Comments by Steven P. Rader | Eastern NC Now
Browse all Comments by Steven P. Rader...
 |
Commented on DOGE for Beaufort County GovernmentThe concept of DOGE is useful at all levels of government. Our GOP legislators in Raleigh have formed a DOGE operation and put our own Rep. Keith Kidwell in charge of it.
It is even being copied in other countries. In the UK, Nigel Farage's Reform Party is implementing DOGE efforts in the ten local governments they won control of this last election, and is working with the Conservative Party to implement it in local governments where Reform and Conservatives jointly have control. DOGE has exposed what the Democrats and Deep State bureaucrats were trying to hide in Washington, DC. What is someone trying to hide in Beaufort County?
Commented: Monday, July 14th, 2025 @ 2:12 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The Marist poll is notorious for tilting to the left, so this result in their poll is particularly encouraging.
Commented: Thursday, July 3rd, 2025 @ 10:06 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
President Trump said about Tillis: "He loves China made windmills that will cost a fortune, ruin the landscape, and produce the most expensive Energy on Earth" (from one of the linked articles above). We need a senator with a conservative Republican agenda, not a Greta Thunberg agenda. Don Brown is my choice in 2026.
Commented: Sunday, June 29th, 2025 @ 11:50 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Let Us Not Continue Our Election MistakesYears ago, eastern NC still had quite a few conservative Democrats, often called Jessecrats for their support of Senator Jesse Helms, but that breed is now an extinct critter. All of the action is in the Republican Party, starting with the Republican primary.
The Republican Party rules do not allow the party itself to take sides in a primary. Most party officials are allowed to do so as individuals but cannot use party resources or titles to do so. When it comes to the general election, the party is obligated to support all party nominees against those running under any other banner. Party activity during the primary period that involves candidates should be evenhanded to allow all candidates to participate and meet the voters. Our recent Beaufort County Republican convention elected a group of party officers and executive committee members who represent a cross section of various elements of the party. They are just beginning work on preparing for next year's elections. I am confident that our party now has a leadership team that will play by the rules in all respects and run an efficient and effective political operation for the 2026 election. Voters should focus on policies rather than personalities in evaluating candidates. From the records of incumbents and the policy positions of non-incumbents, they should look to which candidates best represent the voters own views of what our county, state, and their governments need. For eastern North Carolina, that is generally a conservative viewpoint.
Commented: Tuesday, June 24th, 2025 @ 3:32 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
State law gives counties authority to enact solar and wind ordinances to set standards and requirements for solar and wind "farms". Beaufort County has a rather weak solar ordinance but, as far as I am aware, no wind ordinance at all. It is in these ordinances that a bond for the total cleanup of the sites ought to be required of the original builder of the facility. Many wind ordinances also restrict how close they can be to occupied buildings including schools and homes.
State law also makes wind turbines and solar panels largely exempt from local property taxes, stiffing counties and shifting the burden to other taxpayers. This is a very good reason to adopt very strict wind and solar ordinances to encourage these things to be built somewhere else rather than here.
Commented: Tuesday, June 24th, 2025 @ 2:53 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The despicable power play used by Rabon and Berger to jam this through the legislature is a gross violation of the NC Republican Party platform, which opposes these underhanded and arrogant tactics. Legislation should go through a process of deliberation where both sides have the opportunity to present arguments in committee and to legislators. A quick amendment in committee and then straight to the floor process is an insult to North Carolinians and should not be tolerated.
Commented: Sunday, June 22nd, 2025 @ 11:06 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on What does it mean to be a Conservative?This reminds me of a story I heard decades ago at a state Republican convention. I do not remember the county, but they had just elected their first Republican member of a city council where a city manager was a power bully. At his first meeting, there was a large crowd of citizens there for a public hearing but before that was reached, on another agenda item, the new Republican council member had made comments, only to have the city manager enter into debate opposing his position. After the manager had spoken, the council member turned to him and remarked "Bureaucrats, like children, should only speak when spoken to". He got a huge standing ovation from the crowd for that remark when told everyone about how citizens really felt about the manager's excess power.
I would say from my own experience as a political appointee in state government that most career state employees I dealt with fully understood the difference between policy makers, the elected officials and their political appointees on one side, and those tasked with the nuts and bolts of carrying out policy, the career employees on the other. There were a few exceptions, but most grasped what their roles were supposed to be and the working relationship was generally very good.
Commented: Sunday, June 22nd, 2025 @ 8:03 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
At least one federal district court judge understands the Constitution and is willing to speak out on others who clearly do not.
Commented: Friday, June 20th, 2025 @ 12:34 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Washington DreamingOne of the perennial challenges in government is the relationship between the policymakers, generally the elected bodies but in state or federal executive branches also their political appointees, on one side, and the career staff who carry out the policy on the other. This is true at all levels of government. Sometimes career staff accumulate too much power and set up bureaucratic fiefdoms and sometimes the policymakers let them get away with it. To make government work as it is supposed to for citizens, all the players must accept the proper role of their positions as well as that of others in government.
From my own service as a political appointee in the Jim Martin administration in NC state government, most of the career staff in the department I worked in fully understood the differences between policymakers and those who did the nuts and bolts work of keeping government running, and everyone worked well together without trying to get in someone else's lane. We only had a handful who acted as if they were a power unto themselves in a bureaucratic fiefdom. They existed but were a distinct minority.
Commented: Wednesday, June 18th, 2025 @ 2:01 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Presidents create and eliminate federal agencies by executive order all the time. It is nonsensical to say that such an agency created by one president's executive order cannot be dismantled by the executive order of another. USAID and the Global Engagement Center were both created by executive orders of Democrat presidents. A Republican president has the same right to enter an order ending their existance. Highly partisan political rulings like this one are badly damaging the reputation of our federal courts, something these Democrat judges ought to consider and so should the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.
Commented: Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 @ 8:58 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Peter Schweitzer's Government Accountability Institute outs money behind "No Kings" protestsThe premise of this "No Kings" movement is absolutely silly. To start with, only two royalists have ever been elected to the US Congress, and they were non-voting delegates advocating the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy, not creating a national monarchy for the United States. Anglo-Hawaiian royalist Robert Wilcox, who had been one of the military leaders of the unsuccessful royalist counterrevolution of 1895 in Hawaii, was elected Hawaii's delegate to Congress on the ticket of the monarchist Home Rule Party in 1901. He was succeeded by Prince Kuhio of Hawaii, who had also participated in the royalist counterrevolution of 1895 and was younger brother of Crown Prince Kawanakoa. Prince Kuhio was elected in 1903 to succeed Wilcox and served in Congress representing Hawaii until his death in 1922.
It is well known that many Continental army officers urged George Washington to become king after the success of the American Revolution, and he rejected the idea out of hand, instead becoming our first president. Washington also set the tradition of a president not serving over two terms. The only other attempt to set up a monarchy in the United States occurred during the Articles of Confederation period before the US Constitution was adopted and was done behind the scenes with questionable support beyond a small group. Indeed, it was decades later before some leaders of that period discussed it publicly. After the Shays Rebellion, the then President of the Continental Congress, Nathaniel Gorham, wrote to Prince Heinrich of Prussia, younger brother of King Frederick the Great, and invited him to become king of America. Heinrich replied that he was not interested. It is highly questionable if Gorham would have had the support to have pulled that off even if Heinrich had said "yes". So, other than the very limited situation of Hawaii, there has never been any substantial political support for a monarchy in America, and only the Gorham attempt had anyone of any political stature supporting such an idea.
Commented: Sunday, June 15th, 2025 @ 7:18 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Ray, this convention had some definite pluses. One important one was stopping the Plan of Organization rewrite that would have increased control from the top, going against our tradition as a grassroots party. Interestingly, that proposal drew not only almost total opposition from grassroots / conservative elements of the party but also from many considered more "establishment" types.
The staunchly conservative platform also passed without much of a fight. Additions this year to party positions included support for election of the state Board of Education by the citizens of the state, instead of appointment by the governor, opposition to central bank digital currency, and denouncing the attempts by the courts to invade the province of the executive and legislative branches. The resolutions package which was conservative also passed intact. Unlike last year, establishment elements were not able to remove and discard some key conservative resolutions like medical freedom. The main disappointment came in the chairman's race, where establishment incumbent Jason Simmons prevailed over grassroots challenger Brooke McGowan on the weighted vote by 52.5% to 47.5%. McGowan has a majority of delegates physically present. McGowan's campaign was hurt by mass email company ConstantComment taking her money but then refusing for frivolous reasons to send out her emails. She got a late start in the email campaign as a result of having to find another emailer at the last minute. She probably also would have done better if she had gotten out more in the way of the failures of the NCGOP in this last campaign under its current leadership and more details on how she planned to correct the problems. For me, one of the biggest reasons we needed a change was the incompetent way the party's Judicial Campaign Fund was used which amounted to total political malpractice. If those funds had been used wisely, we would have elected conservative Jefferson Griffin to the Supreme Court instead of far left activist Allison Riggs, former co-director of the far left Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
Commented: Wednesday, June 11th, 2025 @ 6:56 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The Democrat inspired riots, instigated by false information from "Let it Burn" Mayor Karen Bass, is nothing short of an attack on the Rule of Law. ICE was in the process of detaining a list of illegal aliens who had committed crimes, mostly serious ones and had already had their day in court in front of an immigration judge who had ordered their removal. ICE was simply enforcing the court orders of the Immigration Court, something that was often not done under Biden. Democrat Mayor Bass lied to gin up the rioters by falsely claiming that ICE was doing a random raid on a Home Depot. The incompetence of Mayor Bass led to much of the city burning in thewildfires, and now she seems to be targeting the rest of it.
Commented: Wednesday, June 11th, 2025 @ 12:27 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The debate over the social studies curriculum is a major one. It was fought out at the state level on the state Board of Education a few years ago in a partisan and ideological confrontation, the leftwing Democrat appointees of Roy Cooper on one side and the Republican State Treasurer and Lieutenant Governor on the other. The Republicans actively fought that curriculum as being "woke" and full of DEI and CRT, both far left doctrines. There were more Cooper appointees, so they prevailed.
It is a curriculum that adheres to that leftwing state DPI version that the superintendent is trying to ram through. Any real Republican would take the same stand our state Board of Education Republicans did to oppose it. Polls show that 71% of NC parents are concerned about political or ideological indoctrination of their children in the classroom, which is exactly the concern about this curriculum. The legal staff at the General Assembly advised Representative Kidwell that the state DPI or state Board of Education did not have authority to dictate what local curriculum a local school board adopted or restrict what they adopted. The local board has full authority to adopt whatever curriculum in their judgment will meet their educational objectives. The education establishment feels differently, but that is because they are grasping for control. As to the science curriculum, there is an additional important issue, which is teaching both sides of the climate debate rather than indoctrinating on the globalist narrative on CO2. Superintendents are always going to push for following what the education establishment wants because that is in their best peraonal career advancement interests.
Commented: Wednesday, June 4th, 2025 @ 12:20 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
I would not assume that, Stan. Beaufort County does have a very consciencious, diligent, and honest elections director, but the problem was not in local policy but in state elections board policy. They instructed counties to approve registration of applicants who did not provide a drivers license number or the last four of the SS number. It is unlikely that any county refused to apply the official policy of the state board of elections even though that policy did not conform to federal election law. Indeed when the issue was raised in the lawsuits over the Supreme Court race, our county elections director confirmed to the Beaufort County GOP that there were such registrations here in Beaufort County.
Commented: Sunday, June 1st, 2025 @ 9:22 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The refusal to follow federal law on election integrity has been ongoing by Democrat led state Election Board officials. In the last election, there were 700,000 voters on the tolls without this federally required information. The federal law is designed to help stop ficticious and duplicate voter registrations. This was one of the big issues in the questionable "victory" of radical leftwing Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs last year.
This issue has been raised to the Democrat led state Elections Board by citizen protests, but they refused to take any corrective action and just kept on allowing questionable voter registrations that did not comply with HAVA.
Commented: Sunday, June 1st, 2025 @ 8:37 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Van Zant, the Southside hearing was procedurally a huge improvement over the travesty of a hearing held at Snowden. When I served as a political appointee in the Jim Martin administration, I had a lot of experience with public hearings held by boards and commissions under the NC Department of Health and Human Services, where I served as the General Counsel. I would monitor public hearings of boards like the NC Social Services Commission, the NC Child Day Care Commission, and the NC Mental Health Commission for the department. I never saw anything like the circus at Snowden.
First, there was a lengthy advocacy speech by the superintendent before it was opened to the public. That was very inappropriate. Second, the superintendent tried to limit the public to questions rather than comments, until one speaker pushed back on that and went on with comments. That was inappropriate in the extreme to try to limit the public to questions. I have also never seen the people who are supposed to be listening to the comments to decide their course of action, the policymakers, hiding in the crowd instead of out front facing the public. That was inappropriate as well. All of those aspects were corrected for the hearing at Southside. The other real oddity was the lack of legal counsel. When I was in the Marin administration, if I had a schedule conflict for one of these board or commission public hearings, I sent another attorney from my staff. Maybe when you have a school board attorney who is halfway across the state, it makes it logistically difficult to have him on hand, but that is just one more reason why it is better to have a local attorney representing the school board. They are more available for critical public hearings like this, as well as for things like riding herd on a massive school construction project. Also, the report at the regular school board meeting on transportation lacked credibility because it was delivered as an advocacy speech rather than straight facts. When someone goes all over the landscape to try to justify something it raises real questions as to why. When that "report" started with ride times at district high schools and went on at length before ever getting to the subject at hand, it destroyed credibility.
Commented: Saturday, May 31st, 2025 @ 1:54 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Why the bow-down to the superintendent?Buzz, the "superintendent problem" is endemic in the public schools. I remember in my first year in law school almost fifty years ago when State Senator Dick Deeb (R-Pinellas) commented to a political meeting I attended that "too many school board members think the superintendent is their boss instead of their employee". That seems to sum up too much of public education, where the bureaucrats rule and the elected policy makers sit quiet.
Senator Deeb had a solution. He introduced a bill in the Florida Senate to make the office of public school superintendent of Pinellas County elected by the voters of the county, not appointed by the school board. The bill passed the Senate but when it got to the House, a number of legislators realized they had the superintendent problem in their county, too, and a bunch of counties got added to the bill. That bogged it down and it never made it out of the House. In some counties with solid conservative school board majorities, they have no problem in standing up to a superintendent whose proposals they disagree with. The Craven County School Board, this year voted down their superintendent's proposed budget, for example. I remember back when I was in high school and an undergraduate at Duke and we had a split school board in Mecklenburg County where I then lived. The three newest members had been elected by the conservative Concerned Parents Association and there were four moderate to liberal holdovers from the previous cycle. The superintendent kept ignoring the three conservatives. Then one meeting, the superintendent made a report that was very adverse to an issue dear to the heart of the most moderate of the holdover members. Conservative Jane Scott saw her chance when she saw the reaction on his face, so she immediately moved to fire the superintendent, the upset moderate seconded, and it passed 4 to 3. As long as the career path of school superintendents is to move from one county to another, to larger counties with better paying positions, I think the superintendent problem will remain. The solution is to elect strong school board members who remember they are the boss, not the superintendent, and keep a firm hand on the tiller themselves. When the time comes again in Beaufort County, another solution to the problem is to look for a superintendent looking for his last posting at a place he wishes to retire. That way, we should get a superintendent more interested in truly serving our county instead of mainly advancing his career.
Commented: Friday, May 30th, 2025 @ 1:30 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on School Board goes NON-transparent on Snowden closureStan, I was there in Aurora, too, and have the same concerns about proper and correct conduct of public hearings. Back in the Jim Martin administration, when I served as General Counsel of the NC Department of Health and Human Services, I monitored public hearings of our department's rulemaking public hearings, often conducted by independent boards. I have never seen a travesty like I saw at Aurora. Advocacy sessions, especially prolonged ones like at Aurora, preceding a public hearing make a mockery of the process and I never saw anything like that happen in state government. An even bigger mockery was trying to limit the public to questions instead of comments. Also, every public hearing I went to had the decision makers all sitting up front facing the public instead of hiding in the crowd. Some of the school board members I know I do not believe would have done that unless instructed to do so.
I was also surprised not to see legal representation present. In state government, if I could not attend any of the public hearings conducted by the department itself or one of the independent boards housed in our department, I always delegated another lawyer from the department's Office of Legal Affairs to attend. Of course, when your only lawyer lives halfway across the state from Beaufort County like the school board's lawyer,, it creates logistic problems in having proper legal representation present here in Beaufort County for such matters.
Commented: Wednesday, May 28th, 2025 @ 6:21 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Traditionally, judges only issue injunctions that only involve the people who are partied to that individual case. An exception would be a case that has been filed and approved as a class action, which none of the political cases against Trump have been. The issuance of national injunctions by district judges is a relatively recent development that has exploded in the Democrat lawfare cases against the Trump administration. Turley is right that the Supreme Court needs to put a stop to this practice where a local district court judge thinks he is running the country.
A contrast i court behavior can be made with Biden's most egregious abuse of power when he tried through executive fiat to rewrite Title IX of the Civil Rights Law to stand it on its head and make it say the opposite of what Congress passed. That was challenged in five separate lawsuits in district court, each one involving a grouping of states. Courts entered injunctions against Biden's move in each case, BUT each injunction only protected those states suing in that particular lawsuit. States that were not part of any lawsuit like North Carolina were unprotected. Now, even though many of the injunctions by Democrat district judges are frivolous and are reversed by appeals courts, they are issued to block executive branch actions in all states. That should not be allowed to continue. District judges should not be allowed to issue national injunctions unless a case is properly certified as a class action or unless the Supreme Court approves.
Commented: Wednesday, May 28th, 2025 @ 1:58 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Circuit Judge Ho's rebuke to the Supreme Court over that Tren de Aragua case was priceless and something that is not often seen. Maybe he should be nicknamed "Judge Big Balls". He should also be on Trump's short list the next time a Supreme Court vacancy comes up.
That cartoon from the Washington Times is also rather telling, with the scales of justice balancing a judge's gavel on one side and a skull with migrant gang tattoos and a Venezuelan flag on its forehead on the other. Two thirds of district judges are Democrat appointees often chosen for ideological and partisan political reasons, but one would expect the SCOTUS to be more attuned to following precedent like Ludecke v. Watkins, the 1948 Supreme Court case which upheld the Alien Enemies Act.
Commented: Monday, May 26th, 2025 @ 10:36 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Mann's lawsuit was what was called a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit which are designed to intimidate people on the other side of an issue from speaking out on it. Undoubtedly some entity in the Climate Industrial Complex paid for Mann's attorneys in this lawsuit, but now the court is making Mann pay for the lawyers of the people he sued, to the tune of a million dollars. That is poetic justice and ought to help shut Mann himself up.
Commented: Sunday, May 25th, 2025 @ 7:55 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
It is curious that the 2 major British newspapers linked above stress the BLM background of the terrorist assassin of these Israeli diplomats, but I have not seen the US MSM media even mention that aspect.
Commented: Friday, May 23rd, 2025 @ 9:05 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The 1948 US Supreme Court case that upheld the Alien Enemies Act and ruled that the courts had no jurisdiction to hold hearings on deportations done under that act was Ludecke v. Watkins. It involved President Truman's deportation during peacetime of a foreign national who had entered America legally and held a Green Card. You can read the Supreme Court opinion in that case here: supreme.justia.com
It is appalling to me that our Supreme Court did not follow the clear precedent of Ludecke and dismiss the Democrat legal challenges to Trump's deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The same interpretation of the law applied to Truman should also apply to Trump.
Commented: Sunday, May 18th, 2025 @ 1:02 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
One tactic I wish would be used to counter the Democrat lawfare is having cases on the same issue brought by conservatives, say state attorneys general from conservative states suing federal agencies for NOT following Trump's executive orders and bring them before conservative judges to get contrary rulings to the ones from Obama judges.
Say, Ken Paxton, the solidly conservative Texas AG (and likely next US senator) sues on behalf of Texas seeking to order federal agencies to follow the Trump EO on deporting illegal alien criminal gang members under the Alien Enemy Act, citing the cost to Texas in spending, crime, etc. or these criminals being present. The DOJ could then respond by admitting the allegations of the Texas complaint, and Texas could move for summary judgment, a slam dunk to get an order to proceed with the deportations in the state of Texas. Other conservative states could then follow through. The Trump administration could then decided to follow the order of the Texas court at least as to deportations within that state. The Democrats clearly had this lawfare planned out, and the Trump administration should have as well. Some of these AGs hopefully will think of something like this on their own. It would certainly be a boost to Paxton's senate campaign, for example.
Commented: Thursday, May 15th, 2025 @ 4:39 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Tillis blasts Trump’s plan to slash drug pricesSo Tillis thinks drugs should cost more to Americans than to foreigners? How does he think that will play in the 2026 election, in the primary or the general?
When I worked in eastern Europe, I could buy one of my prescription drugs whose cash price in the US at the time was $120 for a 30-day supply for $10. for a 30-day supply at pharmacies in Moldova or Romania. Why were Americans getting slammed on the much higher price, and why would Tillis condone that? My guess is that it is a dog whistle to get Big Pharma political contributions.
Commented: Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 @ 2:04 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
I use a CalyxOS operating system, one of the de-Googling systems, on my Android phone. All the Google elements that collect your data are removed from the phone and replaced with others that guard your privacy. There are other systems out there that de-Google your phone but this is the one I have been using and it works great.
You can get the CalyxOS and install it on any Android phone or buy an Android with it already installed. I did the latter. Several of the other de-Googled operating systems give either option as well. A European group that promotes privacy oriented phones only sells their system already installed on a specific brand of Android phone. Let me also mention one to avoid and that is the Freedom Phone, which was hyped a lot on conservative sites a few years ago. They sold the entire phone with the system installed. The hardware was very cheap Chinese junk, but sold at a high price. The system installed was the first generation of a different de-Googling system that was no longer even offered to customers by its developer which had improved significantly on that version to develop its current product. All in all, not a very good value.
Commented: Sunday, May 11th, 2025 @ 11:38 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
The Constitution is clear in giving the President authority to manage the executive branch and its agencies. It is not supposed to be micromanaged by activist Democrat judges. They did not try to do this with other presidents. When Democrat judges decide to become part of the political "resistance" tey demean their office and the entire federal judiciary. If the SCOTUS will not rein them in, then Congress needs to or the public will lose trust in our federal courts more than they already have.
Commented: Saturday, May 10th, 2025 @ 5:18 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Our founding fathers never intended the courts to get into policy making like this. In the Federalist Papers they said the courts should be the weakest branch of government because they are not accountable to the people. Judges are definitely throwing their weight around where they should not.
Commented: Wednesday, May 7th, 2025 @ 12:19 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on Sen. Tillis is withholding support for President Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney for DCVotes by elected officials come in two varieties, policy votes that individually do not necessarily carry party loyalty implications, but a cumulative record may, and leadership votes that do individually carry party loyalty implications. There is an old saying in politics that "ya dance with who brung ya". This means on leadership and personnel positions, a politician who goes against his party is crossing the line on party disloyalty. That is exactly what Thom Tillis is toying with. If he goes against Martin on the vote for US Attorney for the District of Columbia, he will have committed a major act of party disloyalty. He can expect angry Republican activists to go after him, hammer and tongs, at the state convention, and at every other opportunity leading up to the primary in 2026. The question is whether Thom Tillis is loyal to the Republican voters of North Carolina or to the Deep State. I hope he answers that question the way a loyal Republican is expected to answer it.
Commented: Tuesday, May 6th, 2025 @ 11:59 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
There is a major issue with these district court rulings that needs to be dealt with by a higher court and was not dealt with in this ruling. That is the use of nationwide injunctions, something that has historically been fairly rare in our federal courts until the last few months, when there has suddenly been a flurry of them against the Trump administration. Congress can limit those by passing legislation limiting district court jurisdiction, but it would be easier and quicker for the SCOTUS to make a ruling stopping the abuse of these orders.
To indicate what has been the usual practice by federal courts, one has only to look at the most egregious attempted power grab under Biden, the attempt to rewrite by executive fiat through rulemaking of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to change it from what Congress passed that protects women to Biden language that would protect "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" instead. That is a change that Congress would have to make but Biden tried to grab power by changing it himself. The Biden attempt to rewrite Title IX was challenged in multiple lawsuits, each by a group of state attorneys general. While each case found Biden's attempt to change Title IX illegal, the resulting orders ONLY applied to the states that had brought the particular lawsuit, NOT nationally. States like North Carolina which were not part of any of the lawsuits, because our ultra-liberal AG Josh Stein agreed with what Biden was trying to do, got no protection and would still be subject to Biden's power grab. District court judges are behaving in a very different manner with these nationwide injunctions against Trump than they did against Biden or previous presidents. That smacks of a political agenda and that should NOT be happening in our courts. The Supreme Court needs to rein this in.
Commented: Sunday, May 4th, 2025 @ 1:17 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Commented on "Reform-quake" in UK elections as populist right Reform Party soars in election results UPDATEWOW, that is a massive majority that this by-election projection would give the Reform Party in the next Parliamentary election. The way that is calculated in the UK to is apply the percentage changes for each party from the last election to the by-election in this constituency or district to the percentages attained by each party in the last election in every constituency in the country. So it assumes for every seat the percentage change for each party will be the same as in this district. Then you crunch the numbers and look at the result. While this mehodology is not perfect, it gives a pretty good idea of the trends.
Commented: Friday, May 2nd, 2025 @ 11:24 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
I read that even the liberal dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended this judge from her duties due to aiding and abetting the escape of this illegal alien from federal officers.
Commented: Wednesday, April 30th, 2025 @ 12:18 pm
By: Steven P. Rader
|
|
Even the legal analyst for liberal CNN has admitted that if this judge did what is alleged, she committed a crime. Actually, she has been charged with two federal felonies.
Commented: Sunday, April 27th, 2025 @ 7:36 am
By: Steven P. Rader
|
