 percent of American elites think there is too much individual freedom in America. Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of registered voters have the exact opposite opinion, reporting the United States has too much top-down control, limiting liberty.

The study, titled Them Vs. U.S, defined the American elite as having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Such people account for about 1 percent of Americans. The study also examined a sub-sample of the 1 percent who graduated from Ivy League schools or other name-brand institutions such as Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.

The study from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity found ruling class opinions on climate policies were particularly harsh and despotic. More than two-thirds of the 1 percent support rationing vital energy and food sources in an attempt to control the globes weather. That number jumped to nearly 90 percent among the Ivy Leaguers. Around two-thirds of normal registered voters, however,opposerationing vital resources.

Limiting food and water consumption is a serious proposition to global leaders. For example, theC40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, an environmentalist organization of city leaders across the globe, has proposed annihilating meat and dairy consumption by 2030.

An astonishing 72% of the Elites including 81% of the Elites who graduated from the top universities favor banning gas cars, the study authors continued. And majorities of elites would ban gas stoves, non-essential air travel, SUVs, and private air conditioning.

Elites view of other elites is very different from regular registered voters view of elites. On the education front, Two-thirds (67%) [of the 1 percent] say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents decide. Only 38 percent of registered voters felt the same.

About six of ten elites have a favorable opinion of the so-called talking professionslawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and journalists, wrote the study authors. Additionally, In stark contrast to the rest of America, 70% of the Elites trust the government to do the right thing most of the time.

Unsurprisingly, about three-quarters of these cultural elites are Biden supporters. While only 20 percent of Americans say they are better off financially under Biden, nearly three-quarters of the elites say they are better off under Biden.

The study comes as global leaders meet in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forums annual meeting to discuss draconian climate policies and crackdowns on freedom of speech and therefore freedom of thought. So far at the conference, elites have discussed establishing a new world order,lobbiedfor censorship in the name of disinformation and misinformation, andlabeledfarming and fishing ecocide.

The WEF policy proposals and the results of this survey reveal what the Committee to Unleash Prosperity describes as a Grand Canyon-sized chasm between regular citizens and those who largely claim the expertise and power to rule over others with or without their consent.

These results confirm what people have long suspected, wrote the study authors: Today, there are two Americas. One is wealthier, more highly educated, and attended the best schools. They put much more trust in big government to do the right thing and, by their own admission, benefit from more expansive government policies. They have also been hurt far less by the high inflation of the Biden presidency than those who live from paycheck to paycheck and are in the lower and middle classes.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Link:

Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There's Too Much Freedom In America - The Federalist

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in two companion cases that could put an end to our totalitarian administrative state:Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of CommerceandLoper Bright v. Raimondo.

Heres your lawsplainer to understand the cases, the legal doctrine at issue Chevrondeference the oral argument, the punditry surrounding the cases, and the significance of what, on its surface, may appear to be narrow and nerdy issues of administrative law.

In bothRelentlessandLoper Bright, commercial fishing companies sued the U.S. Department of Commerce, challenging a federal administrative rule that requires businesses to pay the cost of government-mandated monitors who travel aboard their vessels during fishing expeditions.

To understand how this administrative rule came about, one must move through the bowels of the federal bureaucracy, beginning first with Congresssenactmentof the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

That act, first passed by Congress in 1976 to respond to the threat of overfishing and to promote conservation but amended multiple times since, regulates marine fisheries, which are defined as one or more stocks of fish. To protect against overfishing, the MSA established eight regional councils to manage the various fisheries. In turn, those councils establish fishery management plans, which specify conservation measures to prevent overfishing.

The MSA tasked the secretary of commerce with reviewing each fishery management plan and related regulations, but the secretary delegated those responsibilities to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The NMFS uses regional councils to draft the fishery management plans, which the NMFS must then approve, disapprove, or partially approve. The NMFS and regional councils then issue regulations to implement the approved plans.

(I did warn that you were about to enter the entrails of the alphabet soup of the administrative state.)

This backdrop brings us to the rule being challenged: a 2020 final rule that requires industry-funded monitoring for the herring fishery. Under this rule, a targeted 50 percent of commercial herring fishing trips are to be monitored. And while originally NMFS fully funded the placement of observers on herring fishery vessels, in 2018, in response to growing budgetary uncertainties, an amendment to the fishery management plan authorized forcing the fishing industry to pay for the monitoring.

The plaintiffs inRelentlessandLoper Brightfiled separate lawsuits against the secretary of commerce, arguing the MSA did not authorize the Department of Commerce to charge the fishing companies for the cost of observers. Its important tounderstandthat [a]dministrative agencies are creatures of statute and accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.Thus, an agency literally has no power to act unless and until Congress confers power upon it.

In passing the MSA, Congress expressly provided that a fishery management plan may require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery. But the MSA was silent on whether the management plan could mandate commercial fishing companies to pay for the cost of the observers. Elsewhere in the MSA, however, Congress expressly authorized the secretary of commerce to collect fees to fund observer programs.

The Commerce Department countered that since Congress authorized it to prescribe such other measures [or] requirements as are necessary to conserve the fishery, it had the authority to require commercial fishing companies to pay the cost of observers.

The lower courts concluded the MSA was ambiguous concerning whether the Commerce Department could require the fishing companies to pay the cost of the observers. The courts, nonetheless, upheld the final rule by applying the legal doctrine ofChevrondeference.

Chevrondeference, which was born from the Supreme Court decision inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, requires courts to defer to an agencys interpretation of an ambiguous statute, so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable. Courts owe such deference to the agencys interpretation even if there is a more reasonable interpretation of the statute, a court had previously interpreted the statute in a contrary way, or the agency had previously interpreted the statute differently.

The effects ofChevrondeference cannot be overstated because deference often dictates outcome. And that outcome is whatever the unelected bureaucrats of themorethan 430 federal agencies and other regulatory agencies say it is so long as they sound reasonable.

So while you may not care about fisheries, you should care aboutRelentlessandLoper Brightbecause the justices grantedcertiorari(review) in those cases to decide whether to overrule or narrowChevrondeference.

It is difficult to imagine anything that could be more consequential to the deconstructing of the administrative state than overturningChevron. First, it would end the practice of agencies making important policy decisions that Congress failed to, or refused to, address. Relatedly, it would remove from the executive branch the power to use administrative agencies to force through extreme policy decisions. Further, reversal ofChevronwould likely lead to the end of the related doctrine ofAuer/Seminole Rockdeference, which requires courts to defer to an agencys interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations another legal doctrine girding the administrative state against legal challenges.

Should any doubt remain over the importance of reversingChevrondeference, one need only watch coverage of Wednesdays oral argument and hear the screeching from the left.

Oral arguments will likely focus on several issues, with the concept ofstare decisisfeaturing predominantly. That Latin phrase, translated loosely to stand by that which was decided, is a prudential principle that cautions the court against overturning precedent even when it is wrong. The court will thus face the question of whether to follow the nearly 40-year-old precedent ofChevronor overrule it.

Second, the justices will consider the fishing businesses argument thatChevrondeference violates Article III of the Constitution, which vests all judicial power in the courts, including the power to say what the law is. The court will likely push the parties to explain whether allowing an agency to interpret a statute, which is the essence ofChevrondeference, represents an unconstitutional usurpation of the judiciarys power.

Next, the oral argument will likely consider the petitioners due process argument. Here, the fishing companies argue thatChevrondeference requires the courts to favor the governments position, which violates fundamental concepts of fairness.

The major questions doctrine will likely also find the floor on Wednesday. That doctrine provides that when an administrative agency claims the power to make decisions of vast economic and political significance, the agency must be able to point to clear congressional authorization for the regulation at issue.

WhileChevrondeference is the focus ofRelentlessandLoper Bright, in recent years, the Supreme Court has bypassed that doctrine and instead struck regulations based on the major questions doctrine. The courts recent decision inWest Virginia v. EPAillustrates that approach.

In that case, several states and private parties challenged the Environmental Protection Agencys attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The majority held that because the regulation had vast economic and political significance, the EPA was required to cite clear congressional authority for its regulation of carbon dioxide. Because there was no such clear statutory provision to regulate carbon dioxide, the Supreme Court inWest Virginiaheld the EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations.

The majority inWest Virginia v. EPAaddressed the question of administrative authority through the lens of the major questions doctrine, sidesteppingChevrondeference. Wednesday, however, at least some of the justices are likely to push the attorneys on how to reconcile those two lines of cases.

While predicting how the high court will rule is fraught with risk especially before oral argument various justices have been foreshadowing their predilections for some time. JusticesGorsuch,Thomas, andKavanaughhave all criticizedChevron,and Justices Alito, Barrett, and Roberts have all denied agencies deference under the major questions doctrine.

These facts suggest a majority of the justices may be willing to overturnChevron. And if they do, it will be a mortal blow to the administrative state.

Disclosure: Margot Cleveland isOf Counselwith the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which representsRelentlessand which filed an amicus curiae brief inLoper Bright. The views expressed here are her own.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalists senior legal correspondent. Margots work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Privethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishmentsher dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read the original here:

How Disgruntled Fishermen Could Prompt SCOTUS To Capsize The Administrative State - The Federalist

A male golfer is one step closer to fulfilling his dream of joining the prestigious Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) after winning first place in a mini-qualifying womens tournament in Florida.

James Scott Davidson, a man masquerading as a woman under the name Hailey Davidson, won the NXXT Womens Classic on Wednesday after he outscored dozens of female professional golfers and made it into the winning playoff. Photos of the competition at the Mission Inn Resort and Club outside of Orlando show Davidson posing with a trophy between two female competitors.

Thanks to his victory, Davidson now leads the NXXT Womens Pro Tour scoreboard by 150 points. Since he began competing against women in 2021 after being deemed eligible due to years of castration drugs and genital mutilation, Davidson raked in thousands of dollars in prize money.

His hijacking of a tournament designed to highlight the achievements of female professional golfers elicited pushback from Americans, a majority of whom oppose men infiltrating womens sports. NXXT CEO Stuart McKinnon tried to quell public outrage with a long statement explaining Davidson meets the LPGA and USGA guidelines for transgender athletes.

The recent discussions surrounding Hailey Davidsons participation and success on our tour have highlighted a range of viewpoints. The NXXT Womens Pro Tour acknowledges these perspectives while emphasizing that our policies and decisions are guided by the frameworks set by the LPGA and USGA. Our primary focus remains on supporting our players aspirations and contributing to their journey towards the LPGA, he wrote.

McKinnon concluded with a pledge to ask Davidson to undergo additional testosterone testing to ensure compliance with the appropriate guidelines. NXXT, as McKinnon wrote, was created to elevate womens golf, providing increased exposure and equitable opportunities.

Like many other international and national sports associations, however, NXXT has sacrificed that goal to accommodate transgender ideology. Studies show eliminating just testosterone as the advantaged genetic factor that sets males apart from females does not ensure physical equality in sex-based competitions.

Allowing men, who have a distinct biological advantage over women, to compete simply because they have artificially deflated their male hormones does not create an inclusive and nurturing environment for all members, as McKinnon claims. Instead, it masks the true disadvantages that manifest if a womans tournament spot is handed to a man.

McKinnon says he plans to survey NXXT tour players about its gender policy because We believe it is vital to consider the perspectives of those directly affected by these policies. Everything he needs to know about the harm caused by allowing men to compete against women, however, is already common knowledge.

Hormone shifts, artificial or pubescent, dont define someones sex. Becoming male or female is decided at conception. No amount of chemical or physical tampering can change the defining chromosomes found in DNA.

Men have a scientifically proven, distinct, and undeniable physical advantage over women in every sport except long-distance swimming. Abandoning the truth about that upper hand doesnt meet NXXTs equitable or inclusive aims. In reality, its an injustice to the professional female golfers who now have to work overtime to beat a man so they can secure a spot in the LPGA.

Banning men from competing against women should be an easy putt for McKinnon, who boasts of empowering professional female golfers like his daughter. Instead, its become yet another disguise used to cover up NXXTs blatant rejection of biology in service to Democrats.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Link:

No Testing Needed To Prove Hailey Davidson Isn't A Woman - The Federalist

Granted, Im not a professional political consultant, but Im starting to get the sense that the Democrats 2024 focus on saving democracy suffers somewhat from their constant efforts to demolish every basic norm of constitutional governance.

Then again, maybe we just need to define our terms, since democracy has been stripped of any useful meaning. The word certainly doesnt signify adherence to the Constitution a document barely, if ever, mentioned by the contemporary left for obvious reasons.

Indeed, for the past eight or so years, many legal and traditional institutions of American governance the Electoral College, the filibuster, two senators in every state, states, open discourse, the Supreme Court, and so on have been framed as nemeses of democracy if they happen to temporarily benefit Republicans.

Virtually every political setback, in fact, has been transformed into an existential threat to the foundations of democracy. Anyone with conventional conservative views, especially social ones, has been reimagined as MAGA extremists or semi-fascists or Christofascists.

Even when originalist justices, the most scrupulous devotees of American democracy in the country, strengthen majoritarianism, as they did handing the abortion issue back to voters where it belonged, Democrats have a collective fainting spell over the future of democracy.

Democrats are positive that asking someone to prove an ID before voting portends the rise of the Fourth Reich, but they have no problem pressuring private companies to censor political speech, ignoring the Supreme Court, unilaterally breaking millions of private contracts to buy votes, using executive power to circumvent the will of voters, and throwing the leading opposition candidate off ballots.

If youre convinced that George W. Bush stole an election or that Donald Trump was selected by a foreign dictator, your griping about denialism holds no weight.

Do you know whats definitely authoritarian, though? Plotting to undermine civilian control of the military. Its one of the big ones.

NBC News reports this week that a network of public interest groups and lawmakers, nervous about former President Trumps potential return to power, is quietly devising plans to foil any effort on his part to pressure the U.S. military to carry out his political agenda.

Dear lord, voters elect the commander-in-chief because of a political agenda. It is literally the militarys job to implement the democratic will of the people. Its right there in the Constitution. Its the point.

Invading Iraq was a political decision, not one made by a Star Chamber, but by the president and senators like Joe Biden. Leaving Afghanistan was a political decision, made by a president who promised the public he would do so if elected. The decision to take the Houthis off the global terror list was a political decision. As was the decision to grant Iran access to billions and to send Palestinian terror groups hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, if voters are unhappy with these decisions, they are free to support someone else the next time around. But if a bunch of unelected right-wing public interest groups and lawmakers, nervous about Bidens failed but completely legal foreign policy decisions, formed a cabal within the government to foil him, it would not be strengthening democracy.

Then again, you remember when Gen. Mark Milley made two phone calls to our top geopolitical foes in China and promised to give them a heads-up should the United States attack? That was another clear-cut subversion of civilian authority over the military. Nothing about those calls comports with democracy. The opposite. Yet Milley is regarded as a hero of the resistance.

And you probably remember Anonymous, as well. The senior Trump administration official who published that overwrought op-ed in The New York Times contending that senior staffers secretly schemed to undercut Trump to protect the American people. I work for the president, wrote Miles Taylor, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Political appointees who join a shadow government to thwart the presidents decisions not because hes been engaged in any unconstitutional or illegal acts, but because they disagreed with him are definitely not the heroes of democracy they imagine themselves. (Taylor is on TV these days warning that Trump might turn off the internet if hes elected for a second term. Jokes on him, though, since Trump already did so when he overturned net neutrality.)

David Axelrod, who worked for a president who acted as if he were a sovereign, contends that if Republican primary voters select Trump as the nominee, it would be a stunning rebuke of the rules, norms, laws and institutions upon which our democracy is founded and would have profound implications for the future.

Now, a lot of that sounds like projection to me. Sometimes, you get the sense that just maybe all this democracy talk is a cynical strategy to hold onto power.

But lets say its true. Every illiberal precedent Democrats set in their own alleged efforts to save our democracy from Trump will also have profound implications for the future. Trump will leave us one day. Democrats constant attacks on governing norms wont.

The rest is here:

Democrats Promise To Save 'Democracy' By Destroying It - The Federalist

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases,Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of CommerceandLoper Bright v. Raimondo on Wednesday. The bottom-line question before the court concerned whether Congress authorized the Department of Commerce to charge fishing businesses the cost of government-mandated observers on their rigs.

But answering that question requires the Supreme Court to first decide whether to overturn the landmark case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the namesake for the Chevron doctrine, which requires courts to defer to an agencys interpretation of an ambiguous statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable. Thats what Wednesdays arguments were all about Chevron and whether the Supreme Court should do away with Chevron deference.

Here are your top takeaways from the hours-long arguments.

A blackletter law definition of Chevron deference is easy to provide. As noted above, it is a legal principle that requires courts to defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But Wednesdays hearing showed the contours of the doctrine are far from clear, with the justices jousting with the solicitor general, who represents the Department of Commerce, over the meaning of ambiguous.

A statute is ambiguous, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said, when the court has exhausted the tools of interpretation and hasnt found a single right answer. But as Justice Gorsuch noted in response, just the prior year, a government attorney claimed he could not define ambiguous.

The meaning of ambiguous is key to the doctrine of Chevron deference, which requires two steps. At step one, a court is to employ[] traditional tools of statutory construction to determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. According to Chevron, [i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter, and the court must enforce the clear meaning. But if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, then the court proceeds to step two, which requires the court to defer to an agencys interpretation so long as it reflects a permissible construction of the statute.

So defining ambiguous matters, several of the justices stressed, pointing to the confusion of the lower courts on the question something that would justify overturning Chevron.

Heading into Wednesday, court watchers knew three justices had already expressed disagreement with Chevron, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. To date, Gorsuch has made some of the most resounding attacks on Chevron deference. And while Gorsuch landed some blows during oral argument, it was Kavanaugh who seemed to throw haymaker after haymaker.

Kavanaugh returned to ground zero the Chevron decision and pushed the solicitor general on what he saw as an internal inconsistency in Chevron itself.

It related to footnote 9, he explained. That footnote provides that the judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. Accordingly, the Chevron court continued, [i]f a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.

Referencing that footnote, Kavanaugh continued, if you use all the traditional tools of statutory interpretation, youll get an answer, and therefore, there is no step two and no deference. And we know you get an answer, the Trump appointee stressed, because, in cases where we dont have an agency involved and we use those same traditional tools, we get an answer.

Kavanaugh reiterated that point several times throughout the argument, namely that courts interpret statutes regularly, both ambiguous and unambiguous ones, implying that if judges did the tough work of statutory interpretation, there would be no step two deference required.

Another notable theme from Wednesday was the effect of reversing Chevron.

Soon after arguments in Relentless began, Justice Elena Kagan monopolized the questioning by peppering the fishing companys attorney with hypotheticals. What was most striking, though, were not the difficult scenarios posed, but her assertion that the court is very rarely in the situation in which youre talking where it thinks the law means X and instead it says Y, because of deference under Chevron. If it thinks it means X, under Chevron, as weve understood it and made clear and reigned it in a little bit over these last few years, its supposed to say X, Kagan continued. Chevron really only applies, the Obama appointee suggested, when the law runs out and theres a genuine ambiguity.

Kagans efforts to portray Chevron as a tie-breaker contrasted sharply with the sky-is-falling arguments the government presented. Overruling Chevron would shock the legal system, the solicitor general argued in her opening comments to the court. Yet later in her argument, she too seemingly acknowledged that many of the cases are resolved at the first step of Chevron, meaning deference is not even required. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to take seriously the worst-case-scenario prognoses presented by Chevrons champions.

Another common theme pushed, especially by Kagan, concerned the question of who decides? If there is an ambiguity, Kagan posed several times, do we want the agency or the courts to make the policy decision?

The correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should make policy decisions and draft statutes that provide clarity on the law. When Congress delegates authority to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear.

Chevron deference has allowed Congress for far too long to avoid making tough calls, and while some of the justices seemed fine with that approach, it is inconsistent with our constitutional structure.

The prudential principle of stare decisis also featured heavily in oral arguments, with the government arguing it cuts against overturning the Chevron doctrine. Businesses need certainty, the solicitor general argued, and overturning Chevron would destroy the predictability of the law.

On the contrary, the fishing businesses attorneys stressed, what creates uncertainty is Chevron deference, which allows for each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify its reversal, notwithstanding stare decisis and several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed Chevron deference, in its current iteration, is unworkable.

Another key exchange originated when Kagan pushed Paul Clement, attorney for the fishermen in Loper Bright, on humility.

Chevron is a doctrine of humility, Kagan began, noting that in that doctrine the court recognize[s] that there are some places where congressional direction has run out, and we think Congress would have wanted the agency to do something rather than the courts.

We accept that because thats the best reading of Congress and also because we know in our heart of hearts that Congress that agencies know things that courts do not, she continued.

On top of that, Kagan noted that overturning Chevron conflicted with the principle of stare decisis another doctrine of humility which, as she put it, says we dont willy-nilly reverse things unless theres a special justification. Then came her talking point: And youre saying blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another doctrine of humility, and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts.

Kagans comments suggest she sought to sell Chevron to her fellow justices based on concerns over institutional integrity, while implying a vote to overturn that landmark case could only come from hubris.

Gorsuch, who filled the vacancy on the court left by Justice Antonin Scalias death and was having none of Kagans argument, called on his predecessors name in retort: One lesson of humility is [to] admit when youre wrong. Justice Scalia, who took Chevron, which nobody understood to include this two-step move as originally written, turned it into what we now know, and late in life, he came to regret that decision.

From oral argument, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem definite votes for reversing Chevron deference. Thomas, given his past writings, seems a likely vote for reversal. In one exchange, Justice Samuel Alito seemed to mirror much of Kavanaughs thinking, namely that the courts already interpret statutes in other areas, and can do so here too, without needing to defer to agencies.

Both Justices Roberts and Barrett were more coy in their questioning, creating uncertainty about their positions. Conversely Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all favored the Chevron framework.

Bottom line: There is no sure-fire forecast of the outcome. But something Gorsuch said might provide the best insight into the likely result.

During one exchange, the solicitor general suggested that the court merely reiterate to the lower courts the importance of undertaking a robust step-one inquiry. Gorsuch pointedly protested that the court had already on multiple occasions reminded the lower courts of their responsibility under Chevron to conduct an extensive analysis of the statute to resolve the question prior to deferring to the agencies. What good is another reminder likely to do?

Right there could be the reason two undecided justices join to form a majority to overturn Chevron it is just not workable because the lower courts wont do the work required.

Disclosure: Margot Cleveland isOf Counselwith the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which representsRelentlessand which filed an amicus curiae brief inLoper Bright. The views expressed here are her own.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalists senior legal correspondent. Margots work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Privethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishmentsher dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Excerpt from:

7 Takeaways From SCOTUS Case That Could Slay The Bureaucracy - The Federalist

Is Nikki Haley a creation of the Washington establishment and its consultant class, a regime-picked candidate being groomed as a possible replacement for Biden as Tucker Carlsonsuggestedlast week or does she really have broad electoral appeal?

One curious argument going around for the latter view is that a surprising number of Democrats and independents say theyre planning to vote for Haley in upcoming primaries. We already saw this last Monday at the Iowa caucuses, where almost half of Haleys supporters 43 percent said theydvote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

In one Iowa precinct, so many Democrats showed up and requested forms to change their party affiliation so they could participate in the caucus and vote for Haley, they ran out of forms.

Its shaping up to be the same story in New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Tuesday. New Hampshire has an open primary, meaning independents or unaffiliated voters (who make up 40 percent of all registered voters in the state) can cast ballots in the GOP primary election. Because the Democrat Party isnt holding a primary, and because New Hampshire voters had until Oct. 6 to change party registration, a lot of Democrats are expected to be voting in the Republican primary this week. Thousands of New Hampshire Democrats have reportedly changed their registration, either to unaffiliated or to Republican, and will likely be voting Tuesday.

Who will these non-Republicans being voting for? Nikki Haley, of course. One poll found that among Haley supportersonly 28 percent were Republicans, versus 53 percent who said they were Democrats. Another New Hampshire poll this week found that among voters who consider themselves left-leaning or moderate,Haley is beating Trump 56 to 27 percent. The same poll also found that a staggering 37 percent of likely Haley voters say their support for the former U.N. ambassador isnt so much a voteforHaley butagainstTrump.

Despite all this polling data, the argument among the pro-Haley crowd is that all this crossover primary voting shows how strong she might be in the general election, that she appeals to a broad voter base, and that her moderate views will expand the GOP tent in November. Haley herself has pushed this line,telling a reporter last month, If we get independents, if we get conservative Democrats, thats what the Republican Party should pursue. Our goal is to get as many people in the tent as we can. Stop pushing people away from the party. Instead, bring people in.

But will the new voters shes supposedly bringing in vote Republican in November? Probably not. Indeed, polling suggests that very few of the Democrats planning to vote for Haley next week in New Hampshire would choose her (much less Trump) over Biden in a two-way race. A sizeable number of them even admit theyre animated by anti-Trump sentiment, which means they likely support Democrat policies and priorities and arent coming over to the GOP side so much as infiltrating the Republican primary to skew the results against Trump.

Whats more, I suspect Democrats who are inclined to support Haley arent doing so for the same reasons the millions of blue-collar Democrats in the Rust Belt supported Trump in 2016. Back then, Democrat crossover voting in the general election had a lot to do with how very different Trump was from the other GOP candidates. He took policy positions sharply at odds with the Republican establishment, mercilessly criticized his Republican primary opponents, and upended what had appeared to be the GOP leadership consensus on a host of issues, from the border to trade to foreign policy.

In other words, it was all the ways Trump stoodin contrastto the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment, for that matter that attracted so many disaffected Dems and disillusioned independents to his candidacy. Its why people who hadnt voted in a presidential election in 30 years came out to vote for him. Its also why he was able to expand the Republican partys tent by increasing the number of black and Hispanic voters.

In light of all that, consider whether the same thing is happening with Democrat support for Haley. Is she really bringing disaffected liberals into the GOP, or is she merely an establishment tool to draw out the primary season, sap the Trump campaign of resources it might otherwise devote to the general election, and give the appearance that Republicans havent really united behind Trump?

Biden and the Democrats, after all, would like nothing more than to spin a narrative that theres a sizeable cohort of Never Trump GOP voters out there yearning for a return to the moderate social views and hawkish neocon foreign policy of the Republican Party before Trump. But there isnt. Just take New Hampshire as an example. If you take away Democrat crossover voters and independents, her support among actual Republicans is too small to take her campaign seriously.

On Thursday, Haley tweeted out a montage of Trump praising her when she was serving his administration as U.N. ambassador, and added the comment: Why is Donald Trump spending so much time and energy attacking me? Because he knows Im a threat.

Maybe the explanation is simpler than that. Maybe Trump doesnt see Haley as a threat but as a stalking horse for Democrats, who make up most of her base of support. The other part of her base is of course the globalist elites whose neocon warmongering Haley consistently champions. The reality of Haleys candidacy in this regard was masterly summed up ina recent column by former Trump official John Ullyot: Unfortunately for Haley, this week her real base of political supporters is 3,798 miles away from New Hampshire in Davos, Switzerland, wheels-down in its private jets attending the annual self-congratulatory World Economic Forum confab of globalist elites.

The other big thing to note here is that given the polarization in our politics right now, and given the ideological sorting thats taken place over the last 15 years or so (and especially since 2016), theres a very real sense in which appealing to the other side is a liability, not an asset. Democrats have rushed so far to the left since Obama won the White House in 2008 that there are very few self-identified moderate or conservative Democrats, or even independents, left.

In this context, leftist Democrat support for a GOP candidate isnt exactly something to brag about. Its like Confederates bragging about Native American warlords being on their side during the Civil War. They joined the Confederates because theysupported slavery. Much the same could be said for courting voters who support abortion, transgenderism, endless foreign wars, and open borders.If they support your candidacy, maybe youre on the wrong side.

The blunt truth is that the much-vaunted independent vote shrinks every cycle, as the parties come more into alignment with their animating ideologies. When Haley talks about appealing to conservative Democrats, who exactly is she talking about? Those would be Trump supporters, who have already been brought into the GOP by Trump himself. Whats left are liberals, leftists, and neocons Haleys actual constituency.

Read the original post:

Haley Woos Her Real Constituents In New Hampshire: Democrats - The Federalist

A self-described Catholic accelerationist writer on X just earned 2 million views with his hot take on finding a traditional complementarian wife. Justin Murphy writes:

Men, just marry a hot lower-IQ girl from a rural church, one who is simple and practical and faithful.

You dont need or want impressive opinions about foreign films. A little retarded but I love em words spoken by many happy husbands (and many happy wives no less)

Like Mr. Murphy here, I, too, want bachelors to find hot wives. Trying to find a hot, faithful wife is already difficult in modern America. If you want to make it even harder, try deliberately eliminating smart women from your prospects. Imagine the struggle of young men attending competitive colleges. Attractive ladies everywhere and all too smart to date.

Diminishing the value of intelligence in wives in even the most complementarian arrangement is just really bad advice. Its not intelligence thats the real threat some men perceive (men who probably follow Murphys account), its the bossiness, godlessness, arrogance, and strong focus on career over home and family life that are often found in smart, educated women. Especially given the countrys limited dating pool of hot chicks, bachelors would do well to parse intelligence from other characteristics they dont like, because intelligence in a wife is advantageous, particularly to the man who has the brains and ambition to really make a splash in the world.

Everyone across the IQ bell curve deserves a chance at marital happiness, of course, and many near the tail ends do find it. Young men should stop and think, however, about the fruit Murphys advice might have yielded if given 200 years ago, when food and warmth in the winter depended on shrewd calculations and using ones intellect to make the most with what you have. Very stupid women would have jeopardized their familys welfare, not enhanced it.

Particularly in this globallyturbulent environment when we dont know whats coming next, intelligence is an asset that shouldnt be overlooked by bachelors. Im not saying one should marry for purely survivalist reasons far from it. But also consider who you want by your side when the proverbial crap hits the fan.

Still today, even with all our technology and food security, running a household well and forging a way through life requires some brain power. When making important life decisions, two non-stupid people will fare better than one or two who arent too bright. Husbands need wives who will not try to boss them around, but bring in another perspective and help identify solutions. But what about this? What about that? Could we approach it this way?

Intelligence doesnt always manifest in college diplomas or how fast a girl can multiply in her head. But men should know that even a nurturing wife who doesnt bring her creativity and problem-solving to bear on domestic affairs will create a home life that is bland and uncomfortable. This also takes practice, but simple things like where to put an end table, what color and fabric the drapes are, and what you choose to leave on your kitchen counter (you think Im exaggerating Im not), make a difference in how the home itself feels, whether it promotes calm and enjoyment or restlessness and irritation.

Emotional intelligence should also be prized in wives, especially if they hope to be mothers, as strife arises easily when children and stress are day-to-day realities. Emotional intelligence is correlated with general IQ.

Not to mention, an intelligent man would likely tire of having a wife who cant think even close to his level.As it turns out, research and likely your own observations of couples around you show that people of similar intelligence tend to match up with one another. This is not something that should be discouraged based on the mistaken idea that smart, educated women have all adopted character traits you dislike, such as bossiness, pretentiousness, and metropolitan taste (as opposed to the supposed tastes of women in rural churches) or high-powered career ambition.

If men begin to take this advice that dumber is better, it will have consequences for how women perceive a traditional complementarian role in fact removing even more ladies from the courtship pool. Turning low-IQ into a desirable trait promotes the very silly idea that if a wife stays home, she doesnt have to challenge her brain. This is false, and I can speak from personal experience. Smart women who think theyll be bored to death at home will certainly set their sights on full-time work and pass on the rich and challenging home life you just downplayed as a lifestyle for dimwits.

None of this is to say a womans intellectual weakness cant be vastly outweighed in marital happiness by her faithfulness, good nature, and love. It certainly can. We should encourage women to use the gifts Godgave them, whether intelligence or kindness or grace, to serve their families and the world.

Indeed, whats more important than finding a woman who is smart on paper is finding a woman who is wise. For he who finds wisdom finds life and obtains favor from theLord(Proverbs 8:35). Wisdom doesnt always correlate to intelligence, and in the end, the wise woman will support her husbands ambitions and well-being in ways a discontented and worldly Harvard graduate cannot.

Men, find yourselves hot wives, but dont let bad internet advice deceive you into thinking the one youre most compatible with isnt just as smart as you are.

View original post here:

Men, Ignore The Bad Advice To Seek A 'Low-IQ' Wife - The Federalist

When regime-approved journalists arent pretending election illegalities dont exist, theyre fomenting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Republican voters.

In the months leading up to and following the 2022 midterms, legacy media have run story after story decrying the avalanche of alleged threats levied against election workers by GOP voters, whom they cast as extremists seeking to disrupt democracy. Predictions of such widespread interference in the 2022 contests have (unsurprisingly) never materialized and numbers from President Bidens own Justice Department have undermined such a narrative. But nevertheless, the scaremongering from the Democracy Dies in Darkness crowd persists.

This seemingly coordinated effort has prompted Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country to base legislation on such election falsehoods. In Virginia, for example, a Democrat state senator filed a bill this month that would classify threatening an individual because of his roles as a current or former election official as a hate crime. The bill could also result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment for Virginians charged with crimes related to threatening election officials.

Threatening election workers is already explicitly prohibited under both Virginia and federal law. SB 364 is currently awaiting action from the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

Despite Democrats insistence, evidence does not support the notion that election workers everywhere are facing constant threats from conservatives.

During hisAugust 2022 testimonybefore the U.S. Senate, Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the DOJ, claimed the agencys Election Threats Task Force which waslaunchedin July 2021 to address this alleged rise in threats against election workers had reviewed and assessed roughly 1,000 allegedly threatening and harassing communications directed toward election officials. But two days before Polites testimony, the DOJ issued apress releasedisclosing that only about 11 percent of those 1,000 communications met the threshold for a federal criminal investigation and that the remaining reported contacts did not provide a predication for further investigation. According to an agency press release a year later, the Justice Departments Election Threats Task Force had charged 14 cases involving threats against the election community and secured nine convictions as of Aug. 31, 2023.

Got that? In a country with a population of more than335 million people, only about 100 individuals were investigated by the DOJ for supposedly threatening election workers, and only 14 of them were officially charged.

Virginia isnt the only state where Democrats are pushing legislation based upon the medias phony election workers are under siege! narrative. Leftist legislators in Florida, Missouri, and Washington introduced bills in recent weeks seeking to increase penalties for those convicted of threatening election officials.

Even worse, some elected Republicans have lent credence to this baseless talking point by prioritizing Democrat proposals. GOP legislators in New Jersey and Nebraska joined their respective Democrat colleagues in cosponsoring legislation cracking down on threats towards election workers this year. In South Dakota, Secretary of State Monae Johnson, a Republican, is spearheading a bill that would deem Any person who, directly or indirectly, utters or addresses any threat or intimidation to an election official or election worker with the intent to improperly influence an election guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The measure unanimously passed the Senate State Affairs Committee (8-0) on Wednesday, even after Deputy Secretary of State Tom Deadrick told senators that South Dakota hasnt yet experienced threats against poll workers.

Meanwhile, GOP governors such as Joe Lombardo of Nevada and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma signed respective bills last year into law that similarly increased penalties for threatening election officials. The Oklahoma bill was sponsored by three Republicans.

Other states that have passed laws inspired by Democrats election lies include California, Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.

Much like Democrats war against basic election security measures like voter ID, their lying about widespread threats against election officials is a strategy aimed at bringing less not more integrity to U.S. elections.

Their strategy of using anecdotal incidents to cast a broader narrative about Republicans isnt just crafted to scare away independents and moderate voters from the GOP. Its also designed to dissuade conservatives from partaking in legitimate forms of election oversight, such as poll watching.

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, for example, the Republican National Committee recruitedmore than 70,000new poll watchers and workers ahead of Election Day to help deliver the election transparency that voters deserve. And of course, Democrats went berserk,parrotingthe same threat to democracy talking point.

Federal law already prohibits individuals from threatening and harassing election workers. Performative proposals to enhance state charges against such crimes are less about protecting people and more about furthering Democrats unsubstantiated talking points and scaring away conservatives engaged in the elections process.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Read the rest here:

By 'Protecting Election Workers,' Democrats Mean Protecting Control Over Election Administration - The Federalist

Fresh off winning the national college football championship, University of Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh championed the right to life in the nations capital on Friday. Speaking before thousands of marchers gathered for the annual March for Life rally on the National Mall, Harbaugh introduced former NFL tight end Benjamin Watson.

Its a great example that youre setting. Its testimony for the sanctity of life, Harbaugh said to demonstrators crowded in the snow. Its a great day for a March! Its a great day. This is football weather!

Harbaugh gave the podium to Watson, who encouraged pro-lifers to advocate for unborn children in the new fight for life following the milestone Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Roe is done, Watson said, but we still live in a culture that knows not how to care for life.

Roe is done, Watson added, but abortion is still legal and thriving in too much of America.

This years gathering marks the second annual March for Life since the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization overturned the 1973 precedent claiming a constitutional right to kill preborn children. An analysis from the IZA Institute of Labor Economics last fall found about 32,000 babies have been saved in states that implemented the strictest abortion bans since the reversal of Roe in 2022.

Harbaugh expanded on his commitment to life in an interview on the sidelines of the rally.

Theres no right without the right to be born, Harbaugh said. No other rights matter if you dont have the right to be born.

Harbaugh also spoke about his teams religious revival after 70 players were baptized into Christianity this season.

Theres a spiritual mission to our team, Harbaugh said, and Im inspired by them.

The head football coach made headlines in summer 2022 just one month after the Dobbs decision when he pledged to raise any babies his staff or players couldnt.

Ive told [them] the same thing I tell my kids, the boys, the girls, same thing I tell our players, our staff members, Harbaugh said. I encourage them if they have a pregnancy that wasnt planned, to go through with it, go through with it. Let that unborn child be born. And if at that time, you dont feel like you can care for it, you dont have the means or the wherewithal, then Sarah and I will take that baby.

See the article here:

Harbaugh Champions Right To Life After Football Championship - The Federalist